Amazon Unveil Frustration Free Packaging Initiative

Amazon have decided that they too are fed up with all the nearly impossible to open and environmentally unfriendly packaging that companies use. Their initiative to ship products in easy to open and dispose of environmentally friendly packaging is meeting with a lot of favour on a lot of tech blogs and also with users in general. I'm personally happy with this initiative because of my own frustration at the finger ripping plasic manufacturers tend to use in their packaging. Bravo Amazon, lets hope they aren't the last company to take this idea seriously.

New Product Reviews — September & October 2008

Lots of great new product reviews over the past 30 days!

• Take Your Photography to the Next Level
  
• Dazzle Digital Video Creator Platinum & Plus
  
• Tamron AF 28-300mm XR Di VC Zoom Lens
  
• Xara Xtreme Pro
  
• Nikon D60 Digital SLR Camera
  
• The Moment It Clicks: Photography Secrets
  
• miTouch & miCradle for Apple iPod Touch and Apple iPhone
  
• Toshiba Tecra M9 Laptop
  
• UpStrap Shoulder Straps for SLR and Prosumer Cameras
  

That's all for now. Check Kickstartnews regularly for news & new reviews.

Camera Straps Don't Make You a Target for Thieves

BUT . . . a good quality, purpose-built strap can prevent a lot of grief.

Using a camera strap emblazoned with the camera maker's logo is no more or less an invitation to theft, while traveling or on vacation, than it is the sign of a good photographer.

It's only the work of about an hour and a half to poke around on the CIA World Factbook web site and search through annual crime stats and victim reports published by newspaper web sites in different countries to develop a reasonable estimate of losses suffered by photography tourists.

I have heard, third or fourth hand, about people who've been the victims of snatch & dash thieves, but I've never actually met anyone first-hand who has lost any gear to snatch & dash thieves. I know it happens because I've traveled to some nasty areas at home and abroad in which I've occasionally seen obvious thieves 'casing' my gear.

Published and widely available crime stats and analysis and incident reports from Canada, the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy show that 85% of all thieves only look for targets of opportunity however. In fact, somebody walking down the street with a camera slung over their shoulder or neck along with a camera bag and one hand on the camera body is a very difficult proposition for a thief who just wants to run in and run out as fast as possible. While I don't want to minimize the real gear losses that some people may have suffered due to thieves, stats from around the world seem to show that the vast majority of tourist camera gear is stolen out of unguarded camera bags, when the owners' attentions are elsewhere. Street kids in some countries are drafted to hang around local tourist sites in some cities and simply watch for tourists to put their camera bags (or large purses or whatever) on the ground when they sit down to rest or to take a photo unencumbered by their load. The signal is given to the lurking thief and the gear is stolen while the tourists' attentions are elsewhere. The same thing happens in restaurants, museums and airports. Actual assaults by thieves attempting to run up or run by and rip a securely strapped camera or bag from someone's shoulder are very rare. Physical muggings, in which a tourist or photographer is confronted at gun or knife point in a secluded area, are even more rare.

These days, the word "Nikon" or "Canon" on a neck or shoulder strap is only a hint for any thieves that happen to be about to try and check out what's actually slung or stored in the bag. The fact is, experienced thieves know that an uncomfortably large percentage of what at first glance looks like Nikon, Canon, Rolex, Breitling, Louis Vuitton, etc., may not in fact be the real article. I think most people realize that thieves don't steal goods for their own use. They steal in order to sell goods for cash to a Fence or Pawnbroker. Too many thieves have been badly 'burned' by risking arrest and imprisonment for what turned out to be fake goods. So even in the poorest areas, a camera strap emblazoned with the bright yellow Nikon logo is often only a warning sign rather than a green light.

Throughout decades of travel, a determined attitude when walking (always have a destination in mind, but wander as you please at the eventual destination), the habit of always hanging onto my gear, and never, ever shouldering so much gear that I end up sweating and exhausted with my bag sitting on the ground beside me while I rest (far too many gear hounds haul around far too much on a day walks and night walks, and general walkabouts), has helped keep thieves away from me and my gear.

Knowing your route while walking is also a good idea. Plan your route while you're still at the hotel. Gazing vaguely about in public while referencing a map book offers an opportunity for a thief to walk up and ask if you need any help. If you need to reference your map book while walking, do yourself a favor and stop at a cafe for a cold drink or a coffee. Place your camera bag under the table, wrap the strap around your leg, enjoy your juice or coffee and pore over your map book.

The main reason I don't use Nikon straps has nothing to do with being afraid of advertising the brand of gear I use. I hate Nikon straps because they're thin pieces of irritating junk suitable only for use on top of a thick jacket or over a heavy shirt collar. I don't like heavy gear slung around my neck and the camera maker's straps are by & large useless on the shoulder. They're just too insecure because they slide off too easily. As far as I'm concerned, they're truly meant to be little more than an excuse to display the camera maker's logo in a prominent spot. I see quite a few people in many places around the world using the branded strap supplied with the camera, and I just don't understand why the camera owners haven't replaced them with vastly more comfortable and useful third-party straps.

So what straps are good? I'm hooked on the UpStrap these days for shoulder carry. The design is tried and tested and remains about the best insurance against accidentally dropping your camera in awkward situations. BlackRapid makes a superb, highly usable strap for cross-shoulder (across the chest) carry. Domke's standard shoulder strap works well when used on clothing or jackets with coarse weaves or textured surfaces. Lowepro neck straps have a wide, shock absorbing neck section that distributes weight extremely well. Tamrac neck straps also use a well designed shock absorbing neck pad that works. OpTech uses more extensive shock absorbing material in a design which may be the best of its type. Taking anywhere between 30-60 minutes in a camera shop to actually attach and try out a variety of straps will save you much aggravation and disappointment later (say, in the middle of a photography trip or a family holiday). One thing you can be sure of no matter which camera strap you choose is that a strap which works properly for your particular carry is a vastly higher priority than any consideration about whether or not the strap displays a camera maker's logo.

MySpace Suicide Case

There is currently a case against a mother who posed as a teenage boy in order to harass another teen online. In the process of harrassing her, she ended up driving her to suicide. The case has taken a bizarre, if not predictable turn as rights groups such as EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), the CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology) and Public Citizen are opposing the government's criminal charges against the mother. These groups along with a group of 14 law professors, have filed an amicus brief in the case, in the belief that if the mother, Lori Drew, is prosecuted using CFAA charges, the case could have significant ramifications for the free speech rights of US citizens using the Internet.
Whilst I applaud the general activities of these groups, sometimes they need to thnk about the victims of crimes like this. To be honest with you I think this whole free speech thing has gotten out of hand, if it is proven that this woman hounded this girl to her death then she should be held responsible. We've forgotten that freedom without responsibility is tantamount to an invitation to chaos. Free speech without the concept of responsibility is meaningless, because of the abuses it invites. It'll be interesting to see how this case unfolds...

Danger! Buying a Digital Camera from a Private Online Discounter

Horror stories abound, many of them true, about consumers who have been ripped off by private online digital SLR camera discounters. The usual entry point starts with an ad on a private discounter's web site offering a digital SLR for $50 to $100 less than the same model being sold by the big name online digital SLR camera dealers such as B&H Photo-Video, Adorama, Cameta, Henrys, Vistek, Camera Canada and so on.

The major online retailers originate mainly from major brick & mortar dealers. They are entitled to and take advantage of the best volume pricing breaks from the camera distributors. The majors also negotiate shipping deals with carriers such as the postal service, FedEx and UPS. So how is it possible for much smaller online retailers to undersell the big boys? The answer is obvious. Either the discounters are selling everything at a slight loss, or more likely, the discounters are making up the price difference somewhere else. That last part is the key.

Recently on the DPReview discussion forums poster named PixelDave asked "Have any of you ever used these guys [CentralDigital.com]? Seems like they have an OK rating on reseller ratings and are selling the D300 for $1629 - 4%. Just wondering if they are safe." I responded to Dave with the following (edited slightly here for context).

"You've really got to read their D300 info page carefully. Note that the so-called Starter accessory package includes the camera battery . . . for an additional $90. The Starter accessory package does not supply an extra battery — just the one that is supposed to be in the camera box. That means the camera box itself does NOT contain the standard (excellent) battery that is supposed to be there. CentralDigital is a complete ripoff in my opinion. The other items in the Starter accessory kit seem to be all garbage including what I'll bet is a useless/glacially slow no-name 4GB CF card.

$1629 + $90 (you NEED a battery for the camera) works out to $1739, but OOPS — B&H Photo is selling a real D300 package (complete with the proper battery, charger and cables as supplied by Nikon) for only $1699. I wonder if CentralDigital will also try to sell you the stock cables and the charger as 'extras' too?

Who knows what other additional charges CentralDigital might try to add to your credit card for packing, handling and shipping."

In the same thread, DavidH wrote to point out that "Amazon reseller, Ray M. supervisor $1650, have over 50 D300s in stock. (orig over 100 a few days back-all USA). We were leary of NY [discount online] camera stores, but trusted Amazon. Fast extra courteous service, no lip or hard sell. These guys want business and good reputation."

Okay . . . maybe. But if these units are grey market items without a Nikon USA warranty, it's not a deal for the US-based customer. If the units are in fact domestic market inventory and supplied with the full Nikon USA warranty then it's a good deal. The original poster has to compare warranty, shipping & handling, all the items supplied in the box, the total retail price and the return policy (in case he receives a defective unit) in order to do an accurate comparison. The major US and Canadian online retailers make it easy to sort this stuff out. The discount guys don't. Neither do Amazon and eBay with their rather limited amount of space for resellers, retailers and private sellers to list product details. On eBay, half or more of almost every listing is composed of endless disclaimers and threats to potential false or flaky bidders.

Adorama (on Amazon) currently shows what looks like a great Nikon D300 package which includes all the usual stuff in the box (camera, battery, charger, USB cable, A/V cable, manual, LCD shield) plus a value pack containing a 2GB CF memory card, a spare EN-EL3e Lithium-Ion battery, Lowepro holster-style case, Mack 3 year extended warranty, digital remote shutter release, and Nikon Understanding Digital Photography with Nikon SLRs DVD, all for $1829.

There's lots to compare, but it's clearly a better deal than anything offered by the private online discounters.

I don't blame or fault small businesses in any way — guys who are flogging excess inventories at low prices, legitimate small camera dealers who are cutting margins razor thin to try to build some market share and so on. But if any problems arise, I think consumers are often not as well served by the private online discounters because the discounters can't (and often won't) handle two-way traffic of any kind (returns, refunds, missing items). The hard sell you may receive from a private online discounter trying to force you to purchase a battery (sometimes at an inflated price!) that is supposed to be included with the camera, service delays or non-existent service (in the event of delivery problems or receipt of a defective camera) can end up turning what initially appeared to be a $50 or $100 'saving' into an aggravating mess.

If consumers insist on saving every possible dollar, good for them. But when dealing with private discounters, deal locally — or at least some place close enough to where you live so that in the event of problems you can reach out and touch someone.

Check every online digital SLR camera deal carefully. Use the well-established online retailers as a baseline.

1. Go to the camera manufacturer's web site to find out exactly what is supposed to be included in the package
2. Go to B&H, Adorama, Cameta, Henrys, Vistek and Camera Canada to find out how the big guys are competing on price.
   
3. Check the package contents list on each of the major sites you're using for comparison.
   
4. Check the shipping fee to your address. Note that the major online retailers don't charge any sort of handling or packaging fee.
   
5. Armed with all of the foregoing start comparing prices at the private discounter sites. Add any and all the 'extras' to the listed price to get to the real item cost. Then add the private discounters' typical packaging (that's right - some private discounters want to charge you for the shipping box), handling (again - some private discounters try to charge you a fee to actually pack the camera for shipment), and shipping fees.
   
6. Last, if you ever find a private discounter or a smaller corporate online retailer who can legitimately beat the big guys, visit reseller ratings and the BBB web sites (among others) to see if there have been any serious complaints.
   
7. When reading complaints about retailers, try to filter out the complaints which are obviously made by uninformed consumers or outright liars who tried to con a retailer but couldn't get away with it.

BIG IMPORTANT NOTE: A major digital SLR camera purchase can cost upwards of $2,000. That's a lotta dough. If you're going to spend 8-10 hours or more trying to sort out the best price online, ask yourself if the time will be better spent driving/traveling to the nearest major shopping city in order to personally visit a bunch of camera stores. Armed with your best legitimate online price, you may be able to get the retailer to meet or beat the deal. If so, you'll also be able to try out in-store the camera you're actually taking home.

The best way to set up a personal comparison shopping tour of local or regional camera stores is to get on the telephone and ask each store if the product you want is in stock. Check the store hours of operation, then use a map to set up the most logical route from store to store. Set aside some time for lunch. Smart consumers do everything possible to put their hands on the expensive item they're considering buying. In the process, talking to as many retailers face-to-face as possible and previously interacting online in some of the great discussion forums at DPReview and Nikonians (there are many others), you'll be able to make an informed confident, affordable purchasing decision.

Buyer Beware!

Software Purchases - Sale or Lease

One of the basic premises many software companies use to define their releationship with their users is the idea that users are not really buying their software, but merely leasing or licensing it. This premise allows the software companies certain protections. What it also does is prevent the resale of the software. However with high priced items like Adobe's suite and Autocad, this can be a sticky issue. A recent case where Timothy Vernor and Autodesk have locked legal horns over whether or not he had the right to sell used copies of Autodesk's software, has the potential to overturn this whole premise. Timothy Vernor and his legal reps used the First Sale Doctrine as a basis for fighting Autodesk in court and won.

An article over at Ars Technica discusses this issue in depth, in discussing First Sale Doctrine, the article states:

ensures the right to re-sell used copies of copyrighted works. It is the principle that makes libraries and used book stores possible. The First Sale Doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in 1908 and has since been codified into statute.

Autocad aggresively pursued Timothy Vernor on ebay when he started selling used copies of their software on the Site. They started filing DCMA notices which ended up in the suspension of Vernors account preventing him from carrying out his business. Vernor makes a living from selling items he buys at auctions, flea markets, garage and office sales.

The judge in the case, Richard A. Jones, determined that the sales as such were protected under First Sale Doctrine due to the circumstances under which the software is sold. If this case is appealed and the judge's decision is upheld, this will have far reaching consequences for the industry. This will allow purchasers of software to resell the products they buy but don't use, but it will also mean that software firms might have to start looking at how they licence their products. If they are smart the larger firms will look at opportunities this will offer like selling transfer fees for support and upgrades to new users of old software. It will also create problems such as updating user registries and veryfying transfers with previous or existing users.

This will be a case to watch as it will have a lot of repercussions for us all, user and creator and reseller alike.

Comcast P2P, Expensive Music Downloads — Consumers Always Pay

Ars Technica reported Comcast's announcement of its plan to lead an industry partnership in the creation of a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" that would apply both to users and to ISPs. I think client p2p sponsored or offered by telcos, cable companies and their ISP operations has been lurking in the shadows for some time. I also think that previously the perceptible delay or the palpable resistance to p2p functionality by the telcos has resulted largely from an inability of the telcos to devise a worthwhile monetization plan. The obvious financial gain resulting from bandwidth usage and the accompanying charges to customers doesn't offset the huge potential load that existing infrastructure and switching would have to carry. But now that all the telcos and cable providers have thrown down the gauntlet and declared, essentially, that net neutrality (another buzzword for sure) is here and in the process of being implemented, it's quite possible that p2p functionality will suddenly become viable (and specifically chargeable as a service distinct from texting, phone calls, voice mail, caller ID, etc.).

The other question that giants like Comcast have recently asked their legal staff is "Are we opening the company to legal action brought by copyright holders if we enable p2p?" The most frequent answer seems to be that as long as Comcast promotes the use of p2p functionality, and more important, as long as copyright holders and managers such as Apple (through its iTunes web site) are willing to pay Comcast a tithe to ensure customers have fast access to the iTunes site (thereby provide sufficient revenue to make infrastructure loading and improvements worthwhile), everybody's ass is covered. No lawyer can then make a case against Comcast for enabling illegal file sharing the day after the same legal staff approves a deal for Apple to pay a fee to Comcast to ensure that Apple customers who are also Comcast customers have fast access to the iTunes store.

It's initially a complex equation. The most worrisome factor might be the degree to which Comcast and its competitors decide to impose potentially invasive usage monitoring to ensure specifically that p2p usage remains legal and within the guidelines for Fair Use set out in section 107 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Is the potential sacrifice of privacy worth the dubious privileges conferred by paying for a p2p feature on your cell phone? Possibly worse still, what will bandwidth payments by Apple to Comcast do to the purchase price of music downloads?

In the end, consumers pay, then pay again, and then yet again. What's the real cost of a music download on iTunes in such a situation? After accounting for the small proportionate cost of your ISP contract, cell phone plan, data plan, p2p client fee, bandwidth charges if you go over a monthly limit, the cost of a song download, the cost for the time required to burn a CD at home (for those people who prefer to listen to a CD in the car), the cost of the CD itself, the proportionate cost of hard drive storage space and backup storage space, and the cost for the time needed to make redundant backups of Digital Rights Management (CRM) licenses, purchasing music online may not be the bargain anyone thinks it is.

UK - US Pricing Divide

There has been a lot of discussion about the disparity in product pricing between the UK (where I am based) and the US for the same items. In many cases products cost twice as much (and even more in some cases) as they do in the US. So why is that? Do the products incur local costs such as support offices, distribution warehouses and so on? Or is it just a case of greed.

Rock Band is one example of a product which is markedly more expensive than the US version. Where the US retail version costs about $150 (equivalent to UK£75), the UK version will retail for around £180. How in hell do you justify charging the UK equivalent of $360 for this toy?

Translation costs? I dont think so.

Support? Maybe ... but what with all the outsourcing going on probably not.

Greed? Quite likely.

There is some excellent coverage of this particular product and the issues at the RockBand.com forums. We've covered this issue before with respect to how Microsoft and Adobe have followed similarly outrageous sorts of pricing strategies in the UK. It's quite shocking that the British consumer keeps paying prices so far above other, similar western markets for so many products including games, electronics, optics and much more.

Sure we have high sales taxes and import duties, but twice the price? Come on. Get real!

Patent Issues Must Read

ARS Technica have published an article which discusses some of the issues facing the current patent process and the viewpoints of some of the players in the battles surrounding the laws involved in them. In the article, which is well worth a read, they state that: "Two of the nation's leading civil liberties organizations and a new organization dedicated to the abolition of software patents have all filed amicus briefs in a patent case that could give the courts an opportunity to revisit the issue of software and business method patents." I'll be following this one as I think that the whole patent process as it stands is bad for innovation and too easy to abuse.

Rogers Hi-Speed Internet — No Deals Here

It had to happen. The apparently coarse and transparent oafs who seem to be running many of the cable Internet providers have finally dropped the other shoe. After years of urging us to "get online and experience a world of information, digital photography, digital music, digital video, movies and entertainment" they've now got everyone hooked. So what better time than now to introduce blatantly abusive usage charges while remaining protected by rate increase legislation?

Rogers (in Canada) is just one example. Let's de-construct the first paragraph of the latest mailing to all Rogers business and residential customers:

"With households doing more online every day [at Rogers' urging - the company spends millions to market itself and its services every year] - from downloading music and streaming videos to joining online communities [Rogers of course already charges good money for music and video/TV streaming] - it's important to have an Internet provider that evolves to meet your changing needs [e.g., charging you for services for which it has already charged you]. At Rogers, we remain committed to always providing you with the best Internet experience possible [except for terrible business service, inaccurate records, service technicians who fail to arrive for a scheduled call, and throttling of the same client/server data exchanges for which its now going to charge extra fees]. That's why we are introducing changes to your current service that will help us to better meet your needs for speed, reliability and a continually improved network [read: we're effectively a monopoly in many parts of Canada, so we assigned our legal staff to find a regulatory loophole which allows us to charge more money for the exact same service!].

Bully for them.

According to Rogers, I am paying $54.95 per month (plus taxes) for a 10Mbps connection. The problem with that statement is simply that I've never achieved anything close to 10Mbps download speeds. Before starting to write this post at 10:30 AM EST in Toronto, I checked my connection speed at Toast.Net. The best I could do was 6.7Mbps. That's nowhere near 10Mbps. I tried the same tests at 1:00 AM this morning and the best I could do was 7.3Mbps. It doesn't matter what time of day you want to consider because the theoretical maximum speed on which all of Rogers customer marketing is based can rarely (if ever) be achieved in practice.

A curse on the collective corporate consciousness that eructs and promotes this sort of patented drivel. A curse on the regulatory boards and the government legislators who swallow the drivel. Rogers advertises speeds which it can't or won't deliver, but regulators seem blind to the situation. The Devil is in the details, but if nobody examines the details, the Devil has his way.

As of June 1, 2008, Rogers is going to cap monthly bandwidth traffic at 95GB for Extreme and Extreme Plus customers, and charge an additional $1.50 and $1.25/GB respectively for every GB over the limit (to a maximum of $25/month). Don't forget to calculate the additional cost the first time you decide to subscribe to a remote data backup service such as Carbonite, Mozy or even Dell's new service. That first 100GB backup could be a killer.

I really hate these people. They dig with buckets underneath the outhouse, run away with whatever they find, then reappear trying to sell us our own shit (or theirs) at inflated prices.