Etymotic Research: Kickass Customer Service

in , , ,

I purchased a set of ER 6i Isolator Earphones back in the summer of 2007 from Amazon after hearing Leo Laporte rave about them on TWiT and other TWiT Network shows. First of all, for someone who works in downtown Washington, DC and rides the very noisy Metro every day, these Earphones are fantastic. Their rubber grips go down inside your ear canal blocking out 80%+ of any exterior noise. They produce high fidelity sound for their size, and albeit a bit pricey, are very nice. They have an extra-long chord for reach into a messenger bag or a backpack if you do not wish to store your iPod in your pocket and feature a nifty little clip to latch the chord onto your clothing so as to not allow it to get caught on objects as you walk by.

Now all of this is very well, except that I am very rough on my equipment. Within about 8 months of my owning these, the left earphone began to cut out. The connection of the earbuds to the mini-jack began to become stretched or frayed (I'm guessing). I was kind of frustrated but found out they came with a 1 year warranty. I called up Etymotics and to my surprise, did not hear a phone tree when the line picked up, but instead, a nice woman on the other end who promptly diagnosed my problem. She happily told me that it was covered under the warranty and told me that Etymotic Research would replace them for me. After getting an RMA number I shipped these back to Etymotic the next day, and within a week, had my replacement set back.

Fast forward to this last week. I now have an iPhone (as of December 2008) and purchased a set of Hf2 high-fidelity hands-free headset + earphones. These have even better sound quality than the ER6i's, but are made specifically for the iPhone, duplicating the functionality of the microphone built into the chord along with the single button for controlling the answering of calls or flipping through music when in iPod-mode. I love this set of Earphone, or at least I did until I took them out of my bag last Friday to discover one of the plastic housings around the base of the left earbud had become cracked. I SUSPECT it was my fault in that they were crushed inside my bag up against something. I called Etymotic Research and once again, a very cheerful customer service rep who answered gladly told me they would replace them, gave me an RMA number and told me they would ship a replacement as soon as their recieved my damaged ones. As of right now, it is the Friday after that call, and my UPS tracking number says that UPS will be delivering my replacement set today.

 

Etymotic Research is awesome.

Music Industry Fears Apple and is also Subject to iTunes Popularity Rankings

in , ,

Last month the music industry and Apple, long uneasy partners, seemed a picture of harmony when they agreed on new terms for pricing on iTunes, Apple’s online music store.


Behind the scenes, however, the relationship remains as tense and antagonistic as ever.


The announcement on Jan. 6 seemed to signal a rapprochement between the music industry and its biggest distributor: record companies gave up their demand for copyright protection (called digital rights management) and Apple allowed flexible pricing, so the labels could charge more for new or popular tracks.


But according to one music industry executive involved in the negotiations, Apple’s primary goal was securing distribution of music over its iPhone, as mobile phones are expected to become an increasingly important outlet for music.


Disagreements over the timing of the changes also resulted in a particularly tense conversation on Christmas Eve between Steven P. Jobs, the chairman and chief executive of Apple, and Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, the chairman of Sony Music.


A spokesman for Apple declined to comment, as did a representative for Sony Music. But chatter about Mr. Jobs’s combative tone on the call ricocheted around the music industry, and it was regarded as another display of his tough bargaining tactics, made possible by Apple’s position as the dominant seller of music.


Mr. Jobs recently announced that he would step away from his day-to-day duties because of an illness. While Mr. Jobs’s health problems have raised questions about Apple’s operations, music executives expect their tense relationship with the company to continue.


In interviews, several high-level music executives, who spoke on the condition that they not be named to avoid angering Apple, said they operated in fear of Apple’s removing a label’s products from the iTunes store over a disagreement, even though that has never happened. The labels do not have much leverage in negotiating with Apple.


“I think Steve has been smart, and he knows he has the upper hand,” said Dave Goldberg, the former general manager of Yahoo Music who is now an entrepreneur in residence at Benchmark Capital, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm. “They can’t afford to pull their music.”


One result of the dicey relationship is the increasing search by the music industry for a future in which Apple is not so dominant. Many executives say they believe the future of music buying is over the mobile phone, not from buying individual songs but by paying a monthly subscription fee to hear vast database of music.


But right now that is a tiny business in the United States. Forrester Research estimates that downloading music from Web stores like iTunes generated $1.5 billion in 2008, compared with just $70 million in wireless sales. Apple could win in this arena as well with its iPhone, but the music industry is looking to others, like Nokia, which offers its Comes With Music service, to become viable players.


“They’re still the biggest game in town,” said David Card, a digital music analyst at Forrester Research. “It’s really Apple and everyone else. I think the industry would rather have multiple outlets.”


Apple, according to a music industry official involved in the negotiations, offered to negotiate variable pricing about a year ago. Most songs cost 99 cents, of which the label receives about 70 cents and Apple receives the remainder, although the breakdown varies slightly among the labels.


Apple indicated it was willing to make the switch to variable pricing provided that the music companies — which negotiate individually with Apple to avoid colluding — would agree to license songs for wireless downloads on the iPhone, as well as drop copyright protections using digital rights management, or D.R.M., software.


All the labels agreed except Sony Music. Its chairman, Mr. Schmidt-Holtz, wanted the pricing to go into effect right after the announcement, while Mr. Jobs wanted a longer time horizon. According to a person briefed on the telephone call, Mr. Schmidt-Holtz and Mr. Jobs had a heated exchange by phone on Christmas Eve. Eventually, Sony gave in and agreed to a longer waiting period.


Even if Mr. Jobs does not get personally involved in future negotiations, music executives still fear dealing with Apple. One chit the company holds is the power of the iTunes home page, where it promotes music. They also say that the entire Apple staff, including Eddie Cue, the vice president in charge of iTunes who handles the relationships with the record labels, do their best to follow Mr. Jobs’s style in their own negotiating.


Offline, the industry has long contended with dominant retailers like Wal-Mart, which is the biggest seller of CDs but has not been the cultural tastemaker that iTunes has become.


“Whether the industry likes it or not, the iTunes chart showing the most popular songs in America is a major influencer of how kids today discover and communicate with their friends what kind of music they like,” said Charlie Walk, the former president of Epic Records, a unit of Sony Music. “It’s a very powerful thing right now in American pop culture and immediately validates a hit song.”


In some ways, the tension stems from Apple’s power over the industry, but it also echoes the traditional divide between suppliers and distributors. Several years ago, some labels withdrew their videos from the Yahoo Music service over a dispute about compensation. Before that, when MTV began in the early 1980s, the music industry eagerly provided videos in the belief that they would help sell records, though they later regretted having provided free content for the cable channel.


“They believe they created MTV, and will say they revived Apple,” said Mr. Goldberg, speaking about the music industry in general.


Mr. Card of Forrester, however, has a different take. “If it weren’t for Apple, God knows how bad the music industry would be,” he said.


Once again, Rumors of Steve Job's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

in , , ,

Steve's OK, everyone relax.

Update:


Statement by Apple’s Board of Directors


It is widely recognized both inside and outside of Apple that Steve Jobs is one of the most talented and effective CEOs in the world.

As we have said before, if there ever comes a day when Steve wants to retire or for other reasons cannot continue to fulfill his duties as Apple’s CEO, you will know it.

Apple is very lucky to have Steve as its leader and CEO, and he deserves our complete and unwavering support during his recuperation. He most certainly has that from Apple and its Board.


The rumors and questions can now be put to rest. Steve is OK. Yes, he has some health issues but, according to what his doctors say, they are not serious and he should be back to normal by spring. The issue, describes as a "hormone imbalance" has been causing him to lose weight all year, but they know how to treat it and he expects to be back to normal by late spring. This will not affect his being CEO of Apple. I, for one, was a bit surprised by this. I knew that if his health issues were serious, he would have disclosed it already due to legal issues with shareholders. Given that he held off this long, he really was reticent to do so because, since it isn't serious, it really is a personal privacy matter for him and I respect that. Steve's letter below:

Letter from Apple CEO Steve Jobs



Dear Apple Community,

For the first time in a decade, I’m getting to spend the holiday season with my family, rather than intensely preparing for a Macworld keynote.

Unfortunately, my decision to have Phil deliver the Macworld keynote set off another flurry of rumors about my health, with some even publishing stories of me on my deathbed.

I’ve decided to share something very personal with the Apple community so that we can all relax and enjoy the show tomorrow.

As many of you know, I have been losing weight throughout 2008. The reason has been a mystery to me and my doctors. A few weeks ago, I decided that getting to the root cause of this and reversing it needed to become my #1 priority.

Fortunately, after further testing, my doctors think they have found the cause—a hormone imbalance that has been “robbing” me of the proteins my body needs to be healthy. Sophisticated blood tests have confirmed this diagnosis.

The remedy for this nutritional problem is relatively simple and straightforward, and I’ve already begun treatment. But, just like I didn’t lose this much weight and body mass in a week or a month, my doctors expect it will take me until late this Spring to regain it. I will continue as Apple’s CEO during my recovery.

I have given more than my all to Apple for the past 11 years now. I will be the first one to step up and tell our Board of Directors if I can no longer continue to fulfill my duties as Apple’s CEO. I hope the Apple community will support me in my recovery and know that I will always put what is best for Apple first.

So now I’ve said more than I wanted to say, and all that I am going to say, about this.

Steve

The Votes Are In: BlackBerry Storm Sucks

in , , , ,

The article below makes me even happier to know I'll have an iPhone myself, soon - Joel

Though Verizon says the Storm is its fastest selling handset yet, the touchscreen phone is also generating more negative buzz than any BlackBerry before.

Consumers and journalists are beating the Storm to a bloody pulp, with very few defending Research In Motion's response to the popular iPhone.'

The most vicious review on the Storm comes from New York Times columnist David Pogue. He ripped the Storm to oblivion last week, calling it the 'BlackBerry Dud.' And on Thursday he published some reader responses that couldn't agree with him more.

'Having tried the Storm on two different days to make sure it was
really as bad as it seemed the first time, I too find it unbelievable
that these are for sale,' a reader wrote to Pogue. 'Verizon should just box all these Storms up
and send them to Toys R Us, who can sell them in the Brainteaser
section, right next to the Rubik's Cubes.'

Verizon and RIM unleashed the Storm on Nov. 21. Sporting a 4-inch touchscreen, the handset is Verizon's attempt to compete with Apple's phenomenally successful iPhone. The resonating complaints about the Storm suggest the handset is not going to pose a threat to Steve Jobs' revolutionary phone.

Wired.com's Danny Dumas wasn't too pleased with the Storm, either: His major complaint was the operating system is a piece of garbage that doesn't do justice to 'a piece of hardware this gorgeous.'

And a quick Twitter search doesn't display much love for the Storm.

'Coworker just got a new Blackberry Storm,' tweets Jeff Casemier. 'It is a wonky P.O.S. Just F.Y.I.'' '

The complaints are likely only to get worse and more widespread: The phone's only two weeks old, and Verizon says the Storm is selling as fast as bacon-wrapped hot dogs outside a bar.

We're eager to hear what Gadget Lab readers have to say. Any of you out there with a Storm? How's it treating you? Let us know in the comments below.

(Via Wired: Gadget Lab.)

Is Google Really Using 21x The Bandwidth It Pays For?

in , , ,

Is Google Really Using 21x The Bandwidth It Pays For?: "Scott Cleland is a 'telecom analyst' who, in reality, is actually paid a large sum of money by the telcos to slam Google. He's become sort of a joke in DC circles. In the past, we noted his ridiculously bad math in claiming that Google fleeced taxpayers out of $7 billion, as well as his claims that 'open spectrum' is somehow anti-American. His main issue, of course, is trying to dispense bogus arguments for why net neutrality is really a big scam by Google to keep its broadband bills cheap. To give Cleland credit, at least he's not as bad as Mike McCurry, who once claimed that Google doesn't pay a dime for broadband. McCurry, of course, has moved on from spinning for the telcos to spinning for the entertainment industry, so Cleland needed to up his game.

He's now released a 'study' claiming that Google uses 21 times as much bandwidth as it pays for. First of all, this is simply incorrect. Cleland doesn't know how much Google actually pays for broadband, so he comes up with a small number, which is wrong for a variety of reasons.

He seems to conflate consumer broadband and Google's broadband. This is based, in part, on the old telco argument that when you buy internet access, you're only buying access to the middle of the internet, and you should have to pay a second time to actually reach any endpoint or other user. So, even though consumers pay for the bandwidth they use to reach Google, Cleland appears to calculate that as being Google's responsibility, ignoring that consumers are paying plenty for the right to reach Google (and the rest of the internet). As Cord Blomquist points out, this is like pointing out that Best Buy should pay for the gas it takes for people to drive to Best Buy. Broadband Reports also does a nice job deconstructing this.

However, even if we ignore all the basic facts and information that Cleland gets wrong, if we grant his premise, his argument still doesn't make any sense. If anything, rather than being an argument in favor of the telcos' position, Clelands report (if true) suggests that telco execs all deserve to be fired. After all, they're the ones who set up the business model and the billing relationship, and if they're undercharging Google by so much, then shouldn't they raise their prices? Of course, there's a good reason why this doesn't happen: because Google is paying fair market value for its bandwidth, and if anyone tried to charge them 21 times more, Google would quickly take its business elsewhere. So, based on this report, either Cleland is dead wrong in his report, or the telcos who funded it are run by morons who don't know how to set pricing correctly. Which one is more likely?

(Via Techdirt.)

Dawn Teo: NASCAR Car of Yesterday: Emblematic of the Detroit Problem

in , ,

America's stock car racing is to international racing as the Big 3 (Ford, GM, Chrysler) are to the international automaker industry -- both are the laughing stock (no pun intended).

NASCAR has become such a joke that something like Godwin's Law has developed: The longer a conversation continues among international racing enthusiasts, the more likely someone will make a joke about NASCAR or their misnamed Car of Tomorrow.

Foreign manufacturers see racing as a means to innovate. For automakers outside the U.S., fierce competition on the track leads to better products on the street. Companies like Honda and Toyota develop new technology for their race teams, then find ways to make it affordable for every day cars. American manufacturers, however, refuse to compete on the world stage -- both on the race track and on the street.

Almost all international touring car series require starting with a stock monocoque -- the entire car body (frame, shell, the whole shebang) -- straight off the factory floor. NASCAR starts by welding up a tubular frame (prefab from a single supplier). Then they add a thin shell of sheet metal. The trunk does not open. Headlights and taillights are stickers. NASCAR is less like a stock car racing league and more like a mock-up racing league.

Like the bloated American car companies and the fat cats that run them, NASCAR made their new Car of Tomorrow bigger and boxier, not sleeker and slimmer. International racing rewards those who build smaller, lighter, more efficient engines that squeeze more horsepower out of smaller and lighter engine blocks. The engine block and cylinder heads of NASCAR's Car of Tomorrow, on the other hand, is based on a V8 engine from the 1960s.

Instead of taking advantage of cutting edge technology, American automakers and NASCAR tap into obsolete technology that even car consumers aren't buying anymore. Even the American government has modernized more than NASCAR. It has been illegal to sell a new car that runs on a carburetor in America since the mid-1980s, but the Car of Tomorrow continued NASCAR's tradition of using carburetors.

The Car of Tomorrow also replaced the rear spoiler (on the body) with a rear wing (above the body) and replaced the front valance (aluminum curtain under the front bumper) with a front splitter. NASCAR borrowed these new design elements from international touring car racing series (e.g., DTM, BTCC) who have been using this type of rear wing and front splitter combination since the mid 1980s.

NASCAR's spoiler-splitter change came at a time when aftermarket rear wings had become very popular on street cars (think Fast and Furious). This was meant to reduce the benefits of 'drafting' while providing the additional benefit of appealing (or so they hoped) to the young, hip import performance crowd (again, think Fast and Furious). Unfortunately, the NASCAR design has made the cars notoriously more difficult to maneuver, especially when passing. The cars are also more difficult to setup (prepare for each race tracks), and drivers most commonly describe the handling as 'twitchy.'

Like the Big 3 car companies, the Car of Tomorrow is a mirage, a diaphanous image that is easily seen through when held up to the light. The Big 3 tells taxpayers they are developing the cars of tomorrow -- NASCAR claims they are racing them. The sad reality is that America's automakers are recycling yesterday's technology and sponsoring the racecars of yesterday. NASCAR touts cost savings as a primary factor in its regulatory decisions, but team owner Robert Yates says that fuel injection would be cheaper. He summed it up,

If I had to close down my engine shop and lay off all of my guys, they wouldn't be able to get a job at a car dealership because they've been working on antique engines.

NASCAR engine builder Danny Lawrence (of Richard Childress Racing) says,

They still want it to be where the guys in the shop don't have to have a lot of engineers or computer guys.

Like NASCAR, the Big 3 automakers squandered billions of dollars in profits over fifty years rather than investing in research and development that would have ensured their future. If IBM had decided in its glory days not to try to make personal computers smaller and more efficient, we would not be debating an IBM bailout.

While NASCAR is touting a Car of Tomorrow that is less aerodynamic and less efficient, the rest of the world has moved on. Technical development is the crux of international racing. Although international racing leagues take on some aspects of spec racing, they largely establish regulations by spelling out desired outcomes. This encourages innovation because each team wants to develop a faster, more efficient, more powerful way to meet any outcome set by the sanctioning bodies.

Every year, Formula 1 enacts regulations to slow down the cars for safety reasons. But where there's a will, an engineer will find a way. At the end of every year, Formula 1 cars are faster and more efficient than the year before. NASCAR's Car of Tomorrow included some similar features. Crews have gotten better at setup, and drivers have learned to better handle the car, but there has been no innovation by the engineers.

The car bosses of yesterday have tried for decades to lay the blame of their failures at the feet of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, but the unions don't design or market the cars. Unions do not allocate investment in research and development. The employees of automobile manufacturers do the same thing all American employees do. They negotiate the best compensation package they can, and then they sweat and toil every day to earn their wages. The buck stops in the corner office on the top floor -- not on the factory floor.

UAW workers have sacrificed much of their hard-earned salaries and benefits to help save these failing giants (and have already voiced willingness to make more sacrifices). After all, taking a pay cut is better than taking no pay at all. But while workers on the line have been cutting back on food, healthcare, and education for their families, the executives continued jetting around on fat bonuses and multi-million dollar salaries.

It never occurred to the Detroit 3 executives that they might sacrifice a little today for a better tomorrow until they shuffled into the capitol building two weeks ago, stepping off their corporate jets with hats in hand, asking for a handout and instead were treated to a dressing down. Their capitol cronies will surely give them their payola -- but they will join the bailout beneficiaries club only after suitable hazing. After all, what member of Congress would miss an opportunity to bolster their standing back home by publicly humiliating Detroit's finest tycoons.

When the Big 3 CEOs truckled into the beltway in ostensibly ultramodern hybrid vehicles, they paraded more of their cars of yesterday. Ford CEO Alan Mulally drove a Ford Escape Hybrid, and GM CEO Rick Wagoner drove a Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid. Both cars have a MPG (mile per gallon) rating roughly equal to the gas-drivenHonda Accord. The Ford Escape Hybrid cannot run on electric-only power above 25 mph. The Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid cannot run on electric-only power at all. Toyota and Honda have edged out the Big 3 automakers -- both in gas-driven and hybrid cars.

The $1 salaries the Big 3 CEOs are purporting are also part of the illusion. Ford CEO Alan Mulally madea public showing of accepting only a $1 salary in 2006, but he actually earned $7.9 million that year in other compensation. The CEOs of companies like Google and Apple have gotten rich on $1 salaries. This is not their first rodeo bailout.

The so-called 'Detroit problem' is not going to change without changing the executive culture of Detroit. Just like NASCAR, the Big 3 are going to go round and round in 500 circles before finally realizing the answer is to turn in the other direction.



(Via The Huffington Post | Raw Feed.)