Kim Dotcom

by Jonathan V. Last on January 27, 2012

Wired has the definitive story. Awesome.

{ 1 comment }

The Problem with TV

by Jonathan V. Last on January 27, 2012

By which I mean actual television sets, not TV programming.

It used to be that you could buy a TV set confident that, over time, obsolescence would only eat your purchase in terms of size and price. A 36″ HD set which sold for $1,100 would be displaced by a 42″ set at the same price point, while the 36″ unit would drop in price. There were mild technical innovations–deeper black levels, for instance–but the essential substance of the units stayed about the same.

Not no more.

I’m in the preliminary phases of scouting out a new television and the market is absolutely terrifying right now. There is a serious tech/aesthetic war over refresh rates. (Have you what a 120 ghz LED set does to 1080p programming? It makes everything look like it was shot with a super-high-def steady cam.) 3D may, or may not, be happening. There is no internet TV standard, so if you want web content on your big screen, you need a bunch of peripherals to get everything. There may be a new screen ratio standard displacing 16:9. And, to add to the uncertainty, Apple may (or may not) jump into the TV space in the next 18 months. Which could be either a flop, so disruptive that it re-orders the entire market.

In short, we’re at a moment where you’d have to be crazy to drop $1,500 on a new primary screen for yourself. Because you could wind up with a device that, in just 2 years, is totally obsolete.

Now, if this happens to be just a peculiar moment that’s the product of a weird confluence of events, then so be it. But I’m a little worried that this could be the general direction of the TV market in the future: That instead of being a household device which is a piece of stable capital–like a washing machine or a hot-water heater–it’s becoming a gadget. And the rule of gadgets is The are designed with very finite life-cycles so that consumers must purchase them in serial.

I really hope we’re not going to a place where we’re expected to replace our TVs every 24 to 36 months.

{ 6 comments }

Walking Dead As Family Ties

by Jonathan V. Last on January 26, 2012

Via The Transom:

 

{ 0 comments }

The Time for Mindless Repetition Is Over

by Jonathan V. Last on January 25, 2012

{ 1 comment }

Romney 2016!

by Jonathan V. Last on January 24, 2012

Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that Mitt Romney is not elected president in 2012–either because he loses the nomination or wins the nomination, but loses to President Obama. What would you guess the odds are of him putting himself forward again in 2016? Here’s Galley Reader D.R. laying down an early line:

Odds he runs again if Obama is the lame-duck incumbent?  2:1

Odds he takes on an incumbent President Gingrich for the nomination (while labeling him a “career politician who’s spent the last 4 years in Washington”)?  Even money.

{ 1 comment }

The Rich Really Are Different

by Jonathan V. Last on January 24, 2012

A look at Mitt Romney’s speaking fees and what, exactly, he did to create 89,000 jobs at Staples Inc.

{ 2 comments }

PSA

January 23, 2012

Run, Mitch, Run.

Read the full article →

The Gospel According to Tim

January 20, 2012

Jody Bottum’s newest Kindle single on Tim Tebow. Go get it.

Read the full article →

Donkey Punching on Jeopardy

January 20, 2012

And it wasn’t even College Week.

Read the full article →

Romney. Bain. Vanity Fair.

January 20, 2012

Amidst the attempted hit job is a story which, if accurate, is an interesting lens through which to view Romney’s political career. P.S. On Laura Ingraham’s show this morning, Romney said the following about Gingrich: “[Gingrich] has a message that he’ll carry,” Romney said. “I think the great difference between the two of us is [...]

Read the full article →

Warning: Awesome Ahead

January 20, 2012

From this morning’s Transom: Wipeout.

Read the full article →

Romney as Skrull King

January 19, 2012

I recommend this Peter Suderman piece on Romney not (just) for the text, but for the clever picture embedded. There are levels.

Read the full article →