The Digital Home

Big 4 or CNET?

(Credit: CNET)

For those of you who are unaware of my history, I used to work at an unnamed Big 4 auditor before I made my move to writing. Back then, my life was one big blur of hard work, mental exercise and boredom.

My whole life I enjoyed technology and the world of gadgets, but I never seemed to have an outlet to express it. So, with quite a bit of luck, I was able to start in this business as a volunteer writer who wrote feature length articles that were assigned to me. From there, I was offered a position with Ziff-Davis as a part-time blogger, and then parlayed that experience into more writing gigs. Today, I'm lucky enough to be a tech journalist who spews his beliefs to people like you every day. And while I understand that you sometimes disagree with my opinion on a given subject, I respect your belief and welcome any retort you may set forth. Trust me, I have learned over the past few years that no one can be right about this business all the time, but if you love what you do and truly believe what you say, you'll never lose sight of the truth.

But with over 15 publications currently asking me to express my opinion or write up features on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, I commonly find myself reverting back to the days as "big bad auditor Don." When I was an auditor, I knew business inside and out and was lucky enough to see how CEOs, CFOs and the rest run a successful operation. But what always struck me was how different tech companies are from every other industry.

Tech companies are typically run by visionaries or young people that were the original creators of the product or service. And while other businesses have the same kind of operation, it always seemed that tech companies were different -- until they became too big.

Small tech companies don't have employees wear suits to work each day and more often than not, the employees will roam around the halls with a tee-shirt ans jeans on. Working for a tech company seemed fun, appealing, and more often than not, relatively laid back -- nothing like my job as an auditor.

Knowing business is important in tech writing. I'm a firm believer that if you don't know business, you simply don't know technology. Everything that guides these products from R&D to our store shelves is governed by the business world. If the execs think a product will succeed based on countless days of research and market analysis, you'll see it. If, after research is complete, those same execs believe a product isn't suitable for the market they are targeting, it'll die on the vine.

Sometimes, products slip through the cracks and perform poorly because of issues that were either unforeseen or ignored. Other times, expected junkers become hits because they fill a void in a market. Either way, this business is unique.

Try to find me another industry that's as unique as the tech industry. How many different sites are able to update news every single day with at least thirty or forty stories? More often than not, people read these stories because they share the same love for tech that I, and the rest of the journalists in my field share.

That said, we must never lose sight of the fact that business dictates this business and the dollar sign will trump all. Sometimes companies are wrong and other times right, but we're lucky enough to live in a world where the majority of technology products fall under the "good" category.

Yes, Senator, it's a series of tubes

(Credit: Holman)

All of this talk about reworking the Internet and IPv6 has me thinking: has the Internet become as important as water? Some would surely say that I'm off my rocker on this one and say that, of course water is more important than the Internet. And while I agree that without water we can't survive, and without the Internet we can, this is not meant to be a discussion on biology. The truth of the matter is that we, as a world, have become so reliant on the Internet that it's quickly becoming just as important as water.

First off, let me address the most obvious argument you may make with my rationale: "well, when I was living through the sixties and seventies, I survived without the Internet." I know you did and I commend you on living so long, but I think you're missing the point. Too often, this argument comes back to the biology of water and the 'Net, but it should come back to the current culture.

Forty years ago, the Internet was a pie-in-the-sky idea that most believed would never happen. Further, no one could have imagined where the Internet has taken us, and some are still left wondering where it can go. You were able to survive without the Internet forty years ago because the entire world didn't rely on it. Consider this: telephones weren't running over broadband forty years ago, businesses weren't cropping up online, and the constant flow and source of information that the Internet has provided didn't even come into play in the business world. Simply put, we were a society with no worldly understanding and reliance only on pen and paper. The society of forty years past is not the society of today.

When the Internet first made its appearance as Arpanet in 1969, few people could have imagined what it has become. No one could have guessed that it would permeate every level of every society in the world. As Thomas Friedman explained so eloquently, "the world is flat."

Now, let's imagine a world without the Internet. Surely some would say the youth would go back to reading books and print media would finally make the long-awaited comeback. Still others would say that the death of the Internet would increase our security, add physical activity back into our lives, make the US public lose weight and put an end to online criminal enterprises. I understand that argument, but I think it's entirely wrong.

Within minutes of the Internet's death, the stock market would crash (if it was still standing, given its reliance on the Internet). Every online public company like Google, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon and the rest would immediately be sold off and millions of people would lose their retirement and college planning money. Billions of dollars would fall out of the US and world economy in a matter of minutes. Once all online companies were rendered completely inert, the wave would move to technology firms that provide services related to the Internet. In other words, Microsoft would go under and Steve Jobs would need to find himself a new job. Millions more would lose billions of dollars in what would amount to the worst financial crisis in the history of the world.

Once businesses failed, people would lose their jobs and a steep rise in poverty would begin all over the world. And, as we all know, a rise in poverty would precipitate a significant increase in crime, which would make us all wish for the days of spam, spyware and viruses.

Schools, which have moved towards the Internet as a viable learning tool would need to rethink the curriculum and effectively teach children (who grew up with the Internet) an entirely new way of learning. Surely this wouldn't be easy, but it could be one of the easiest transitions to make.

The biggest impact would be in the business sector. Companies that were still able to survive after the great stock market crash would need to rethink business strategies, and more importantly, business processes. With well over 90 percent of companies relying on the Internet in some way or another, books would quickly become the new Internet for research and litigation purposes. Accounting and law firms that have subscribed to online research databases would need to buy new books for changed laws, but the firms shouldn't do it too early, because the government will need to step in and amend laws related to the Internet.

In a matter of minutes, communication will be reduced to word of mouth. In a world where people were growing more accustomed to email, they will now need to go back to the telephone to communicate, which, of course, is an issue because land lines currently run in the same way Skype and other VOiP services do -- over the Internet.

Rest assured, panic will most certainly set in. Most government works and those processes that we take for granted will be eliminated because most of their reliance on communication over a network that -- believe it or not -- runs on a protected area of the Internet.

Online orders of merchandise and food would need to stop, so companies with streamlined arrangements will need to go back to phone calls and telegrams, which will slow down the delivery of essentials, thus creating even more panic. The airline industry, practically crippled already, will most certainly meet its demise when people can no longer afford to travel, which would precipitate a death blow to Boeing and other large aircraft manufacturers.

In just a few days, all online companies will need to close and the Dollar, Euro and every other currency will carry no value.

In a word, our world would be chaotic.

Sad as it is, the possibility of an all-out closure of the Internet is entirely possible. And to make matters worse, the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team -- the government arm in charge of protecting the Internet -- receives (on average) about 0.2 percent of the annual Department of Homeland Security budget. So far, it hasn't failed us, but at what point will that small sum of money come back to bite us? You never know, it could happen.

In closing, I'm not here to make the argument that the Internet is as important as water -- to me, they're two entirely different things. That said, I will say that the Internet, save for the whole biology aspect, is almost as important to our survival as water. Without water, we die. Without the Internet itself, we can survive. But if we lose the Internet and live through the precipitating effects outlined above, no one can say that the harmful effects of it's loss are any less significant than the possibility of losing water.

Every Thursday, Don picks a current-events topic and discusses how it will impact us in the future. Check out more from Don's Future Implications series.

Bose QuietComfort 3

(Credit: Bose)

As a guy who prefers silence over noise and high-quality music playback over garbage, I'm an ideal candidate for noise-canceling headphones. And while I know these headphones have been out for a while and most of the people who already own them are the only people who care about noise-canceling headphones, I couldn't resist taking a look at the Bose QuietComfort 3 noise-canceling headphones.

The Bose QuietComfort series of noise-canceling headphones were originally designed as a way to block out annoying noises. If you're a frequent flyer and you can't stand the sound of the roaring engine next to your window, the QuietComfort 3s may be perfect for you. If you ride a bus or you're easily susceptible to medical issues because of persistent and annoying noises, the Quiet Comfort 3s may be an ideal solution. But if you want to completely eliminate sound while muting all of the annoying people around you, the Quiet Comfort 3s are not for you.

I've had the opportunity to play around with the QuietComfort 3 headphones for the past week and so far, I can tell you that they work quite well. The right headphone features a toggle switch that will allow you to activate or deactivate the noise-reduction technology and its over-the-head design is quite comfortable after prolonged use.

The predecessor to the QuietComfort 3 (appropriately named the QuietComfort 2) featured an around-the-ear design that was quite capable of not allowing any sound to leak in. But in an effort to reduce the size of the headphones, Bose created an on-the-ear design with the QuietComfort 3. One of the main issues it was concerned about was the loss of sound control and the possibility of leakage. Luckily, Bose was able to maintain an equal amount of noise-reduction by creating a memory foam cushioning for your ear that, while it still sits on top of your ear, basically envelops it. Rationale aside, the QuietComfort 3s do just as good a job at reducing noise.

In order to get a feel for how well the headphones worked, I decided to create one of the most annoying atmospheres you will ever find in a home. I took out all of my old (and current) desktops and took the side panels off. Then, I turned the vacuum on and cranked the air conditioning up. Once that (hell) was complete, I put the headphones on and flipped the switch. Much to my surprise, all I really heard was a dull sound in the background. Simply put, these headphones work extremely well.

The QuietComfort 3s also play music with the help of an included headphone jack that can be detached at anytime. With my iPod plugged in and the noise-canceling activated, I listened to my songs like never before. Although I have used headphones that offered similar, if not equal sound quality, the ambient noise reduction added something to the music that made it stand out. Bass was quite appealing while listening to some tunes, while the treble was a little sluggish at times. All in all though, sound quality is superb.

The biggest issue I have with the headphones is the loss of music once the noise-canceling dies. As soon as the 20-hour rechargeable battery runs out of juice, the music runs out too. Bose should have included some interface with the device to allow it charge from the iPod's battery, but I guess I can't have everything.

If you're looking for noise-canceling headphones that will completely eliminate all sound, you should look elsewhere. But if you're happy with annoying noise-canceling and you don't mind spending the $350 fee for a pair, then the Bose Quiet Comfort 3s are ideal.

To check out what the CNET Reviews team had to say about the Bose Quiet Comfort 3, click here.

Check back each Friday on The Digital Home as Don performs a hands-on evaluation of some of the hottest home products around. Next week: TBD. If you want to see prior Hands-on Friday articles from Don, click here

In a report that is guaranteed to make Apple fanboys proud and Apple haters scoff, the market research firm IDC has released a study claiming that Apple has officially become the third-largest computer vendor in the United States.

According to the study, Apple shipped 960,000 units in the second quarter of 2007, and the Cupertino, Calif.-based company now commands 5.6 percent of the U.S. market--a jump of 0.8 percent from the same time last year.

On the Windows side of things, Dell, while still firmly entrenched as the nation's No. 1 computer vendor, witnessed an 11 percent decline, and HP, the country's No. 2, enjoyed 26 percent growth.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

So what do all of these numbers mean to the average consumer? Not too much. But if we were to take a more well-rounded view of the news, one thing immediately comes to my mind: Apple is well on its way to dominating the home.

I understand that 5.6 percent is not too significant, and the nation's top vendors are releasing Windows systems, but Apple's rise in market share has been unprecedented. Just one year ago, Apple shipped only 761,000 units in the same quarter. With more than 200,000 additional computers sold this year, think of the extreme revenue benefits that will filter down to other product lines.

And it is this filtering that will make Apple the most dominant consumer electronics company in the world. Bold predictions? Not if you take an objective view at what is currently happening in this industry.

Slowly but surely, Apple is creeping its way into every area in the industry. While it may have started with computers, Apple is quickly becoming a multifaceted company that owes much of its success to its multimedia devices. If we were to throw the computers out for right now, would it even matter? Wouldn't you still think highly of the design and usefulness of Apple products?

Apple dropped "Computer" from its name because it's no longer just a computer company. In fact, I would venture to say that computers have become a bonus revenue getter for the company.

A simple look at the company's most recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings will show you that just iPods and iPod-related products account for more than 50 percent of the company's net sales, and that's before the Apple TV and iPhone are included. And while the Macs sell well, they used to be the only source of income for the company.

Our future homes will be dominated by Apple. And while I'm not convinced that the majority of homes will have Macs, I do believe that many of them will. Apple has realized that computers are no longer the bread and butter of this industry, and it has capitalized on some of the devices that are: digital-audio players, cell phones and multimedia devices.

Margins in the computer industry are difficult to maintain, and more often than not, you will find companies struggling to keep up with the larger firms. Try to start your own computer-manufacturing business, and chances are, it won't last if you're not providing a unique experience.

But the other industries mentioned above are not the same way. As Apple has shown, a company can make a significant profit on cell phones, digital-audio players and multimedia devices because they're what captures our attention right now.

Computer innovation can go only so far--there are technological and design limits. Multimedia devices have no such limit. While we still can't beam our favorite artists to our homes for a live concert, we can have products that offer entirely unique experiences. Simply put, computers are computers, but home multimedia devices can be anything.

So when will this Apple home of yours come to fruition? Well, my guess would be in about 15 to 20 years. If nothing else, we have learned that Apple knows how to take the industry lead and not relinquish it. And while I think there will be a significant void to fill when Steve Jobs finally retires, the company will continue its trek toward dominating every consumer electronics industry within the next couple decades.

But while Apple will become the most powerful consumer electronics company, that doesn't necessarily mean that its domination will last long. Much like every other company that has dominated an industry, people will begin to hate it.

Right now, there is a very loving relationship with Apple, as more and more people believe that it's the savior this industry needs. When it becomes dominant, though, that relationship will become one of both love and hate--we will love to play with the products, but we'll hate the fact that no other company can compete. The entire consumer electronics business will be like the MP3 player industry: Apple will wield significant control, and other companies will need to play catch-up.

This is not to say that no other companies will exist; that Apple will be the last man standing. What I am saying is that Apple will be the most dominant force in the entire business. The Microsofts, Googles and Sonys of the world will still be around, but despite whether we like to admit it, Apple will soon become the most successful consumer electronics company.

Adults both young and old love Apple products, but the majority are people in their 20s. As they get older, make more money and have families, which company do you think they will turn to first for all of their home and travel needs?

It may not happen over night, but trust me, the heyday of Apple hasn't even begun.

Every Thursday, Don picks a current-events topic and discusses how it will impact us. Check out more from Don's Future Implications series.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of people in the HD DVD camp telling the world that its format is winning the high-definition DVD battle and the people in the Blu-ray DVD camp claiming that their format is taking hold of the industry. If you ask me, both sides are just fooling themselves.

For years, we have been under the impression that the only way to get movies into our homes is to use hardware. And while that may have been true years ago, that idea is a bunch of hogwash now.

For a fee, you can now download movies from places like Movielink and Amazon.com without blinking an eye. Why spend hundreds of dollars on a device that works best with an HDTV when you can buy just the movies and enjoy them on the device you use in the most places? That is, on your computer.

And before someone runs out and tells me that watching movies on a laptop or desktop couldn't be worse, let me tell you why it's not half bad.

First off, Dell and Apple make great cinema display monitors that range in size from 20 to 30 inches. And while the price on those beauties may be a bit higher than most of us would like to spend, they dole out the best picture quality you can find on a monitor.

Secondly, laptop displays are actually getting noticeably better, and the thought of watching a movie on a plane or on the subway isn't so out of line anymore.

OK, so maybe the hardware solution isn't for you. If you head on over to Amazon and buy Shooter, for example, you can download the file after purchase in one of three formats: DVD-quality for your PC, a Windows media file suitable for use on all portable Windows devices, or a TiVo series 2 or 3 version that can be seamlessly transferred straight to your digital video recorder box.

If you're not a fan of large displays or Amazon, you might also want to try using iTunes and an Apple TV. And while the quality of the video (where's some nice HD?) is still a bit suspect, it's still a practical alternative to buying an HD DVD or Blu-ray player.

I don't know what it is, but I just can't justify spending the kind of money you need to spend in order to play high-definition DVDs in your home. The only downside to downloading videos right now is the length of time it takes to do so. Because our connection speeds are so slow, some people are unwilling to wait the amount of time it takes to download a 2GB or 3GB file.

Me? I would rather plan ahead, start the download about five or six hours before I want to watch the movie, and go find something constructive to do. After all, think of the interest I'm earning from not buying one of those expensive players.

As I have mentioned previously, I think Blu-ray and HD DVD are just transitional devices that will not take off as much as the DVD or even the VHS. The jump in quality, while noticeable, is not enough to justify mass hysteria, and to be honest, most people are tired of looking at another device sitting on top of their TVs. Wouldn't you rather get rid of the middleman and control everything from the couch?

Sure, it may be years off, but the day will come when we can browse the Internet looking for our favorite movies, legally download them onto our TVs and within minutes and enjoy them without moving an inch. And while some believe this day will come in another decade, I think it'll come sooner.

Soon enough, a dam will break, and connection speeds will increase dramatically. When this happens, companies will capitalize and release hardware and software solutions that promise much of what I'm talking about. And when that happens, you can say good-bye to the need for a dedicated DVD player.

The Digital Home is an idea, an expectation. And before we know it, the ideas and expectations outlined above will become a reality. So before you run out and buy the newest Blu-ray or HD DVD player, consider the alternatives before you spend your hard-earned money.