Apple's I-Phone Comes Down In Price $200! - WSJ

Steve Jobs Offers
Rare Apology,
Credit for iPhone

By NICK WINGFIELD - Wall Street Journal
September 7, 2007; Page B1

Many people stood in long lines to get Apple Inc.'s iPhone -- and paid a lot for it. In the end, Steve Jobs concluded that such loyalty counted for something.

Responding to a flood of emails complaining about a surprise iPhone price cut, Mr. Jobs apologized publicly and said Apple will offer a $100 credit at Apple stores to all iPhone users who paid the original price. "Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these," Mr. Jobs wrote in a letter posted yesterday on Apple's Web site.

The unusual move followed Apple's announcement Wednesday that it was cutting $200 off the price of its $599 iPhone. In online discussion forums throughout Wednesday and yesterday morning, early buyers had vented their frustration with how quickly Apple had cut the price of the iPhone, which went on sale June 29. Mr. Jobs said in the letter that he had received hundreds of emails from iPhone customers who were upset.


Apple and AT&T also said yesterday that customers who had purchased the $599 iPhone, with eight gigabytes of storage capacity, at one of their stores within 14 days of Wednesday's price cut can choose a $200 cash refund instead of the $100 store credit. People who bought a low-end $499 iPhone model within the 14 days can return it for a full refund instead of taking the credit. Apple on Wednesday said it was discontinuing the low-end iPhone, with four gigabytes of storage, as most of its customers preferred the eight-gigabyte model.

"I think this is absolutely the right move," said Christopher Kercher, an attorney in New York who paid full price for an iPhone shortly after it went on sale and was among those who were upset by the timing of the price cut. "They needed to reach out and make a peace offering."

In the letter, Mr. Jobs insisted the price cut was necessary to broaden the market for the product, but he acknowledged that Apple needed to assuage disappointed early purchasers. Mr. Jobs said further details will be posted on Apple's Web site next week.

The controversy over the iPhone price cut threatened to overshadow Apple's efforts to boost sales of the product during the holidays through a lower price. While technology companies often drop prices on their gadgets over time, Apple has historically introduced replacement models with different industrial designs and improved features rather than discounting existing models. Apple usually makes such changes about a year after a product's introduction, not two months later.

Before the announcement of the $100 store-credit offer, some iPhone shoppers said the timing of the price cut would discourage them from buying Apple products early in the future. "This is like a slap in the face to early adopters," said John Keck, an executive at an advertising agency in Detroit.

Few companies rely on early adopters quite as much as Apple, which has a built a loyal customer base with such ground-breaking products as the Macintosh computer and the iPod music player.

In his letter, Mr. Jobs said that from his 30-plus years in technology he knew that the "technology road is bumpy," and there is "always someone who bought a product before a particular cutoff date and misses the new price of the new operating system or the new whatever." Still, Mr. Jobs wrote, Apple needs to "do a better job of taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively go after new ones with a lower price."

Some Apple customers said Apple's offer, in addition to being good public relations, was a shrewd effort to encourage more business at Apple's online and physical stores because consumers must go there to redeem their $100 store credits. Sanford Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi predicted the financial impact of the credits on Apple would be "very modest" given Apple's overall revenue and the number of iPhone users, currently less than a million. Apple shares fell $1.75 to $135.01 in Nasdaq trading yesterday.

Paul Brennan, an institutional investor in Pasadena, Calif., who bought an iPhone when it first went on sale, said he would have preferred "cold hard cash" from Apple, but he added that he felt less angry after Apple's decision to grant a credit. "Something is better than nothing," Mr. Brennan said.

-- Amol Sharma contributed to this article.

Ron Paul Video Mashup Of 2008 Republican Fox Debate

To say that Congressman Ron Paul was effective on Wednesday is an understatement. He managed to establish the terms of debate in the campaign and capture the hearts of his fans on the Internet. This video shows -- amoung other things -- Congressman Paul's exchange with Arkansas Governor Mike Hukabee, the text of which is below the video.



MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?
REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. Why not ask the people -- (interrupted by cheers) -- why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.

Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.

I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It's the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend -- (bell sounds) -- our borders --

MR. WALLACE: So if --
(Interrupted by cheers, applause.)

MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I'd like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I'm saying -- (laughter) -- I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- (cheers, applause) -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war, and it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)

After a couple of other candidates had a crack at the question, Wallace let Huckabee get a little action.

MR. WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which is out recently, says that even if we continue the troop surge -- and we're going to put it up on the screen -- Iraq's security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months, but levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high, and the Iraqi government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.
Governor, if that's the best we can hope for, should we continue the surge?

MR. HUCKABEE: We have to continue the surge. And let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me. If I picked something off the shelf of the store and I broke it, I bought it.

I learned don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy.

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away because something is at stake. Senator McCain made a great point, and let me make this clear. If there's anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I've got to say Senator McCain understands that word -- (applause, cheers) -- because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don't even comprehend. (Continued applause.)


Wait a minute, isn't this the famous Colin Powell Pottery Barn rule? Are we supposed to now call it the Mama Huckabee rule? Anyway, Huckabee continued...

And on this issue, when he says we can't leave until we've left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion that historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. (Cheers, applause.)
MR. HUME: Go ahead. You wanted to respond? He just addressed you; you go ahead and respond. (Continued applause.)

REP. PAUL: The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America. (Cheers.)

REP. PAUL: No. When we make a mistake -- (interrupted by applause) -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake! (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: And that's what we do on the floor of the --

REP. PAUL: No! We've dug a hole for ourselves and we dug a hole for our party!

We're losing elections and we're going down next year if we don't change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.

MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.

REP. PAUL: We're losing -- we've lost over -- (cheers, applause) -- we have lost -- we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in -- we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing is saving face. It's time we came home!

MR. HUME: Okay, gentlemen. Gentlemen, thank you. (Cheers, applause.)

"You Little Jerk" John McCain Answers Age Question At Forum

Never one to back down from a question, Senator John McCain took this one on with at first a good start, but ended with an unfortunate reference to the questioner as "You little jerk" -- thus cementing that person's place in history.

Oakland's Al Greenberg has a Question For Mitt Romney

2007 Kick-off Party invades NYC Chelsea Hotspot

The NFL Draft Bible and Fieldposition have teamed up to bring you the first NFL season Kick-off Party ever to have it's own Podcast. Recording live from "Flight 151" in the Heart of Chelsea this Thursday night, the Party will feature Football Trivia, $2 Coors light's, and hopefully Lots of Good football fun. Hosted By NFL Draft Bible's CEO Ric Serritella and it's SR. VP, and field scout, as well as Fieldposition.com and SBS Football Personality Dr. Bill Chachkes, the Party and Podcast start at 7 Pm eastern, and is located at 151 8th av bt 17th and 18th streets(Yes Zennie, only a few blocks from Murry's Bagels!!)

Public School Racial Segregation Increasing - Must Change This

This is not the direction America should go in. We must go back to desegregation as a policy and stick with it. It's the best combatant to racism, which is a mental illness.

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Public schools in the United States are becoming more racially segregated and the trend is likely to accelerate because of a Supreme Court decision in June, according to report published on Wednesday.

The rise in segregation threatens the quality of education received by non-white students, who now make up 43 percent of the total U.S. student body, said the report by the Civil Rights Project of the University of California in Los Angeles.

Many segregated schools struggle to attract highly qualified teachers and administrators, do not prepare students well for college and fail to graduate more than half their students.

In its June ruling the Supreme Court forbade most existing voluntary local efforts to integrate schools in a decision favored by the Bush administration despite warnings from academics that it would compound educational inequality.

"It is about as dramatic a reversal in the stance of the federal courts as one could imagine," said Gary Orfield, a UCLA professor and a co-author of the report.

"The federal courts are clearly pushing us backward segregation with the encouragement of the Justice Department of President George W. Bush," he said in an interview.

The United States risks becoming a nation in which a new majority of non-white young people will attend "separate and inferior" schools, the report said.

"Resegregation ... is continuing to grow in all parts of the country for both African Americans and Latinos and is accelerating the most rapidly in the only region that had been highly desegregated -- the South," it said.

The trend damages the prospects for non-white students and will likely have a negative effect on the U.S. economy, according to the report by one of the leading U.S. research centers on issues of civil rights and racial inequality.

Part of the reason for the resegregation is the rapidly expanding number of black and Latino children and a corresponding fall in the number of white children, it said.

Contrary to popular belief, the surge in the number of minority children in public schools was not mainly caused by a flight of white students into private schools.

Instead, it said, the post-"baby boom" generation of white Americans are having smaller family sizes.

"During the desegregation period there was a major decline in the education gap between blacks and whites and an increase in college entry by blacks .... That gap has stopped closing," Orfield said.

TRIPLE SEGREGATION FOR LATINOS

The record of successive administration reforms such as the Goals 2000 project of former President Bill Clinton and Bush's "No Child Left Behind" in 2001 "justifies deep skepticism," the report said.

Those changes focused pressure and resources on making the achievement of minority children in segregated schools equal to children in schools that were fully integrated.

School desegregation is a sensitive issue in the United States because of resistance to it from white leaders in the decade after a 1954 Supreme Court decision saying segregated public schools were unconstitutional.

One of the chief complaints of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s was that black-only public schools were inevitably starved of resources by local government with the result that black children received inferior education.

Latinos are the fastest growing minority in U.S. schools and for them segregation is often more profound than it was when the phenomenon was first measured 40 years ago, according to the report, "Historic Reversals, Accelerating Resegregation and the need for new Integration Strategies."

"Too often Latino students face triple segregation by race, class and language," it said.

YouTube Metrics and The 2008 Presidential Race

I’m writing this blog post to answer a question posed by Micha Sifry over at TechPresident and also to clear some glaring errors in what was an otherwise interesting article.

Sifry write that she’s “thinking out loud about YouTube metrics, but doesn’t include all of the metrics. Sifry wants to know if there’s a relationship between the number of YouTube subscribers and viewership. The answer is it’s more complicated than that. But before I explain why, I need to clean up these problems in Sifry’s article.

Take a look at this. This article was written on August 16th 2007. This is August 29, 2007. Sifry states that “John Edwards' (You Tube) numbers are somewhat higher than the other leading Democratic candidates because his campaign is using YouTube as the player for videos on his own site, while Obama uses Brightcove and Clinton uses an in-house tool.”

Really?

I wonder which numbers Sifry was looking at?

I created a table that compares the YouTube statistical numbers for the Democratic Candidates with those of the Internet’s top Republican Challenger Ron Paul. Now keep in mind I’m pulling these numbers straight from the channel pages of each candidate’s YouTube page.

Let’s look at the results.

The leader in this area by a massive margin is Senator Obama, who has 11 million channel views. As you can see, the closes follower isn’t that close at all.

Now from this, we should expect Barack Obama’s video views to be so far ahead of everyone else’s that there’s no comparison. Indeed, a look at my own channel statistics, which you can’t see, but I can from my account, shows my overall video views to be ahead of my channel views.

But when I use TubeMogul, the best evaluator and recorder of online video traffic ever constructed, we get results that imply fewer video views than the 11 million subscribers. But here’s the problem – and I think it’s one that Sifry had – but did not see – in looking at YouTube Metrics using TubeMogul. TubeMogul only captures a date range going back six months; Senator Obama’s YouTube channel was established almost one year ago. So while we can’t see Senator Obama’s account to learn how many video views he has, I can safely say that the video views do outpace the channel views.

One major reason for this is something not properly recorded by YouTube – it’s called the embed code. It allows you to install someone’s video on your blog or website. The trouble us, YouTube only records links, not embeds, in video stats.

So an Obama video can be set and then played and replayed and there would be no record of the embed, but high video view stats, higher even than channel views.

On top of all that, Obama has more videos posted on YouTube than many candidates. Ron Paul, the overall view leader, has just 44 videos on his channel. Considering Paul’s popularity, he’s not got enough videos out there to take advantage of it. His view numbers should be far higher than they are, and they would be with 100 more videos.

Finally, it’s very important for candidates to take YouTube even more seriously than they do. It commands 60 percent of the video distribution market share, and the next closest competitor MySpace Videos only has 16 percent of the market, and then Google Video (which really doesn’t count here) has 8 percent. Plus, there are about 70 YouTube-type companies, which makes challenging YouTube’s market share almost impossible (here that NBC!?)

The lesson here is three-fold – first the relationship between YouTube subscribers is more complicated than it seems, second, TubeMogul can only capture part of the picture, not the whole, and third that people do see the candidate message on YouTube, and given the shift in YouTube’s demographics to an older audience and for no other reason than the mainstreaming of YouTube, an audience more likely to vote in the 2008 Presidential Race.