Lack of money is probably the main reason

Subscriber growth suddenly stops for cable TV industry
[Via Ars Technica]

The number of people shelling out for cable TV is on the decline, possibly opening the door for newer TV models to finally break through to the mainstream. According to data gathered by market research firm SNL Kagan, cable companies saw a noticeable drop in the total number of subscribers during the second quarter of 2010, a first for an industry that has thus far seen nothing but growth.

The number of cable subscribers dropped by 711,000, according to SNL Kagan, with six out of eight cable providers reporting their worst quarterly subscriber losses to date. Other parts of the industry were able to add just enough subscribers to make the net loss more like 216,000. Cable’s share of the pay-TV market dropped slightly too, from 63.6 percent to just 61 percent during the quarter.

[More]

I think the fact that the number of 401K withdrawals hit an all time high may be connected. People are strapped and paying $100 or more a month for cable is just more than they can spend.

Going back to getting broadcast over the airwaves and getting basic cable – or even just season passes to the shows i like and download them – is getting to be awfully tempting.

The scariest graphs of the month

Real Estate’s Gold Rush Seems Gone for Good
[Via NYT > NYTimes.com Home]

Many economists believe that the days of banking on an asset that could only rise in value are gone for good.

[More]

Now this may just be the same old stuff people always write. Six months from now they will tell us that it has never been a better time to buy.

But what is amazing is that people expect their houses to appreciate 10% a year every year for the next decade. So the price will more than double in that time. Are those people that deranged and out of touch with current housing market conditions?

Kevin Drum gave several reasons for this disconnect with reality. Perhaps they can’t do math and understand what 10% compounded yearly really is or they do not understand inflation.

But the scary thing is he added a chart based on data from the economists quoted in the NYT – actually from a book one of them wrote. It shows the relative price of houses with inflation taken into account.

Nothing in the last century matches what happened to house prices the last decade.

As you can see, the price of housing in the US stayed pretty stable except for two periods – the 20 years after WWI and the last 10 years or so. For housing prices to return to their historical norm, they would have to come down almost 50% from their highs. We are down maybe 30% since the highs so we may have some ways more to go.

Barry Ritholz has an updated figure done by Steve Barry to the end of July 2010.

According to Zillow, my house is off almost exactly 37% from its peak. If it drops 50% off its peak, my house will be worth less than it was when I bought it. Counting inflation and it will be worth much less.

Creating a new niche with our own mistakes

by adonofrio

Bacteria rush in to gobble up oil plumes from Deepwater
[Via Ars Technica]

Researchers have discovered a large contingent of silent partners in the Deepwater oil spill cleanup—bacteria. Two samples of a deep-sea oil plume show that a high number of microbes have populated the oily area and are hacking away at the hydrocarbon concentration. The bacteria also seem to be using relatively little oxygen to metabolize parts of the oil, minimizing their own environmental impact.

The samples of water were taken inside and outside a large oil plume about 6 miles from the well site and three-quarters of a mile below the surface, and date from a month after the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. The scientists compared the chemical composition of the waters, as well as their microbial cell populations.

Despite the hostile environment, they found that the density of microbial cells inside the plume was twice that of uncontaminated water. The population was diverse, but certain types known to metabolize hydrocarbons using ambient oxygen and thrive in the presence of oil in cold water were particularly plentiful.

The authors of the paper found that, on average, the microbes were consuming hydrocarbons fast enough to give the plume’s oil a half life of one to six days. The metabolization isn’t yet taxing the water too badly, either, as the oxygen concentration inside the plume is only eight percent lower than normal, a figure consistent with other recent results.

[More]

It looks like we might have been a little lucky here in the short term. These newly isolated bacteria are not only able to digest the oil but to also do it in ways that do not use up large amounts of oxygen, which is what is seen with bacteria at shallower depths.

It may well turn out that the use of dispersants at such depths as Deepwater – something that had never been done before and was only really done to prevent oil from reaching the surface – may have been fortuitous.

A half-life of 1 to 6 days is totally unexpected.

We may have been lucky this time. Once the oil is gone, I would expect most of these bacteria to die and perhaps sequester much of the released carbon as new sediments.

But we should remain cautious. Putting new pressures on an environment with the results of our own mistakes may have ramifications that we can not anticipate.

All hat. No cattle.

Acer exec says Apple’s ‘closed’ iPad will drop to 20% market share
[Via AppleInsider]

The chairman of PC maker Acer has predicted that Apple’s iPad will drop to just 20 percent of the total tablet market when competing options are introduced, due to the “closed platform” of the iOS operating system.

[More]

I loved this:

JT Wang, chairman of Acer, spoke with the Economic Daily News and shared his prediction that the market share of the iPad will drop from 100 percent to between 20 percent and 30 percent.

Acer, like seemingly every other PC maker, is expected to get into the tablet business following the success of Apple’s iPad. That’s a change from earlier this year, when the company said before the iPad launched that it had no intention of competing with Apple in that market.

So, in a market that it created, Apple will lose some market share when competitors appear, competitors that were so forward-thinnking that they did not even believe they needed to enter the market.

Sure Android may have a higher market share than iOS but I do not think an individual manufacturer has a higher market share of smart mobile devices. I think Apple will be very comfortable with 30% of an expanding market, especially since that would most likely be higher than any other single company.

Does Acer expect to have 20% of the market?

Perhaps by making a bookstore a social experience

Some Doubts About the Future of Independent Bookstores
[Via Age of Engagement | Big Think]

Last week I posted somewhat optimistically about media reports suggesting a rebirth for independent bookstores. In reply, below is a guest contribution from my colleague Paul D’Angelo, a professor of communication at the College of New Jersey.

–Matt Nisbet

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are about a “rebirth” in independent bookstores, Matt, but I think your second paragraph says it all. Marketshare of indies has been sliding over the past generation, and I see no reason why it won’t continue to do so. Sure, certain indies seem to be indomitably rooted in their respective urban nooks–the DC stores you mentioned, for example. On a recent trip to Denver, I desperately wanted to venture into The Tattered Cover Book Store, an esteemed indie in the city’s downtown. But having family in tow and sights to see prevented that. In general, I think the fate of indie book stores mirrors that of their brick-and-mortar brethren: the main culprit behind the decline of market share of all stores that sell printed books–chain and indie alike–is technology.

Consider, first, that Amazon.com is now the biggest retailer of printed books in the world, having recently nudged aside the Barnes&Noble/B. Dalton juggernaut. Revenue metrics vary among sources; some take into account the gamut of “media” these organizations sell (e.g., DVDs and CDs in addition to printed books) while others do not. But however you slice it, Amazon comes out on top in US and overseas sales of books. Information from the Foner Books website, which caters to self-published books and e-books, supports this claim. The two charts at the top of the page graphically depict Amazon’s ascendancy. In addition, the table just below them shows an interesting fact: the one area where B&N has showed positive growth is selling printed books online. Finally, even as Amazon’s sales peaked in 2007, the company still shows stunning positive revenue growth.

[More]

As with all things digital, the marginal cost goes to zero and it is impossible for brick-and-mortars anywhere to compete with digital. Bookstores can not sell books better than Amazon. So just do not try.

Just make books the excuse for people to get out and interact with one another. People will always need to do this and it provides opportunities that no online social network can.

People do like to be around other people.

Bookstores can not survive if all they do is sell books. They need to provide what the Internet can not. Some of the things I think they need to do are not quite possible yet but I think the pressure of the market will pushj them towards some of these things.

They need to really push the ideas of book clubs, providing a nice environment for people to host them instead of rotating around people’s homes. Nice meeting rooms with reasonable catering, perhaps.

Even just book/coffee shops would be useful. Add WiFi and a lot of people will congregate. People go to libraries now for online access. Make bookstores a better experience.

Here is a big one for me – provide access to online journals behind paywalls. It is impossible for me to pay the subscription prices for many scientific journals. Libraries do not often provide the access either. Only University libraries might but you have to be a student. Individual articles can cost $35 just to examine. Why can’t bookstores make a deal with these publishers, providing access at the stores for these articles for a nominal fee? I’d pay for such access and know a lot of small business owners who would also.

Amazon can make recommendations but a bookstore that had an expert who really knew me and could recommend new books, etc. would be a better experience. Many people get to be regular customers of restaurants because they really like a particular waiter.

Personalized service with a real person can not be replicated online. So, mine a few databases, with my permission, and let me know about some new books that I might be interested in when I get my coffee. I am sure Barnes & Noble knows that I love Criterion Collection DVDs. So why aren’t the people working there making it their business to tell me when a new one is coming out or simply to talk with me about my passion? I would love to have that opportunity and it would make me more likely to return than simply getting it through Amazon.

Actively working at something online does poorly – browsing – would be helpful. Especially making it much easier to get digital downloads right on the spot to your iPad, etc. Value-added for digital editions would be very useful, such as simply printing out paperbound versions of digital books. People will always want to read some books in areas without WiFi or electricity. They will also want the permanent aspect of actual books.

Being able to print out digital copies on really good acid-free paper with my choice of covers that I can walk away with would be something Amazon could not do as well or as immediately.

Actively working with authors to provide added benefits from owning a book is something else to be done. While people might not pay to hear a reading by an author, they might very well pay to sit down around a table with one, providing income for the store and the author. Autographed copies of books by an author you have stood in front of is something Amazon can not copy.

Authors in the 1800s did not make much of a living from the sales of their books. There was no international copyright to speak of, so American publishers simply published Dickens’ work without paying him anything. Same with Mark Twain in Europe.

So they traveled to the other countries and gave speaking tours, making more money than anything they made from books. The free books had created a market which paid quite well to see them in person.

The way a bookstore will thrive is to simply make books an excuse for people finding ways to socialize in person. While the internet makes some interactions easier, it can never replicate in person.