Life & Technology

Today we are discussing how Skype makes money, my helpful hints at Sony’s Vaio Village, and answering all your questions.

Steve queried how Skype makes its money, after all the VoIP provider doesn’t charge a thing when you Skype PC to PC using your webcam. Well, they make their money by providing a Skype -in and Skype-out service, whereby people pay to call mobile phones and landlines. But what makes them good from a consumer point of view, is that they are relatively cheap compared to other forms of telecommunications.

Steve also queried why his wife’s phone faded out more on the road to skiing as he is on Optus and she uses Telstra. Telstra being the biggest kid on the block means its reach is better, although both Optus and 3/Vodafone have said they are going to be improving their reach.

Jason queried a problem he was having with his PS3 playing blu-rays. Initially the blu-ray discs were working fine, but of late Jason says the picture is pixelating, like the DVD is from the wrong region. I’m not 100 percent sure what the problem is, but I’m guessing it’s probably a firmware update that hasn’t been actioned. Every so often, Sony will send these updates out, in what they see as improving a console’s features or performance.

Connie was asking about the Motorola Hiptop phone for her son. She was worried about the cost of texting because he seemed to be doing a lot, and if he went over the limit it cost him a lot of money. The phone itself is fine, but I always tell people to check out their plans thoroughly before embarking on a deal.

Poor Deborah called about her son’s Xbox getting the dreaded red ring of death. This means there is probably a fatal hardware problem with the console. I remember a while ago Microsoft stating they would extend warranties on Xbox units that suffered from this problem, for up to three years. Unfortunately Deborah said that they had had their unit for the best part of four years, so probably doesn’t qualify. If you have a problem with your Xbox, call the Microsoft helpdesk on 13 20 58, and then press 6 for Xbox enquiries.

Also, had a lot of interesting inquiries at the Sony Vaio Village last Saturday. I’ll be there again from 11.30-2ish this Saturday and next. So pop along and we’ll have a yarn, and I can help you with social networking, or any other technical question you have about laptops.

A subject close to my heart was discussed on the Today Show this morning – the demise of newspapers in the digital age. I don’t believe that newspapers are necessarily finished – I like to read the paper on a quiet Sunday morning – but there is no doubt they are struggling at the moment.

News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch has mooted that the way forward for newspapers is getting readers to pay a subscription few to a newspaper’s website. Over the past couple of years newspapers have been shedding readers and circulation hand over fist as people switch to digital news outlets – most of which, until now, have been free.

I think that this will be the way to go. In order to pay for good journalism you need to pay for it, and it seems the current model – advertising only – is not working for most outlets.

There are a couple of problems with it. First, it is hard to measure how much penetration the web gets. Most models use a click-through system, whereby advertisers agree to pay a certain amount depending on how many readers clicked on their ads. This has its good and bad points. Good points include giving the client a measurable gauge on how many people looked at their advertisement, which in turn holds the newspaper accountable to its client.

The bad point is, if somebody doesn’t click through on the advert, you can’t measure the penetration of just visualising the ad – ie, even if people don’t click on the ad on any given page, they still see it on said page, but you can’t tell how much notice they’ve taken of the advert – did they completely ignore it, or did they notice it?

Another problem with online advertising is that it can be very intrusive. Who has been half-way through reading a story, when an ad pops up that interrupts your train of thought. This leads to a negative experience for the reader, and vicariously their take on the advert that has just annoyed them.

Which brings us back to paid subscriptions. As stated, it sounds like a great idea. People buy a Kindle ebook, or use their iPhone to download news from their online news source, whether it be the SMH or Daily Telegraph, or whatever. However, there is one major flaw in Murdoch’s thinking. He needs to get everybody on board. If only one major news outlet is a hold out, then it will fall apart. As a consumer, why would I pay an annual subscription fee for news when I can get it for free from another source?

I can think of only one way it would work even if there was a hold out is by providing content that is compelling and must-read. And this is where you hard-nosed journalists come in. I believe that if news organisations invest in great journalists that are providing outstanding content, then it might just work.

I’ve been waiting years to say it, and finally I can – Australia is the recipient of an international internet award. Well, more specifically, an Australian is the recipient. Hhmmm, to be even more to the point, our Federal Minister of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy is the winner, and it’s probably an award he could do without.

Britain’s Internet Industry Awards, the ISPA’s, handed Conroy the award, with stiff competition that included the French president Nicolas Sarkozy and the European parliament.

The criteria for winning the award was for “recognis[ing] individuals or organisations that have upset the Internet industry and hampered its development.”

And with Senator Conroy and the current government supporting a form of internet filtering, even with huge opposition from not only the tech industry but everyday Aussies, it’s no surprise that he won.

People who have only give the debate a cursory glance are probably wondering what all the fuss is about. Surely, the idea of blocking child pornography and illegal file sharing sites is not a bad thing. On the face of it, you’d be right. It’s a great thing. These types of sites are a blight on the Internet and deserve to be deleted from the web once and for all, or at least blocked so nobody can access them.

But that isn’t the problem. There are two issues here – Conroy wants to create blacklist that blocks undesirable content, but he wants to keep it secret. Why? What gives him the right? We don’t work for him, he works for us, and in this case what is wrong with transparency?

But by far the most annoying thing for most people, from a purely functional point of view, is that there are quite a few experts who believe it will slow down the Internet, and that aside, the filtering process itself might be easy to get around.

This debate if far from over, but the Minister can at least pat himself on the back knowing he has gotten Australia on the international internet map, even if it is for all the wrong reasons.