Posted by Angela | 0 Comments

Microsoft Takes Two Steps Back with Outlook 2010

Microsoft has announced their decision to use Word 2010 to compose and view e-mails in their new Outlook 2010 despite its failure to render HTML content in e-mails. Basically this means that any e-mail sent from an Outlook user and opened in anything other than Outlook will be distorted. Any HTML code that instructs text to be indented, or floating, or any other position will not translate on another e-mail host.

Last Wednesday, Microsoft became aware of a Twitter campaign called Fix Outlook opposed to Microsoft’s decision to use Word 2010 in the new Outlook. The campaign has built up to over 23,000 (and rising) followers using Twitter to complain about the new Outlook. The goal is to bombard Microsoft with enough complaints to make them change their product. The Email Standards Project said in their blog that they “are in no way advocating that Microsoft shift from using Word to create or render HTML emails. We’re asking that the HTML produced by the Word engine be standards compliant. This in turn will ensure that the engine will correctly render standards-based emails.”

The request seems reasonable for the majority not using Outlook. However, Microsoft continues to stand by their decision to keep Word as the rendering for Outlook 2010 and not change Word’s HTML production to be standards compliant. They claim that the Outlook user will value the assortment of tools and features that Word will provide over the concern of formatting for those not using Outlook. You can find an overview of the battle between Email Standards Project and Microsoft here.

(Photo credit to Freshview on Flickr)

Posted by Angela | 0 Comments

‘The Simpsons’ Gets a High Price Tag O...

The internet is starting to appear more and more common in our lives these days. If you need the show times for a new movie, you can turn to the internet for a list of times. If a plant of yours is being eaten by a mysterious bug, you can turn to the internet for a remedy. Even if you missed your favorite TV program and didn’t TiVo it, you can go to Hulu or TV.com to watch the episode at your convenience. But would it be surprising to find out that it costs more to advertise on The Simpsons online than on regularly broadcasted television? Well, that statement is true. A difference of $20 to $40 per one thousand viewers is found between an online broadcast versus a television broadcast.

Online advertisements run for about $60 per thousand viewers on average. As opposed to the $20 to $40 charge per thousand viewers on a television broadcast, this seems a little ridiculous. However, online ads are more expensive because of less allowed advertising time and guaranteed viewing. The average advertising time for an online show is about 37 seconds. That is nothing compared to the 9 minute average for television. Also, once a viewer has clicked on an online episode, that viewer is guaranteed to watch the episode. Now I know that some people may get bored in the middle of the particular episode, but when you want to watch something online you typically know what it is that you want to watch and you seek it out. This process gives some assurance that you will watch the show and the ads embedded in it, instead of changing the channel while the commercials are on.

If all these numbers hold true, why don’t advertisers switch over altogether? This hasn’t happened yet because the internet still isn’t the most used source of show viewing. With other resources like TiVo, DVR, and even timers on TVs, online viewing is a long way from being the most popular form of viewing. March Madness, for example, attracted about 7.5 million viewers online over the entire tournament. Compared to the 17.6 million viewers of the championship game alone on regular TV, the internet was a small opponent.

It may be possible for online viewing to be the default way to watch shows one day. But that day is still very far in the future.

Posted by Angela | 0 Comments

“Stick ‘em up! Now Gimme Your Facebook Passw...

Looking for a job has turned in to a real struggle these days. But with networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and others, it is getting easier to meet other people, some of whom may be in authoritative positions. Job seekers in Bozeman, Montana, have been faced with a difficult decision between privacy and job seeking. The city of Bozeman created a policy asking all job seekers in the area to hand over their usernames and passwords for social networking sites such as those listed above.

The policy has created much uproar against city officials who support it. Announced just two days ago (Wednesday) on a local TV station, the news caused concerned citizens to bombard city officials with e-mails and phone calls. The city defends itself by saying that it would only be for verifying information listed on an application and that they don’t expect everyone to follow through with the request. They believe it will be most helpful in the hiring of public officials, police officers, and other positions of public trust.

The only thing that makes this situation a little less serious than it seems is that citizens are not held to this. They don’t have to do it. And the city won’t hold it against those who decide to not take part. I can say that I, personally, would not be one to hand over such information to city officials. That’s for sure. It’s a form of censorship at an early stage, which could lead to who knows what.

Posted by Angela | 0 Comments

Bing Still Going Strong

Bing has made a big name for itself since its launch back on May 28^th. Just a week after it was opened to the public, the new search engine came in at number two among all search engines.

New statistics from comScore show that Bing is still holding on to its numbers. The latest study compares the last week of May, the first week of June, and the second week of June. Since the last week in May, Microsoft sites have increased from 9% to 12% in share of search result pages. And in the average daily searcher penetration, have increased from 13.7% to 16.7%.

This is all interesting of course, but what about Google’s numbers for the same period? ComScore did not and would not reveal Google’s numbers for the beginning of July, saying those results would be put out at the end of the month with all other Search Engines’ stats. However, according to StatCounter, Google had also increased results in this period. They reported an increase of 0.43%.

Google’s numbers make me think that Bing continues to be on the rise solely due to curiosity and major advertising. But it is pretty obvious that Google isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Posted by Angela | 0 Comments

A High Price for 24 Songs

We have all been guilty of it at one point in our lives. Some stopped when others were caught and fined. Others continued on because they claimed it was “sharing.” But in official terms, it is illegally downloading music and it has affected one Minneapolis woman in a huge way.

You may remember a high profile case back in October of 2007 in which Jammie Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of illegally sharing 24 songs online. This initial case, however, was determined a mistrial, letting Thomas off the hook for having to pay a $220,000 fine. You may think that she got a break back in October, but the illegal music came back to bite her this year.

The now 32-year-old mother of four was found guilty (again) of copyright infringement for the same 24 songs on Thursday. This time she was found guilty by a Minneapolis federal court and ordered to pay $1.92 million! That comes out to a whopping $80,000 per song! By federal law, Thomas could have been ordered to pay up to $150,000 per song. The RIAA reported that Thomas had been given the chance to settle the case earlier for $3000 to $5000 and say they are still willing to reach a settlement.

I think it’s safe to say, if you are someone who still “shares” music online, you might want to reconsider that choice.