Economics of Technology – Page 57

Taylor Swift Defends Intellectual Property Rights

(p. A11) In battles against tech titans, Chinese e-commerce swindlers and others, Ms. Swift has repeatedly insisted on being paid for her music and brand–and in the process has taught some valuable lessons in basic economics.
. . .
Last year she picked a fight with Apple after the company announced plans to launch its Apple Music streaming service with a three-month trial period during which users wouldn’t pay subscription fees and Apple wouldn’t pay royalties for the songs streamed.
. . .
Ms. Swift had less luck trying to get the Spotify streaming service to restrict her songs to paying customers, so in 2014 she pulled her catalog from the platform entirely. Her manager said Spotify’s royalty payments are miserly compared with regular album revenues: “Don’t forget this is for the most successful artist in music today. What about the rest of the artists out there struggling to make a career?”
Ms. Swift’s most ambitious crusade may be in China, where she has launched branded clothing lines with special antipiracy mechanisms to combat rampant counterfeiting on e-commerce sites like Alibaba’s Taobao. Said one of the branding executives leading the effort: “It’s time for Chinese companies to say, ‘We don’t want to be known for piracy anymore.’ ” Good luck with that.

For the full commentary, see:

DAVID FEITH. “In Support of Taylor Swift, Economist.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., July 21, 2016): A11.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 20, 2016.)

The Role of Steve Jobs in the Creation of Pixar

(p. B4) . . . [a] book that isn’t out yet (until November [2016]): “To Pixar and Beyond: My Unlikely Journey with Steve Jobs to Make Entertainment History” by Lawrence Levy, the former chief financial officer of Pixar. What a delightful book about the creation of Pixar from the inside. I learned more about Mr. Jobs, Pixar and business in Silicon Valley than I have in quite some time. And like a good Pixar film, it’ll put a smile on your face.

For the full commentary, see:
Sorkin, Andrew Ross. “DEALBOOK; Tell-Alls, Strategic Plans and Cautionary Tales.” The New York Times (Tues., JULY 5, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed word and year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date JULY 4, 2016, and has the title “DEALBOOK; A Reading List of Tell-Alls, Strategic Plans and Cautionary Tales in Finance.”)

The book praised by Sorkin in the passage quoted above, is:
Levy, Lawrence. To Pixar and Beyond: My Unlikely Journey with Steve Jobs to Make Entertainment History. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016.

Tesla and Google Bet on Different Paths to Driverless Cars

(p. B1) SAN FRANCISCO — In Silicon Valley, where companies big and small are at work on self-driving cars, there have been a variety of approaches, and even some false starts.
The most divergent paths may be the ones taken by Tesla, which is already selling cars that have some rudimentary self-driving functions, and Google, which is still very much in experimental mode.
Google’s initial efforts in 2010 focused on cars that would drive themselves, but with a person behind the wheel to take over at the first sign of trouble and a second technician monitoring the navigational computer.
As a general concept, Google was trying to achieve the same goal as Tesla is claiming with the Autopilot feature it has promoted with the Model S, which has hands-free technology that has come under scrutiny after a fatal accident on a Florida highway.
But Google decided to play down the vigilant-human approach after an experiment in 2013, when the company let some of its employees sit behind the wheel of the self-driving cars on their daily commutes.
Engineers using onboard video cameras to remotely monitor the results were alarmed by what (p. B5) they observed — a range of distracted-driving behavior that included falling asleep.
“We saw stuff that made us a little nervous,” Christopher Urmson, a former Carnegie Mellon University roboticist who directs the car project at Google, said at the time.
The experiment convinced the engineers that it might not be possible to have a human driver quickly snap back to “situational awareness,” the reflexive response required for a person to handle a split-second crisis.
So Google engineers chose another route, taking the human driver completely out of the loop. They created a fleet of cars without brake pedals, accelerators or steering wheels, and designed to travel no faster than 25 miles an hour.
For good measure they added a heavy layer of foam to the front of their cars and a plastic windshield, should the car make a mistake. While not suitable for high-speed interstate road trips, such cars might one day be able to function as, say, robotic taxis in stop-and-go urban settings.

For the full story, see:
JOHN MARKOFF. “Tesla and Google Take Two Roads to Driverless Car.” The New York Times (Tues., JULY 5, 2016): B1 & B5.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date JULY 4, 2016, and has the title “Tesla and Google Take Different Roads to Self-Driving Car.”)

The Lucky Success of the Half-Blind “Becomes the Inevitable Coup of the Assured Visionary”

(p. B1) The most fun business book I have read this year? “Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley,” by a former Facebook executive, Antonio García Martinez. I was sent a galley copy several months ago and picked it up with no intention of reading more than the first couple of pages. I don’t think I looked up until about three hours later.
This is a tell-all of Mr. Martinez’s experience in venture capital and later at Facebook, filled with insights about Silicon Valley — what he calls “the tech whorehouse” — mixed with score-settling anecdotes that will occasionally make you laugh out loud. Clearly there will be people who hate this book — which is probably one of the things that makes it such a great read.
The dedication page includes this gem: “To all my enemies: I could not have done it without you.” Mr. Martinez is particularly incisive when it comes to illustrating how failed ideas that happen to work are often spun into great successes: “What was an improbable bonanza at the hands of the flailing half-blind becomes the inevitable coup of the assured visionary,” he writes. “The world crowns you a genius, and you start acting like one.”

For the full commentary, see:
Sorkin, Andrew Ross. “DEALBOOK; Tell-Alls, Strategic Plans and Cautionary Tales.” The New York Times (Tues., JULY 5, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date JULY 4, 2016, and has the title “DEALBOOK; A Reading List of Tell-Alls, Strategic Plans and Cautionary Tales in Finance.”)

The book praised by Sorkin in the passage quoted above, is:
Martinez, Antonio Garcia. Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley. New York: Harper, 2016.

Computers and Humans as Complements Rather than Substitutes

(p. B1) “A lot of companies pushed hard on the idea that technology will solve every problem, and that we shouldn’t use humans,” said Paul English, the co-founder of a new online company called Lola Travel. (p. B10) “We think humans add value, so we’re trying to design technology to facilitate the human-to-human connection.”
. . .
“I tried to create the best travel website on the market,” he said. “But as good as we thought our tech was, there were many times where I thought I did a better job for people on the phone than our site could do.”
You’ve most likely experienced the headaches Mr. English is talking about. Think back to the last time you booked anything beyond a routine trip online. There’s a good chance you spent a lot more time and energy than you would have with a human. Sure, the Internet has obligingly stepped in to help; there are review sites, travel blogs, discussion forums and the hordes on social media to answer every possible travel question. But these resources only exacerbate the problem. They often turn what should be a fun activity into an hourslong research project.
. . .
In many cases, yes, but there remain vast realms of commerce in which guidance from a human expert works much better than a machine. Other than travel, consider the process of finding a handyman or plumber. The Internet has given us a wealth of data about these services. You could spend all day on Craigslist, Yelp or Angie’s List finding the best person for your job, which is precisely the problem.
“It’s going to be a long time until a computer can replace the estimating power of an experienced handyman,” said Doug Ludlow, the founder of the Happy Home Company, a one-year-old start-up that uses human experts to find the right person for your job. The company, which operates in the San Francisco Bay Area but plans to expand nationally, has contracts with a network of trusted service professionals in your area. To get some work done, you simply text your Happy Home manager with a description of the problem and maybe a few pictures.
“A quick glance from our handyman gives us an idea of who to send to your job, and what it will cost,” Mr. Ludlow said. The company handles payment processing, scheduling and any complaints if something goes wrong.
I recently used Happy Home to get a few home theater cables concealed in a wall. The experience was liberating — I found a handyman and a drywall specialist to do my job with little more than few texts, and no time spent scouring through web reviews.
It isn’t feasible to get humans involved in all of our purchases. Humans are costly and they’re limited in capacity. The great advantage of computers is that they “scale” — software can serve evermore customers for ever-lower prices.
But one of the ironies of the digital revolution is that it has also helped human expertise scale. Thanks to texting, human customer service agents can now serve multiple customers at a time. They can also access reams of data about your preferences, allowing them to quickly find answers for your questions.
As a result, for certain purchases, the cost of adding human expertise can be a trivial part of the overall transaction. Happy Home takes a cut of each service it sets up, but because it can squeeze out certain efficiencies from operating a network of service professionals, its prices match what you’d find looking for a handyman on your own. That’s true of human travel agencies, too — the commissions on travel are so good that Lola can afford to throw in human expertise almost as a kind of bonus.
The rise of computers is often portrayed as a great threat to all of our jobs. But these services sketch out a more optimistic scenario: That humans and machines will work together, and we, as customers, will be allowed, once more, to lazily beg for help.

For the full commentary, see:
Manjoo, Farhad. “State of the Art; The Machines Rose, but Now Start-Ups Add Human Touch.” The New York Times (Thurs., DEC. 17, 2015): B1 & B10.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date DEC. 16, 2015, and has the title “State of the Art; In a Self-Serve World, Start-Ups Find Value in Human Helpers.”)

German Car Makers in No Rush to Catch Up to Tesla

(p. A7) When Elon Musk rolled out the new Tesla Model X at the end of September [2015], some grumbled that the Silicon Valley car maker’s all-electric luxury crossover was coming to market two years too late. It depends on who you ask. The Big Three German auto makers only wish they could catch the tail of Mr. Musk’s rocket.
I’m not talking about units sold, though Tesla’s target of 50,000 cars in 2015 is a respectable chunk of the global luxury-sedan market. But Tesla has taken more hide off German prestige and sense of technical primacy. I mean, the Model X was just rubbing their noses in it with those “falcon” doors, right? In executive interviews at the Frankfurt Auto Show any praise of Tesla was guaranteed to land on the table like a paternity suit.
. . .
I wonder if any traditional auto maker whose existence does not hang in the balance can ever have enough belly for the EV long game?
Even if the Germans had market-bound EVs in mass quantities, there is the concurrent problem of charging. As the estimable John Voelcker of Green Car Reports notes, the luxury incumbents have no plans to challenge Tesla on charging availability. Tesla has hundreds of charging stations in the U.S. and Europe and plans for hundreds more–all free to owners.
. . .
I am struck by the lag time. This isn’t about profit and loss but industry leadership. The Germans are headed where Tesla already is and, taking Frankfurt as the measure, they are in no great hurry to get there.

For the full commentary, see:
Dan Neil. “RUMBLE SEAT; How Tesla Leaves its Rivals Playing Catch Up.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Oct. 10, 2015): D11.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Oct. 8, 2015.)

“Robots Take Away Subhuman Jobs”

(p. A21) Joseph F. Engelberger, a visionary engineer and entrepreneur who was at the forefront of the robotics revolution, building robots for use on assembly lines and fostering another, named Seymour, to handle chores in hospitals, died on Tuesday [December 1, 2015] in Newtown, Conn. . . .
. . .
Mr. Engelberger was a force in robotics from its early days, in the 1960s, when his company, Unimation, in Danbury, Conn., developed the Unimate, a robotic arm that would greatly accelerate industrial production lines.
. . .
Labor unions and some corporate managers resisted robotics at first, worrying, as Mr. Engelberger later put it, “that the robots can take all the jobs away.”
He disagreed with that notion.
“It’s unjustified,” he told The New York Times in 1997. “The robots take away subhuman jobs which we assign to people.”
Unimate proved to be more precise than the human hand in completing some repetitive and dangerous tasks. Automobile makers employed the arm to weld and move vehicle parts, apply adhesives to windshields and spray-paint car bodies — jobs that had posed chemical hazards to workers.

For the full obituary, see:
JEREMY PEARCE. “Joseph F. Engelberger, a Leader of the Robot Revolution, Dies at 90.” The New York Times (Thurs., DEC. 3, 2015): A33.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)
(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date DEC. 2, 2015, and has the title “Joseph F. Engelberger, a Leader of the Robot Revolution, Dies at 90.”)

Perfect Reliability Is Not Worth the Cost

(p. B4) Say what you will about Plain Old Telephone Service, but it worked. The functionality of POTS, as it was known, was limited to making calls, and they were expensive. But many traditional phone companies offered 99.999% reliability, which allowed for about five minutes of downtime a year.
Today’s networks are far less expensive, infinitely more capable and nowhere near as reliable as the wired-to-the-wall phone, . . .
. . .
To some extent, contemporary networks suffer from inattention. The old phone system worked so well because regulators in certain countries like the U.S. said it had to, and enough money was set aside to fund an army of technicians and engineers to oversee it. That generally isn’t the case with modern, digital networks and IT infrastructure, and companies often neglect this nuts-and-bolts technology.
. . .
Underneath it all, the economics of falling prices carry a trade-off. Consumers get more for their money in the mobile, digital era, but that often leaves margin-stretched companies with fewer resources to invest in robustness and maintenance. Reliability is as much a function of business and risk management as it is about tech.
“I don’t know if people are sweating that detail as much as they used to,” said Mr. Bayer, previously CIO of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
. . .
Former NYSE Euronext Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Leibowitz told the Journal in 2013 the public shouldn’t expect market technology to function perfectly, a goal that would be too expensive to implement even if it were technically feasible.

For the full story, see:
STEVE ROSENBUSH and STEVEN NORTON. “Network Reliability, a Relic of Business?” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., July 10, 2015): B4.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 9, 2015 and has the title “What We Learned From the NYSE, United Airlines Tech Outages.”)

Plastic Buttons Replaced Seashell Buttons, but Technology Can Be Restored

In What Technology Wants, Kevin Kelly has made the point that most obsolete technologies remain available to satisfy nostalgia, or for more practical uses, if the need arises. Below is another example.

(p. C27) In a tan outbuilding overlooking a pond in northeastern Connecticut, equipment for turning seashells into buttons has lain fallow for nearly eight decades. The building’s owner, Mark Masinda, a retired university administrator, is working to transform the site into a tourist attraction.

In the early 1900s, his grandfather William Masinda, a Czech immigrant, supervised a dozen button makers in the building, which is on a rural road in Willington. They cut, drilled and polished bits of shells imported from Africa and Australia to make “ocean pearl buttons” with two or four holes. The area’s half-dozen button factories supplemented the incomes of families struggling to farm on rocky terrain.
The Masinda operation closed in 1938, as plastic flooded the market. “The equipment he had just couldn’t make the transition,” Mr. Masinda said.
. . .
Mr. Masinda is planning to reactivate the equipment and open the site for tours by . . . spring [2016].

For the full story, see:
EVE M. KAHN. “Antiques; Restoring a Button Factory.” The New York Times (Thurs., DEC. 3, 2015): C27.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date DEC. 3, 2015, and has the title “Antiques; Yale Buys Collection of Scattered Medieval Pages; Restoring a Button Factory.”)

The Kelly book mentioned above, is:
Kelly, Kevin. What Technology Wants. New York: Viking Adult, 2010.

Tesla Direct Sales Thwarted by Laws that Protect Dealers Instead of Consumers

(p. B3) Tesla Motors Inc. hopes to capture mainstream auto buyers with its Model 3, an electric car it plans to unveil this week at a price about the same as the average gasoline-powered vehicle, but it may need a federal court ruling to succeed.
The Palo Alto, Calif., auto maker’s direct-to-consumer sales are prohibited by law in six states that represent about 18% of the U.S. new-car market. Barring a change of heart by those states, Tesla is preparing to make a federal case out of the direct-sales bans.
The auto maker’s legal staff has been studying a 2013 federal appeals court ruling in New Orleans that determined St. Joseph Abbey could sell monk-made coffins to customers without having a funeral director’s license. The case emerged amid a casket shortage after Hurricane Katrina. The abbey had tried to sell coffins, only to find state laws restricted such sales to those licensed by the Louisiana Board of Funeral Directors.
For now, Tesla is banking on a combination of new legislation, pending dealer applications and other factors to open doors to selling directly in Arizona, Michigan, Texas, Connecticut, Utah and West Virginia. But the company said it is ready to argue in federal court using the coffin case if necessary.
“It is widely accepted that laws that have a protectionist motivation or effect are not proper,” Todd Maron, the auto maker’s chief counsel, said in an interview. “Tesla is committed to not being foreclosed from operating in the states it desires to operate in, and all options are on the table.”
. . .
“There is no legitimate competitive interest in having consumers purchase cars through an independent dealership,” Greg Reed, an attorney with Washington D.C.-based Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning law firm, said. He calls Michigan’s laws “anti-competitive protectionism.”

For the full story, see:
MIKE RAMSEY. “Tesla Weighs Legal Fight.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., March 29, 2016): B3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 28, 2016, and has the title “Tesla Weighs New Challenge to State Direct-Sales Bans.”)

Tesla Model 3 Excites Venturesome Consumers

America’s venturesome consumers are hungry for products exciting enough to justify enthusiasm. They are desperate for evidence that the future can continue to look bright.

(p. B2) DETROIT — Despite a steady stream of new models from a number of automakers, sales this year of electric and hybrid vehicles have failed to keep pace with the growth in the overall American market.
But if the market for electrified cars was slumbering, Tesla Motors woke it up with a jolt Thursday [March 31, 2016] with the unveiling of its coming Model 3 lineup of affordable, zero-emission vehicles.
Given that electric and hybrid vehicles account for only about 2 percent of last year’s record-setting sales in the United States, the extraordinary reaction to Tesla’s first mass-market model was a vivid demonstration of the potential demand in the segment.
“It shows that the future of electric vehicles is not necessarily bleak,” said Alec Gutierrez, an analyst with the research firm Kelley Blue Book. “Maybe we’ve been waiting for the right products that resonate with consumers.”
Tesla said on Friday that it had booked reservations — at $1,000 each — from nearly 200,000 people for the first Model 3 sedans, which will not be available until next year.
With a starting price of $35,000 and a battery range of 215 miles, the new Tesla is a big leap in the company’s expansion beyond expensive luxury models.
“The final step in the master plan is a mass-market, affordable car,” Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, said at the lavish introduction of the Model 3 held at the company’s design studios in Hawthorne, Calif.

For the full story, see:
BILL VLASIC “In Clamor for new Tesla, Signs of an Electric Future.” The New York Times (Sat., APRIL 2, 2016): B2.
(Note: bracketed date added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date APRIL 1, 2016, and has the title “Tesla’s New Model 3 Jump-Starts Demand for Electric Cars.”)