I am really frustrated with my broadband provider Comcast with the constant packet drops and slow network speed.

This is sad but true. When I was traveling in Asia last year, I had much better broadband experience (in terms of both response time and reliability) in Singapore and South Korea than I have with Comcast in Cambridge. Of course, that claim is purely anecdotal. However, a study released last year by CWA supports my claim. And now, I discovered that America is lagging behind Europe in broadband penetration. A faster, higher quality broadband is needed for the fostering of new Internet businesses and technologies as well as the diffusion of new innovations and standards like IPTV. But America seems to be consistently ranked relatively low among developed nations in speed, quality, and penetration. Why is that so? First, I believe that there is simply too little competition in the America broadband market. Other than Comcast, my only other choice is Verizon. Quite frankly, I don't think the "let the market decide" strategy is working. If consumers are faced with a limited choice of broadband providers, at least there should be a national policy that mandates higher quality lines to improve the current sad state of the broadband market. But as Doug Levin says, such strategy would be deemed "undemocratic and un-American" by many. Sadly, I think the broadband market will continue to be plagued by high prices, low speed, and poor service.

3/21/2008 10:40:33 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Comments [4]

Technology

Happy pi day everyone. It's 3.14 today. I am such a nerd...

3/14/2008 2:51:32 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Comments [0]

Technology

On my last blog, I mentioned that the PS3 is overrated. I have not done any research on it, so my assertion is really based out of intuition, and online articles and forums on PS3 vs. Xbox 360. As a disclaimer, I own neither a PS3 nor Xbox 360 at the present - but I might reward myself with an Xbox 360 after I am done with school in a month.

In terms of sheer power, the PS3 beats Xbox 360 hands down (according to official technical specs). However, the Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) on the Xbox 360 is quite powerful, which is further complemented by a shared memory architecture that boasts higher system bandwidth. This architecture should put the performance of the 360 on par with PS3. According to one report, the 360 is considerably more user-friendly and less buggy, while the PS3 is still marred by bugs. From a marketing perspective, the PS3 is released a year late and considerably more expensive than the 360. Usually, I am not a firm believer that first-in-market players will always emerge as winners (think of Google and Microsoft). But in this case, I think that a year is an eternity in a gaming world especially given that the Xbox 360 is a well-designed game console (rather unusual for Microsoft). Then there is the availability of software titles. What good is great hardware if there is a lack of good software? With a year head start, there are already considerable titles released for the 360 with many newer titles taking advantage of the Xbox 360 architecture although I suspect PS3 will eventually catch up. Also according to this article on Gamespot, for every PS3 sold Sony is losing from $240 to $300 depending on configuration. In contrast, Microsoft is losing $75 per Xbox 360 console now, down from $124 when the console was first released. The economist in me is now yelling that I should go buy a Sony PS3 since I will be getting more than what I pay for. Of course, finding a PS3 in the market is quite impossible at the moment unless I am will to shed a few thousand dollars for one on eBay. Unfortunately, Sony is still having problems on the manufacturing of PS3 and the console will likely remain sold out till the next quarter.

Enough said about game consoles.

11/21/2006 11:48:07 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Comments [4]

Technology

I wrote about the continuing DVD format war between HD DVD and Blu-Ray on my previous blog entry. The question is who will emerge as the victor in this battle? NEC announced today that it has developed a chip that is capable of decoding the two DVD formats at the same cost of a decoder that reads only one format. Just like any other format wars before, the whole format compatibility becomes a non-issue as future DVD players will support both formats. Ultimately, there are no winners or losers in this silly format war. The only problem now is to find an affordable optical pickup that reads both formats.

10/11/2006 10:54:49 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

Comments [0]

Technology

Here's a picture of Earth taken by the Mars Rover:

Source: NASA

6/5/2006 5:52:40 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

Comments [0]

Technology

I love talking to my good friend, Camille, about product development and marketing. He is a product manager/engineer and his insights in this subject are always valuable. Today, during lunch we talked about the next media format battle: Blu-Ray Disc versus HD DVD. Camille said the following, which I thought made a lot of sense: "What determines which format will win in any format battle is convenience, not technical superiority or price. Think about it, between CD and vinyl records, customers chose CD at the end not because they offer better sound quality but for the convenience of not having to use the needle. Likewise, MP3 and iPod became super popular not because MP3 sounds better, but because MP3 is a great format for storing massive amount of data in one small device. Again, it is all about convenience."

Because we digressed some much from our conversation afterwards, we didn't have the chance to finish our discussion on the next dominant DVD format. But I subscribe to Camille's notion that consumers will always look for solutions that are most convenient for them. One can argue that in VHS vs. Betamax, VHS won because it was conveniently easy to buy VHS players and VHS tapes. In Laserdisc vs. DVD, DVD won because of it is conveniently smaller to handle than Laserdisc.

In continuing my thoughts on the topic of Blu-ray disc versus HD DVD, I think one of the most compelling features of HD DVD is that it is backwards compatible with existing DVDs. In other words, HD DVD players can play both HD DVD and DVD discs. In fact, there's a hybrid HD DVD that allows the disc to be played in a DVD player or HD DVD player. On the DVD player, only DVD information will be played. Furthermore, HD DVDs can be manufactured using the same fabrication process as that of CDs and DVDs, making HD DVDs relatively cheaper to produce than Blu-Ray Discs. So far, from most of the literature that I have read about HD DVD and Blu-Ray discs, it seems to me that it is more convenient for me to adopt HD DVD than Blu-Ray disc. On the contrary, will consumers appreciate the convenience of a higher storage capacity that Blu-Ray discs offer? Moreover, while the specifications for Blu-ray drive don't call for backwards compatibility with DVD, some manufacturers, like Samsung, have been developing Blu-ray drives that do. Both formats currently have about the amount of support from the industry. I think if the Sony PS3 and HDTV take off in the next two years, Blu-ray will emerge as winner. Otherwise, the future will be HD DVD. Ultimately, I think it is hard to predict which format will win; but I have a hunch that, like DVD+R versus DVD-R, the whole format compatibility becomes a non-issue as future DVD players will support both formats.

5/31/2006 4:36:24 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

Comments [0]

Technology

I attended the Lux Executive Summit on Nanotech the last 2 days at Charles Hotel in Harvard Square. I am used to listening to the academic and technological viewpoint of nanotechnology at MIT. It was refreshing on get a different perspective on the business impact of nanotechnology from industry leaders and analysts. Here are some notes from the conference.

• Many customers and investors aren't sophisticated enough to understand nanotechnology. Unless they ask, don't explain to them about the technology. Explain the applications of nanotechnology and how people may benefit from them. For example, start off by saying that nanotechnology enhanced-batteries have a longer lasting battery life. Your laptop will last much longer with one of these batteries.
• 3 industrial segments impacted by nanotechnology are:
• Manufacturing and materials
• Electronics and IT
• Biotech and life sciences
• Nanomaterials face huge barriers as traditional companies maybe reluctant to adopt this new technology. Manufacturers are more concerned about process change than the technology.
• Startups can't sell their nanomaterials based on technology, they have to have a case for lowering their costumers' overall cost with minimal or no process change.
• China will become both the largest consumer and producer of nanotechnology by 2010.

Sorry for the short list of notes, I wasn't really taking notes at the conference.

10/25/2005 11:49:57 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

Comments [2]

Technology