Comcast delivers data usage meter in Portland, Oregon

The lucky residents of Portland, Oregon are the first to test out Comcast‘s just deployed and long-expected data usage meter for its customers. The interface is self-explanatory, but customers who have long been trying to guesstimate how close they are to their 250GB limit should be jumping for joy right about now. Comcast says the data is refreshed about every three hours, and that the median usage of its customers is somewhere around 2 – 4GB per month. No word on further rollout of the usage meter — but we’ll keep our eyes peeled for you.

[Thanks, Jerry]

Comcast delivers data usage meter in Portland, Oregon originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:44:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  sourceOfficial Comcast Blog  | Email this | Comments

My $62.47 Royalty Statement: How Major Labels Cook the Books with Digital Downloads

Tim Quirk was the singer of punk-pop outfit Too Much Joy, signed by Warner Bros. in 1990. Now he’s an executive at an online music service, giving him insight on digital sales data and just how labels fudge their numbers.

I got something in the mail last week I’d been wanting for years: a Too Much Joy royalty statement from Warner Brothers that finally included our digital earnings. Though our catalog has been out of print physically since the late-1990s, the three albums we released on Giant/WB have been available digitally for about five years. Yet the royalty statements I received every six months kept insisting we had zero income, and our unrecouped balance ($395,277.18!)* stubbornly remained the same.

Now, I don’t ever expect that unrecouped balance to turn into a positive number, but since the band had been seeing thousands of dollars in digital royalties each year from IODA for the four indie albums we control ourselves, I figured five years’ worth of digital income from our far more popular major label albums would at least make a small dent in the figure. Our IODA royalties during that time had totaled about $12,000 – not a princely sum, but enough to suggest that the total haul over the same period from our major label material should be at least that much, if not two to five times more. Even with the band receiving only a percentage of the major label take, getting our unrecouped balance below $375,000 seemed reasonable, and knocking it closer to -$350,000 wasn’t out of the question.

So I was naively excited when I opened the envelope. And my answer was right there on the first page. In five years, our three albums earned us a grand total of… $62.47.

What the fuck?

I mean, we all know that major labels are supposed to be venal masters of hiding money from artists, but they’re also supposed to be good at it, right? This figure wasn’t insulting because it was so small, it was insulting because it was so stupid.

Why It Was So Stupid

Here’s the thing: I work at Rhapsody. I know what we pay Warner Bros. for every stream and download, and I can look up exactly how many plays and downloads we’ve paid them for each TMJ tune that Warner controls. Moreover, Warner Bros. knows this, as my gig at Rhapsody is the only reason I was able to get them to add my digital royalties to my statement in the first place. For years I’d been pestering the label, but I hadn’t gotten anywhere till I was on a panel with a reasonably big wig in Warner Music Group’s business affairs team about a year ago

The panel took place at a legal conference, and focused on digital music and the crisis facing the record industry**. As you do at these things, the other panelists and I gathered for breakfast a couple hours before our session began, to discuss what topics we should address. Peter Jenner, who manages Billy Bragg and has been a needed gadfly for many years at events like these, wanted to discuss the little-understood fact that digital music services frequently pay labels advances in the tens of millions of dollars for access to their catalogs, and it’s unclear how (or if) that money is ever shared with artists.

I agreed that was a big issue, but said I had more immediate and mundane concerns, such as the fact that Warner wouldn’t even report my band’s iTunes sales to me.

The business affairs guy (who I am calling “the business affairs guy” rather than naming because he did me a favor by finally getting the digital royalties added to my statement, and I am grateful for that and don’t want this to sound like I’m attacking him personally, even though it’s about to seem like I am) said that it was complicated connecting Warner’s digital royalty payments to their existing accounting mechanisms, and that since my band was unrecouped they had “to take care of R.E.M. and the Red Hot Chili Peppers first.”

That kind of pissed me off. On the one hand, yeah, my band’s unrecouped and is unlikely ever to reach the point where Warner actually has to cut us a royalty check. On the other hand, though, they are contractually obligated to report what revenue they receive in our name, and, having helped build a database that tracks how much Rhapsody owes whom for what music gets played, I’m well aware of what is and isn’t complicated about doing so. It’s not something you have to build over and over again for each artist. It’s something you build once. It takes a while, and it can be expensive, and sometimes you make honest mistakes, but it’s not rocket science. Hell, it’s not even algebra! It’s just simple math.

I knew that each online service was reporting every download, and every play, for every track, to thousands of labels (more labels, I’m guessing, than Warner has artists to report to). And I also knew that IODA was able to tell me exactly how much money my band earned the previous month from Amazon ($11.05), Verizon (74 cents), Nokia (11 cents), MySpace (4 sad cents) and many more. I didn’t understand why Warner wasn’t reporting similar information back to my band – and if they weren’t doing it for Too Much Joy, I assumed they weren’t doing it for other artists.

To his credit, the business affairs guy told me he understood my point, and promised he’d pursue the matter internally on my behalf – which he did. It just took 13 months to get the results, which were (predictably, perhaps) ridiculous.

The sad thing is I don’t even think Warner is deliberately trying to screw TMJ and the hundreds of other also-rans and almost-weres they’ve signed over the years. The reality is more boring, but also more depressing. Like I said, they don’t actually owe us any money. But that’s what’s so weird about this, to me: they have the ability to tell the truth, and doing so won’t cost them anything.

They just can’t be bothered. They don’t care, because they don’t have to.

“$10,000 Is Nothing”

An interlude, here. Back in 1992, when TMJ was still a going concern and even the label thought maybe we’d join the hallowed company of recouped bands one day, Warner made a $10,000 accounting error on our statement (in their favor, naturally). When I caught this mistake, and brought it to the attention of someone with the power to correct it, he wasn’t just befuddled by my anger – he laughed at it. “$10,000 is nothing!” he chuckled.

If you’re like most people – especially people in unrecouped bands – “nothing” is not a word you ever use in conjunction with a figure like “$10,000,” but he seemed oblivious to that. “It’s a rounding error. It happens all the time. Why are you so worked up?”

These days I work for a reasonably large corporation myself, and, sadly, I understand exactly what the guy meant. When your revenues (and your expenses) are in the hundreds of millions of dollars, $10,000 mistakes are common, if undesirable.

I still think he was a jackass, though, and that sentence continues to haunt me. Because $10,000 might have been nothing to him, but it was clearly something to me. And his inability to take it seriously – to put himself in my place, just for the length of our phone call – suggested that people who care about $10,000 mistakes, and the principles of things, like, say, honoring contracts even when you don’t have to, are the real idiots.

As you may have divined by this point, I am conflicted about whether I am actually being a petty jerk by pursuing this, or whether labels just thrive on making fools like me feel like petty jerks. People in the record industry are very good at making bands believe they deserve the hundreds of thousands (or sometimes millions) of dollars labels advance the musicians when they’re first signed, and even better at convincing those same musicians it’s the bands’ fault when those advances aren’t recouped (the last thing $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man yelled at me before he hung up was, “Too Much Joy never earned us shit!”*** as though that fact somehow negated their obligation to account honestly).

I don’t want to live in $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man’s world. But I do. We all do. We have no choice.

The Boring Reality

Back to my ridiculous Warner Bros. statement. As I flipped through its ten pages (seriously, it took ten pages to detail the $62.47 of income), I realized that Warner wasn’t being evil, just careless and unconcerned – an impression I confirmed a few days later when I spoke to a guy in their Royalties and Licensing department I am going to call Danny.****

I asked Danny why there were no royalties at all listed from iTunes, and he said, “Huh. There are no domestic downloads on here at all. Only streams. And it has international downloads, but no international streams. I have no idea why.” I asked Danny why the statement only seemed to list tracks from two of the three albums Warner had released – an entire album was missing. He said they could only report back what the digital services had provided to them, and the services must not have reported any activity for those other songs. When I suggested that seemed unlikely – that having every track from two albums listed by over a dozen different services, but zero tracks from a third album listed by any seemed more like an error on Warner’s side, he said he’d look into it. As I asked more questions (Why do we get paid 50% of the income from all the tracks on one album, but only 35.7143% of the income from all the tracks on another? Why did 29 plays of a track on the late, lamented MusicMatch earn a total of 63 cents when 1,016 plays of the exact same track on MySpace earned only 23 cents?) he eventually got to the heart of the matter: “We don’t normally do this for unrecouped bands,” he said. “But, I was told you’d asked.”

It’s possible I’m projecting my own insecurities onto calm, patient Danny, but I’m pretty sure the subtext of that comment was the same thing I’d heard from $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man: all these figures were pointless, and I was kind of being a jerk by wasting their time asking about them. After all, they have the Red Hot Chili Peppers to deal with, and the label actually owes those guys money.

Danny may even be right. But there’s another possibility – one I don’t necessarily subscribe to, but one that could be avoided entirely by humoring pests like me. There’s a theory that labels and publishers deliberately avoid creating the transparent accounting systems today’s technology enables. Because accurately accounting to my silly little band would mean accurately accounting to the less silly bands that are recouped, and paying them more money as a result.

If that’s true (and I emphasize the if, because it’s equally possible that people everywhere, including major label accounting departments, are just dumb and lazy)*****, then there’s more than my pride and principles on the line when I ask Danny in Royalties and Licensing to answer my many questions. I don’t feel a burning need to make the Red Hot Chili Peppers any more money, but I wouldn’t mind doing my small part to get us all out of the sad world $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man inhabits.

So I will keep asking, even though I sometimes feel like a petty jerk for doing so.


* A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.

I do not share this information out of a Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults). I’m simply explaining why I’m not embarrassed that I “owe” Warner Bros. almost $400,000. They didn’t make a lot of money off of Too Much Joy. But they didn’t lose any, either. So whenever you hear some label flak claiming 98% of the bands they sign lose money for the company, substitute the phrase “just don’t earn enough” for the word “lose.”

** The whole conference took place at a semi-swank hotel on the island of St. Thomas, which is a funny place to gather to talk about how to save the music business, but that would be a whole different diatribe.

*** This same dynamic works in reverse – I interviewed the Butthole Surfers for Raygun magazine back in the 1990s, and Gibby Haynes described the odd feeling of visiting Capitol records’ offices and hearing, “a bunch of people go, ‘Hey, man, be cool to these guys, they’re a recouped band.’ I heard that a bunch of times.”

**** Again, I am avoiding using his real name because he returned my call promptly, and patiently answered my many questions, which is behavior I want to encourage, so I have no desire to lambaste him publicly.

***** Of course, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive – it is also possible that labels are evil and avaricious AND dumb and lazy, at the same time.

Reprinted with permission from Too Much Joy.

First Look: Accessory-Powered App Turns iPhone Into Universal Remote


Since March, Wired.com has had high hopes for what we call “dongleware” — iPhone apps that take advantage of special accessories (via Bluetooth or the USB dock connector). We even compiled a wish list for dongleware we’d like to see. One of those items was an accessory that would turn your iPhone into a universal remote to control your living room entertainment center. Imagine our delight when ThinkFlood told us that its iPhone app “RedEye” would do exactly that.

The free app communicates with a $190 base station that acts as an infrared blaster to control other infrared hardware. You plug in the base station, download and launch the iPhone app, sync the base station with your Wi-Fi network, and then you can start adding your living room devices. RedEye contains a database of different types of devices you can control, broken down by brand name. After you select the brand name and type of device, you can test remote codes until you get a working signal to choose and store.

The product is brand new, and understandably it’s a little rough around the edges. The RedEye database didn’t have remote codes for some of my living room gadgets: no code for my Panasonic HDTV and nada for my A/V receiver (an obscure Japanese brand, so I wasn’t surprised). But it did work with my Comcast cable box. Unfortunately even then, the interface was hardly convenient: It looked nothing like my physical Comcast remote; the cable box’s remote menu was a long list of numbers and buttons, so I would have to swipe all the way up just to tap “1,” for example, then swipe all the way down to tap “Enter.” It also lacked a Guide button to load the program directory.

But those are just my early impressions of RedEye, and consumers should keep this product on their radar. A project like this — creating a piece of hardware in addition to coding an innovative app — is an enormously challenging task. ThinkFlood’s founder Matthew Eagar said the RedEye database was light on receiver codes due to time constraints, but the company is working on putting together more. Keep in mind that because the hardware is already doing what it promises, all we have to wait for is the software to mature. Give RedEye some time to tweak its UI and add some more remote codes, and there’s potential for a hit product here. I would love to toss that ugly Comcast remote out the window, wouldn’t you?

See a video of RedEye in action above.

Product Page [ThinkFlood]


LA Auto Show: Mercedes-Benz Splitview His-and-Hers LCD

Mercedes Splitview.jpg

Mercedes-Benz Splitview display lets the driver and passenger see different material on the same in-dash LCD, typically navigation for the driver, a movie for the passenger. It’s one of the highlights of the 2009 Los Angeles Auto Show, which opened today for press previews. Splitview orients alternating pixels at driver and passenger, so each sees the full center stack screen, 7.0 inches in the case of the Merecedes-Benz S-Class and CL-Class cars that are first to get Splitview. Splitview is based on Sharp’s Dual View technology, which has been available to automakers for half a decade. Because the driver can’t see what the passenger sees, Splitview should get around state prohibitions on front-seat DVD players visible to the driver when the car’s in motion.

Wii parts production said to be shrinking, still plenty of Wiis being sold

Well, we’ve already seen demand for the Wii finally begin to slow and Nintendo’s profits shrink as a result, and it looks like the inevitable trickle down effect is now also starting to take place. According to Nikkei, parts makers Mitsumi and Hosiden are expected to be particularly hard hit, with each forecasting a more than fifty percent drop in profits for the fiscal year ending next March. That still leaves them each with profits in the 5.3 to 6 billion yen range, however, and things should pick back up sooner or later whenever Nintendo decides the Wii needs a refresh or a revamp — and, if not, there’s always room for more Wu.

Wii parts production said to be shrinking, still plenty of Wiis being sold originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:19:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Joystiq  |  sourceMarketWatch  | Email this | Comments

Intel Shows 48-Core Processor for Research

intel 48-core processor

Intel’s six- and eight-core processors are the fastest chips that consumers can get their hands on. But if you are among the research elite, the company has a new experimental chip that can offer nearly 20 times the computing power.

Intel showed an 48-core processor nicknamed the “single-chip cloud computer” that consumes about the same power as desktop processors available currently. The fully programmable 48 processing cores are the most Intel has ever had on a single silicon chip, says the company.

“This is a high core count processor that focuses on efficient energy consumption,” says Justin Rattner, chief technology officer of Intel. “It also maintains the compatibility and familiarity that people have with Intel architecture.”

The chip can operate on as little as 25 watts- or at 125 watts when running at maximum performance – same as the energy consumption of two household light bulbs, says Intel.

The 48-core processor, created using 45-nanometer technology, won’t be available in desktops for at least a few years. Instead, about 100 or more of the experimental chips will be provided for hands-on research in developing new software applications and programming models to select partners.

As chipmakers try to build more powerful processors, they have been packing more cores into a single chip. Last year, Intel showed a prototype of a 80-core processor. Earlier this year, Tilera, a startup spun out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, promised a 100-core processor. The processor would be fabricated using 40-nanometer technology and available early next year, said Tilera.

Intel’s 48-core processor has some advantages over its rivals. It can run standard programs designed for Intel’s x86 architecture and developers can use the same kind of programming tools that they use for processors with fewer cores available currently. Compare to high-performance GPU computing arrays that require programmers to learn new techniques and development environments.

“This is an array of general purpose cores, which is quite a bit different from how the GPU guys do it,” says Rattner. “Our 48-core processor will run standard software.”

See Also:

Photo: Intel’s 48-core processor/Intel


Immerse your tea in automation

The Zarafina Tea Maker Suite floats tea above heating water and then immerses it for the right amount of time when ready. pOriginally posted at a href=”http://www.cnet.com/8301-13553_1-10407921-32.html” class=”origPostedBlog”Appliances Kitchen Gadgets/a/p

Target Combines Gift Card and Gift

target gift card 2.jpg You’ve got to admit, Target has a flair for creative marketing. Remember last year when it created a gift card that doubled as a digital camera? Those flew off the shelves.

This year, the bargain shopping giant has upped the cool factor with a gift card that doubles as a remote-control shopping cart.

You’ll need to spend at least $25 to get this card, but it’s so worth it. I suspect many geeks will be buying it for themselves.

The recipient punches out the cheese-shaped remote and the shopping cart (with Santa Mouse inside) and is able to drive the cart backwards and forwards. That’s not a lot, but it’s enough to keep the cat entertained. If you want one, I advise you to buy early as these probably aren’t going to last. (Via ChipChick)

Sprint handed customer GPS data to law enforcement over 8 million times last year

Privacy advocates and career criminals alike are in a lather over reports that between September 2008 and October 2009, Sprint Nextel ponied up customer location data to various law enforcement agencies more than 8 million times. Speaking at ISS World 2009 (a conference for law enforcement and telecom industry-types responsible for “lawful interception, electronic investigations and network Intelligence gathering”), Sprint Nextel’s very own Paul Taylor, Manager of Electronic Surveillance, lamented on the sheer volume of requests the company’s received in the past year for precise GPS data for Sprint customers. How did the company meet such high demand? Apparently, his team built a special “web interface” which “has just really caught on fire with law enforcement.” We’re glad that Sprint’s plans to streamline the customer service experience don’t stop short of those who serve and protect, but as the EFF points out, plenty of nagging questions remain, including: How many individual customers have been affected? Is Sprint demanding search warrants? How secure is this web interface? Check out an excerpt from Taylor’s speech after the break.

Continue reading Sprint handed customer GPS data to law enforcement over 8 million times last year

Sprint handed customer GPS data to law enforcement over 8 million times last year originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:51:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink PPC Geeks  |  sourceSlight Paranoia  | Email this | Comments

Confused school district fires sysadmin for running SETI@home: ‘As an educational institution we do not support the search for E.T.’

We’ve dealt with a number of confused and outright foolish school administrators in our time, but it seems like Arizona’s Higley Unified School District might be run by the most bonkers of the bunch: they’ve fired IT director Brad Niesluchowski for running SETI@Home on some 5,000 of the district’s machines. Why? According to confidently-underinformed superintendent Denise Birdwell, Higley Unified “certainly would have supported cancer research,” but does “not support the search for E.T.” Well, that’s just peachy — except that her flippant dismissal of SETI belies a complete ignorance of one of the oldest and most respected distributed-computing projects in the world, and what it’s actually looking for. Oh, but it gets worse: Birdwell thinks SETI@home — which primarily runs as a screensaver — was somehow slowing down “educational programs in every classroom,” and magically estimates that it’s cost her district “$1 million in added utility fees and replacement parts,” with a further huge cost required to remove the software. Completing her transformation into the worst-possible stereotype of a school district superintendent, Birdwell’s even got the local cops on the case. Yeah, it’s idiotic, but it could be worse — we can only imagine the hell that would have broken loose had Higley’s machines been a part of the renegade Engadget Folding@home team.

Update:
So there’s apparently more going on here as well, including allegations of stolen equipment and — inevitably — downloaded porn, but none of that explains why Superintendent Birdwell is giving press conferences where she slams SETI. Check the more coverage links for the full story, and make sure to hit the source link for the video.

Confused school district fires sysadmin for running SETI@home: ‘As an educational institution we do not support the search for E.T.’ originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:24:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  sourceFox 5 Vegas  | Email this | Comments