Unfortunately, this excitement is often tempered by frustration because access to most research papers costs a ridiculous amount of money.  More and more journals are adding free, open-access options, but many of the big hitters (Science, Nature) continue to charge exorbitant amounts for one-time access to individual articles.  As an example – I clicked on the first article from this month’s issue of Nature: “Verbal and non-verbal intelligence changes in the teenage brain.”  This sounded like an interesting article, the kind of thing many laypeople would be interested in, especially parents and teachers of teens.  Unfortunately, the cost for accessing that article is $32 USD.  For that price, you may as well buy a 330-page non-fiction book on the topic (which was published late last year, so it’s even up-to-date).

Sadly, $32 is reasonable compared to some journals.  I’ve seen journals that charge more than $50 USD per research paper – even for ones 20+ years old!

Thus the impetus for this article.  There are a number of ways to legally access scientific and medical research without paying ridiculous per-paper access fees.  I’ve accumulated a lot of these strategies over years of trying to track down papers for FDA regulation purposes.  Some might be obvious (especially to grad students or other researchers), but I still think it worthwhile to mention them.  My hope is to help people – especially those researching medical issues – find the information they need without spending thousands of dollars to do it.

Note: potentially illegal methods of accessing journal articles, including torrenting, Usenet, and other file-sharing techniques, will not be discussed or endorsed.

Step 1 – Finding relevant articles

Before doing anything else, you must first locate papers relevant to your research topic.  As someone who has skipped this step before, let me warn you – few things are more frustrating than spending hours tracking down a research paper, only to find out it doesn’t actually discuss what you want.

In my experience, the best place to start is almost always PubMed.  PubMed is a free research database service provided by the U.S. National Library of Medicine.  PubMed is incredibly comprehensive; as of October 2011 it has indexed more than 21 million records going back to 1809, with another half-million articles added every year.  Because PubMed is so comprehensive, many other science and medicine search services use it to fuel their own engines (EBSCO, Google Scholar, Ovid, etc).

The PubMed homepage has a search bar at the top – type the topic of your search there, then hit Enter to see what turns up.

Here is a sample PubMed search for "Alzheimers Disease." Make note of the "5580 free full-text articles in PubMed Central" box on the lower-right.

PubMed works like Google or any other search engine – generic search queries will return many articles; more targeted search queries will return a shorter, more relevant set of results.

As with a Google search, you can freely peruse PubMed’s list of articles, but I tend to go straight for a particular box on the right-hand side – the one titled “free full-text articles in PubMed Central.”  Clicking on the “See all…” link at the bottom of that box will refine your search results to show ONLY articles whose full contents are available for free.  (Note: a shortcut way to do this is to select “PMC” from the drop-down box on the PubMed homepage.  However, the two clicks required to change the drop-down box is actually more cumbersome than a single-click of “See all…” on the search results page.)

PubMed Central, or PMC, is an awesome subset of PubMed that deals only in free full-text research articles.  PMC is an outgrowth of the National Institute of Health’s goal to make all publicly funded research available to – imagine this – the public.  Originally, researchers funded by the NIH were encouraged (but not required) to make their research publicly available.  This changed in 2007, when H.R. 2764 was passed, requiring NIH-funded research to be made publicly available within twelve months of publication.  I try to avoid political commentary on my site, but I’m not afraid to say that H.R. 2764 is one of the few unilaterally great pieces of legislation George W. Bush signed into law.

If you find what you need at PMC, great!  You’re all done.  Unfortunately, while PMC’s article database is growing at a steady rate, it won’t always have exactly what you need.

For that, we need to turn to something a little broader.

Step 2 – Google Scholar

Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) is a specialized version of Google’s regular search tool.  Google Scholar indexes research articles from standard indices like PubMed, then cross-references those articles with Google’s massive database of regular web pages.  This cross-referencing comes at a trade-off – on the one hand, it will generally return many more articles than a comparable PubMed search.  However, a lot of those extra discoveries will be irrelevant websites, questionable corporate marketing materials that sound like research, alternative medicine books, and an occasional patent or legal opinion.

The big advantage Google Scholar has over PubMed, however, is if a free copy of a research article exists anywhere on the web, Google will usually be able find it and associate it with its actual paper.  Let me demonstrate.  Below is a screenshot from a Google Scholar search for “Alzheimers Disease Coffee.”  I chose this search term because a growing body of research has associated coffee intake with a reduced risk of Alzheimers Disease, and I wanted to learn more about it:

Google Scholar results for "Alzheimers disease coffee."

If you look to the right of the search results themselves, you’ll notice that two lines have a additional light blue link.  The first says “[HTML] from oxfordjournals.org” and the second says “[PDF] from indiana.edu”.  These little boxes are Google’s way of notifying you that they think they’ve found a full-text version of this particular article.

The second full-text link – the one associated with “Managing care through the air” – is a fine example of how Google Scholar can help you find papers.  Trying to access that paper through its title link takes you to a “sign in to purchase this article” page.  However, clicking on the PDF link to the right of the title takes you to a PDF version of the paper, which happens to be hosted on a course website from the University of Indiana.

This kind of cross-referencing can help you find papers that would be almost impossible to otherwise locate.  Sometimes an author will chose to provide a modified copy of the paper on a personal website, or perhaps the corporation who funded a paper will choose to make a copy available on their corporate site.  I have personal experience with this; a paper I co-authored on vitamin D supplementation is still in the pre-publication stages, but a poster of the research (containing most of the relevant data) is available from the Science section of the company that performed the research.  Google Scholar can help you track down these “hidden” copies of research articles.

While Google Scholar is very useful, a caveat is in order.  Sometimes Google will link you to copies of a paper that may not have been obtained legally.  Oftentimes these are hosted on questionable non-English sites.  Whether or not you choose to access papers via that method is up to you.  The legality of something like that is questionable; the morality of it… well, a discussion of the morality of copyright is beyond the scope of this article.  :)  I’ll leave it up to you whether or not you choose to make use of those kinds of Google search results.

Step 3 – Contact the paper’s authors (or even better, the financial sponsor)

This step applies specifically to privately funded research.  Many times, the organization who funds or performs research will keep copies of the paper on hand for marketing purposes.  All companies I’ve worked for did this, and I’m certain others do as well.  When we were emailed questions about research we had performed and/or funded, we typically replied with a copy of the paper.  Some journals also give paper authors a set amount of free copies of their article, which the author rarely has use for.  (After all, they wrote the paper – they know what it says!)  Send that author a nice email, and you might be rewarded with shiny PDF for your trouble.

Step 4 – Try your local library

This step is very much a YMMV one, but it’s still worth a try.  Some community libraries have access deals with research journals or conglomerates like EBSCO.  These deals allow library patrons to access any research journals that are part of the library’s access package.  In most cases this is limited to the big journals, like Science and Nature; few public libraries have the funds to provide access to specialized journals.

Still, it’s always worth a try, and if the library doesn’t have what you need, a librarian may still be able to help you in your search.

Step 5 – Find a college student or professor

I debated leaving this step for last, since it’s probably the most foolproof way to access science and medical journals… but because it is contingent on knowing (or being) a university student or professor, it may not work for everyone.

While local libraries don’t often have funds to pay for unlimited access to thousands of medical journals, many university libraries do.  Again, this will vary from library to library, but university libraries are capable of negotiating very favorable access to a wide range of research journals.  This is obviously in their best interest – the more research students and professors have access to, the stronger their ability to learn and perform their own research.  Some have argued that library quality should be a major aspect of a student’s college selection.  I agree.

If you know a college student or professor, provide them a reference to the research articles you’re interested in and see if they can help you track down a copy.  If you live close to a university – especially a public one – see if the school’s library allows non-students to sign up for library cards.  Most state schools have provisions for this.

Finally, if you are an alumni of a university or college, you may still have certain access rights to the school’s library.  A phone call or email may be all it takes to get a copy of a research article for personal use.

Conclusion

We live in a golden age of scientific and medical research.  Each year, tens of thousands of top-quality articles are published in peer-reviewed journals.  Many of these articles are directly funded by your tax dollars, or indirectly funded by your patronage to a particular business or institution.

It saddens me that most of this knowledge is kept out of the public’s reach by poorly built websites and ridiculously overpriced journal subscriptions – subscription costs that don’t go toward funding more research, but paying for outmoded things like printed copies of thousand-page medical journals that will sit, dust-covered and unread, on the back of some library shelf.  It is even more frustrating that the laypeople most inclined to search through medical literature – those currently suffering from illness or injury – are often the least capable of affording what many scientific journals charge.

As a researcher myself, I am certainly interested in researchers being paid for their hard work – and they are, by the universities and companies that employ them.  When you pay $30-50 USD for a journal article, that money does not go to the researcher.  Even worse, it has even been argued that such subscription costs lead to sensational science instead of good science.  I strongly recommend reading the linked article if you are interested in the dynamics of science publication.

Anyway, I hope this article helps anyone interested in scientific or medical research.  Additional suggestions are always welcome; feel free to use the comments section or my contact page.

“Vi er så få her i landet, hver fallen er bror og venn”

- Nordahl Grieg

Terrible news out of Norway today:

Norway came under deadly attack Friday with a massive bombing in the heart of its power center and a shooting at the ruling party’s youth camp on an island outside the capital…

Though I’m born and raised American, my grandparents were first-generation Norwegian immigrants, and I have many friends and family back in beautiful Norge.  Please keep the country in your thoughts (and prayers, if you believe in that sort of thing) as they deal with the aftermath of these terrible attacks.

(If anyone has links to sites where individuals can contribute money or time or anything else to help, please let me know and I’ll repost it here.)

After having some time to digest the Wii U launch, I still find myself with a huge list of things I wish Nintendo had done better at E3.

10. Called the system something other than “Wii U”

In the week leading up to E3, the name of the PS Vita leaked. [See kotaku's story, for example] Everyone made fun of the name. Obviously Nintendo had already solidified the name of Wii U by this point – but if they hadn’t, coming out with a new console with a cool name would have been a great way to upstage the competition.

Instead, they launched with the Wii U name… possibly the only name on earth that makes “Vita” look brilliant. Even a code name would have been preferable to using the actual name.

9. Explained the concept of a “base station” and a “controller”

It’s true that anyone watching E3 should have realized that the Wii U controller wasn’t actually the console. Even so, it’s a bad sign when long-time gamers have to ask themselves “so wait… does that thing run off the Wii? Or does it run on its own?” In the Nintendo link at the top of the story, Satoru Iwata himself says:

“We haven’t made any kind of blunder, but I should have shown a single picture of the new console, then started talking about the controller. The console is not drastically different, and Wii U is about the controller. The console itself will be almost invisible.”

If you’ve seen pictures of the console itself, you’ll realize it’s not exactly “invisible.” Still, since the hardware at the base station is a lot more important than the controller (since the controller is really just a screen with buttons and sensors), Nintendo was crazy to not talk about the base at all during their E3 presentation.

8. Show us something only the Wii U can do (besides play Nintendo franchise games, of course)

The vast majority of the Wii U presentation was spent showing us ways to play games that already exist, and support for games we can already play on other devices.

• “It has a giant touchscreen!” So does an iPad. So does my phone. So does the PS Vita.
• “It has dual analog sticks!” So does every other console controller… besides the Wii, anyway.
• “It has cameras!” See above.
• “It has gyroscopes!” (yawn)

Then there are the games. Many of the big launch titles – Arkham City, Darksiders II, Metro: Last Light – are already available on all other consoles and PC. Super Smash Bros. 4 was a good announcement, but we didn’t see any gameplay footage. Lego City Stories looks cute, but Lego-branded games are already everywhere.

A compelling console launch needs to explain why you, the consumer, need this console. Whether it’s because of a truly unique control mechanism, cutting-edge graphics, huge exclusives, doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the console sets itself apart from the competition.  The one thing Nintendo consoles always have – Nintendo franchise games – barely made an appearance in the Wii U presentation.

The Wii U launch was surprisingly short on surprises.

7. Announce DVD support

I wanted to add “and Blu-ray support,” but let’s keep things slightly realistic. Nintendo has clearly stated (post-E3) that the Wii U will not play DVDs or Blu-rays. The official reason?

“The reason for that is that we feel that enough people already have devices that are capable of playing DVDs and Blu-ray, such that it didn’t warrant the cost involved to build that functionality into the Wii U console because of the patents related to those technologies.”

I find this reasoning a little bizarre. First, licensing technologies for DVD playback is cheap. Dirt cheap. If Wal-Mart can sell a 1080p upconverting DVD player – with HDMI – for $24 USD (at the time of this writing) the licensing technology is not expensive.

As if that statement weren’t bizarre enough, there’s the observation that “enough people already have devices that are capable of playing DVDs and Blu-ray.” This makes even less sense. By this logic, cell phone manufacturers should not include the ability to play music or browse the web or play games. After all – people already have lots of devices that can do this. Does anyone really believe that more people would have bought PS3s if Sony turned off Blu-ray playback and cut the console price by $10? Or that Microsoft would have sold more 360′s if they removed DVD playback and cut the price by $5?

Additionally, one of the major benefits of having a controller capable of streaming video from a base console would be the ability to watch DVDs – a form of physical media – on a controller without an attached drive.

Nintendo really blew this one. I don’t think I’m alone in saying that the Wii U would be much more tempting if it had full DVD playback and streaming support.

6. Announce some kind of DSi/3DS and Wii U interaction capabilities

It seems extremely odd that Nintendo would release a home console with a big emphasis on “a controller with a screen”without mentioning their handheld devices. After all, Nintendo is no stranger to interaction between a handheld device and a console. They’ve been experimenting with that technology since the N64 days.

If a 3DS – with its dual cameras, touchscreen, gyroscopes, and wireless card – or even a DSi could be used in place of a Wii U controller (or alongside it), I imagine a lot more people would be interested in purchasing a Wii U.

Instead, Sony was the only console manufacturer to discuss console/handheld interaction. Hard to believe Nintendo had nothing to say about this.

5. Give concrete details on the Wii U’s online capabilities

In a lot of ways, the Wii U looks to be the most antisocial console in history. (Besides possibly the Virtual Boy.)

“Do other people want to watch a show? Don’t join in – instead, keep doing what you’re doing on the console!”

“Want multiplayer? Too bad! We’ve only planned for one Wii U controller per console!”

The messaging is bizarre. I really hoped Nintendo would announce great online features to make up for the antisocial nature of the Wii U controller, but what happened instead? Brief statements like this, from Katsuya Eguchi:

“I can’t go into details… We’re trying to find new experiences… In looking at the approaches on the Xbox and PlayStation – what they’ve done and what people have responded really well to – we’ve definitely considered including those kinds of experiences, and we think that our third parties also want those as well… but there are also things Nintendo does and other companies haven’t. We need to balance out what exactly what we need to bring to the user to bring the best experience possible.” [source - kotaku]

That’s an awful lot of words… that tell us nothing about the online capabilities.

A few days later, during a call with investors, President Iwata gave this longer explanation:

To start, I’ll have to say that I don’t have any materials with me today that can illustrate precisely what our online environment will be like, but I can speak generally about the direction that we are moving in.

I think, in general, the online environment is changing quite rapidly.

So, what I have come to feel lately is that the idea of saying, “we are going to create this style of online structure and that we would like you, the developers, to fit into the online structure that we are creating” is perhaps already out-of-date.

I think that Nintendo’s past console business has often included this idea of a set and fixed online structure. So, I think that, going forward, the question is really to what degree Nintendo can create a more flexible system for its consoles.

And, what we found at this point is that, as we discuss the online structure with different publishers, the things that the different publishers want to do are in fact seemingly rather different.

Our current direction is how we can take the desires of the third parties and create a system that’s flexible enough to enable them to do the types of things that they might want to do.

So, for example with the question of VoIP, I think then what we would like to do is work with them on how to enable them to do that. But, what we’re not going to do is to consider as prerequisite conditions that every game includes features like that because obviously there are some developers who may not want to do that.

As for social networks, after examining the penetration and adoption rate of social networking services like Facebook, etc., we’ve come to the conclusion that we are no longer in a period where we cannot have any connection at all with social networking services.

Rather, I think we’ve come to an era where it’s important to consider how the social graph of the social networking services can work in conjunction with something like a video game platform.

So, once we get to a point where we’re able to talk more concretely about our online plans, I think that once you hear what we’ll have to say, you’ll feel that Nintendo has a policy of adapting itself to changes in the network environment in a flexible fashion rather than the one of sticking to a rigid mechanism, or perhaps you’ll notice that we have found ways to take advantage of these types of features like VoIP and social networking, where our systems have been seen as being weak in the past. However, unfortunately, we won’t be able to share anything concrete today.” [source - andriasang]

Confused yet? I know I am. All those words tell us basically three things:

• Nintendo “can’t afford to have no connection” to social networking services. (no kidding)
• Nintendo is considering optional VoIP services.
• Nintendo still isn’t sure what the Wii U’s online services will include.

Being this far into the console’s development and having nothing concrete to say about the online capabilities is concerning.

4. Announce a late 2011 launch date

I think most gamers are excited about the Wii U sharing in great exclusives like Battlefield 3 and Arkham City. However, these games are launching in 2011. The Wii U won’t launch until 2012. That means that if you want to play any of the year’s biggest multi-platform launches on the Wii U, you will have to wait a year (or more!) after the game’s release on other platforms.

Are a lot of gamers really going to purchase an additional copy of Battlefield 3 just to play it on the Wii U? I doubt it. Sharing a multi-platform library with the PS3 and 360 is awesome, but not if major games release a year late.

3. Announce support for achievements/trophies

Some gamers don’t care about achievements and trophies, but I think most care at least a little. After all – when even Minecraft adds achievements, there must be a market for it. True cross-platform support means not just releasing the same games, but releasing the same games with the same features. If the Wii U doesn’t include support for some kind of achievements/trophies, that’s one more reason to purchase them on another platform.

2. More actual Wii U gameplay footage

The announcement that the Wii U game montage was all 360 and PS3 footage wasn’t surprising, but it was disappointing. Anyone who has played Bayonetta or Bioshock on PS3 or Final Fantasy XIII on 360 knows that “multi-platform” does not necessarily mean “equal experience on all devices.” Even if two systems share relative hardware parity – like the 360 and PS3 – individual developers are still capable of releasing vastly different ports. A lot of PS3 ports in particular were not developed by the original game company, but outsourced to someone else (like the aforementioned games, and others like Orange Box).

Just because the Wii U may have comparable hardware – something we don’t actually know for certain – does not mean it will deliver a comparable experience to existing consoles, in the same way that PS3 ports of 360 games have often seen significant drops in quality.

This means that the only actual footage we have of Wii U is a simple, relatively underwhelming tech demo. Tech demos have never been indicative of actual hardware capabilities. Remember the FF7 tech demo for PS3? How many PS3 games have actually looked that good? When the game system doesn’t have to process AI, or user-controlled movement, or positional audio, or pre-loading of true open world environments, you can make very pretty graphics. Add in any of those other things – all of which are required for an actual game, and all of which require horsepower – and you have less power left for graphics.

When announcing a new console, a company needs more than just a single tech demo on display.

1. Announce a price

It’s clear that Nintendo has a price point in mind for the Wii U. I don’t blame them for waiting to announce it – after all, a lot could change by its launch in 2012. The PS3 and 360 are both likely to receive price drops between now and then, and their respective motion-control add-ons (Move and Kinect) will probably see price drops too. Nintendo must be waiting for that to happen before announcing a Wii U price.

That said, leaving people to speculate for a year isn’t a great idea either. We do know that it will cost more than the Wii. No surprise there. But if the 360 and PS3 both receive price drops, that means that Nintendo’s new console – which has similar graphical capabilities, but can’t do things like play DVDs or Blu-ray – is going to cost more money. We also don’t know what games are going to cost. We don’t know what the controller will cost. We don’t know if online will be free.

The PS Vita price announcement was very well received. Nintendo could have stolen its thunder with a great price announcement of its own. Instead, we’re left to wonder what the price might be – and while everyone is hoping for a price like $299 USD, the launch price could easily be $349 or $399. Unlike the Wii, the Wii U doesn’t look like it’ll be a “bargain console.”

Conclusion

The Wii U could be a very interesting addition to the console landscape, but so far its launch has been rough. As a Nintendo fan, I really hope they do a better job with Wii U development than they have done with Wii U marketing.

Otherwise, I’ll probably save my excitement for the Xbox 720 and PS4.

Before I post these numbers (which are publicly available via Microsoft’s 10K filing), let me clearly state that I do not compile this information in order to advocate a pro- or anti-Microsoft agenda. My primary purpose in compiling this information is to help individuals discuss Microsoft with some level of objectivity.

So without further ado, here’s a simplified version of “where does Microsoft make its money (2010).”

Total Revenue and Operating Income (June 2009 – 2010)

Total Revenue: $62,484,000,000
Operating Income: $24,098,000,000

For those who don’t know, Operating Income = Operating Revenue – Operating Expenses. In other words, “Operating Income” is the profit made from normal business operations. (A more formal definition is available from Investopedia: “Operating income would not include items such as investments in other firms, taxes or interest expenses. In addition, nonrecurring items such as cash paid for a lawsuit settlement are often not included. Operating income is required to calculate operating margin, which describes a company’s operating efficiency.”)

Revenue and Operating Income by Division (June 2009 – 2010)

Microsoft’s products are divided into five divisions: Windows & Windows Live (formerly “Client”), Server and Tools, Online Services, Microsoft Business, and Entertainment and Devices. The types of products and services provided by each segment are summarized below:

Windows and Windows Live – Windows operating system: Windows 7, including Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional, Ultimate, Enterprise, and Starter Edition; Windows Vista, including Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, Business, Enterprise and Starter Edition; and Windows XP Home. Windows Live suite of applications and web services.

Server and Tools – Windows Server operating system; Windows Azure; Microsoft SQL Server; SQL Azure; Visual Studio; Silverlight; System Center products; Biz Talk Server; Microsoft Consulting Services; Premier product support services; and other products and services.

Online Services Business – Bing; Microsoft adCenter; MSN; and Atlas online tools for advertisers and publishers.

Microsoft Business Division – Microsoft Office; Microsoft SharePoint; and Microsoft Dynamics ERP and CRM, as well as Microsoft Office Web Apps, which are the online companions to Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote.

Entertainment and Devices Division – Xbox 360 console and games; Xbox LIVE; Windows Phone; Windows Embedded device operating system; Zune; Mediaroom; and numerous consumer software and hardware products (such as Mac Office, mice, and keyboards); and Windows Automotive.

Microsoft’s previous fiscal year (June 2009-2010) was a particularly interesting one, with major headlines including the Windows 7 launch, Office 2010 launch, a redesigned XBox 360, Windows Phone 7, a new search and advertising agreement with Yahoo!, and the first full year of Bing-branded services. Some of these announcements came late in the fiscal year, which can indicate significant development cost without corresponding sales (keep that in mind).

The 2009-2010 Revenue and Operating Income for each division, in USD, is as follows:

Windows and Windows Live
Revenue: $18,491,000,000
Operating Income: $12,977,000,000

Server and Tools (Windows Server, Windows Azure, Visual Studio, Silverlight)
Revenue: $14,866,000,000
Operating Income: $5,491,000,000

Online Services (Bing, MSN, Hotmail)
Revenue: $2,199,000,000
Operating income: $-2,355,000,000

Business (Office, SharePoint, Dynamics ERP/CRM)
Revenue: $18,642,000,000
Operating income: $11,776,000,000

Entertainment and Devices (XBox 360/LIVE, Zune, Windows Phone, hardware)
Revenue: $8,058,000,000
Operating income: $679,000,000

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to one of the best Linux distros, even if it’s in an inconsequential way. :)

I strongly recommend checking out the other contest winners at the official Mandriva blog. OStatic also provides a list of the photos, with commentary.

If you haven’t tried Mandriva, you’re missing out. Give it a whirl at mandriva.com.

I’ve continued to experiment with the N900′s camera, and it continues to impress.  I know iPhone users are excited for the camera improvements coming in iOS 4, but I gotta be honest – after looking through the official iPhone 4 sample photos, I can safely say it’s got nothing on the N900 camera.

If you’re interested in more N900 photography, hit up my N900 set on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tannerhelland/sets/72157624248807430/).

(Note: these are all uploaded straight from the phone.  No retouching whatsoever!)

Unfortunately, the sticker shock of a $549 phone (at the time of this writing; you can find it as low as $469) can be hard to stomach in the U.S.  Because the N900 can only be bought unlocked, its price doesn’t compare very favorably to similar smartphones.  (The Motorola Droid, for example, is a similar price unlocked – but only $19.99 with a 2-year contract.)  Most Americans have a false sense of what a “fair” smartphone price is, since all advertising focuses on the price when subsidized by a two-year contract.

So it got me thinking – if an individual were to individually purchase all the separate “features” of the N900, how much would it cost?  This isn’t meant to be strictly scientific – more just a “what if” exercise.  I’m also going to use some of my favorite free apps as part of the exercise, so the price for your N900 arrangement may be different.  I’m also going to try and minimize overlapping features by starting with the most comprehensive feature equivalents.

(FYI – you can view the official N900 spec sheet here.)

Netbook

Thanks to the magic of Easy Debian, the N900 is capable of running OpenOffice.org, GIMP, and other desktop Linux apps.  The presence of a great hardware keyboard and touchscreen make the transition less difficult then you’d think, and 1gb of RAM (inc. virt) and a 600mhz processor (easily overclocked to 900, 1100, or even 1700mhz) make most desktop apps usable.  The easiest cost comparison for this feature would be a low-end Linux netbook.  ZaReason’s Terra A20 seems as close a match as we’re likely to find; the Atom N270 is obviously more powerful than the N900′s OMAP 3430, but 1gb of RAM, a 32gb SSD (+$129), and 3G (+$99) match up reasonably well.  Since this exercise isn’t claiming to be scientific, let’s say the N900 represents 75% of the above Terra A20 configuration ($577), or $430.  Fair enough?

Portable Media Player

Technically the netbook comparison overlaps some of the media abilities of the N900, but since it’s not the same level of portable I think it’s okay to include a comparable portable media player in our analysis.  We could look at iPods… but they lack some of the N900′s key features (like FLAC support) while adding unrelated features (the AppStore).

A good comparison appears to be Creative Labs ZEN X-Fi2 32gb – a 3″ touchscreen, similar storage capacity, FLAC support, microSD slot, video out, FM radio.  Close enough for our purposes, anyway.  The ZEN X-Fi 32gb currently retails for $199.

(Running total: $630)

GPS

Unfortunately, the current Ovi Maps implementation on the N900 is weak.  The omission of turn-by-turn nav is a killer, as is the inability to save waypoints.  Satellite view is awesome, and the GPS is very accurate and reasonably fast.  Pathing also works as well as any other phone solution, though it clearly favors European-formatted addresses over U.S.-formatted ones.

All-in-all, I consider the GPS a 50% implementation at present.  The eventual addition of turn-by-turn will go a long way toward resolving this, and if you don’t want to wait, Sygic provides a very good (if expensive) 3rd-party solution.

Since most low-end standalone GPS solutions are in the $100 neighborhood, I’m going to say the N900 currently represents a $50 solution.

(Running total: $680)

FM Transmitter

One of my favorite N900 features, the FM Transmitter is one of those things that makes you ask, “why don’t more companies do this?”  A quick online check shows a range of prices, with a mid-range transmitter costing $40.

(Running total: $720)

5mp Camera (w/ flash and 480p video recording)

I’ve written about the N900′s camera before.  It’s a fine camera for a phone – excellent quality outdoors, “pretty good” quality under artificial lighting conditions.  The dual-LED flash is a nice feature, as is 800×480:25 video recording (though honestly, I’d find more use for 720×480:30).  Autofocus and 3x digital zoom are pretty standard.

5mp is a disappearing resolution among consumer cameras, but I was able to find something comparable at Amazon.  5mp, VGA video, similar digital zoom – $50.

(Running total: $770)

Optional Features (e.g. free repository software)

So far I’ve stuck with stock N900 features.  Now I’m going to switch gears and start looking at the value added from free repository applications.

(If I’ve missed any apps with wide appeal and a clear cost benefit, let me know.)

• Programmable universal remote (qtlrreco): $17
• Game console emulators (Sega Genesis, Sega GameGear, NES, GameBoy, GBA, SNES, ColecoVision, PSX, even more): price varies by console
• Pedometer (widget): $8
• LED flashlight (app): $9
• Instrument tuner (app): $15
• Cooking timer (tickstill): $8
• TI83/85/86 Graphing Calculator (app): $88

Note that I’ve deliberately tried to select apps that aren’t easily reproduced on any of the above devices (including the netbook).

Optional Features total (not including game console emulators): $145

Conclusion

Grand total: $915

Like I said, this isn’t meant to be scientific – it’s more just an attempt at representing the cost value of a high-end smartphone.  Assuming you are able to find an N900 for under $500, you’re essentially halving the cost of piecing together the phone’s many features yourself.

Feel free to (politely) assess my calculations in the comments below!

Not bad for a phone, eh?

I’m intervening because I care.  We’ve had some good times together, but if you continue down the road you’re on, you are going to die.

What am I talking about?  I think you know.  I’m talking about your asinine leadership, including such figures as Chase “Diarreah of the Mouth” Carey and Rupert “I Lost $4.3 Billion This Year” Murdoch.

These people are not helping you, Hulu.  These people are hurting you.

Maybe even killing you.

See, people like Carey and Murdoch come from the “old school” approach to media.  They think that consumers should be forced to double- and triple-pay for all media they consume.  It’s not enough that consumers sit through commercials.  They should also pay for a subscription service like cable or satellite (unless they settle for OTA, of course).  On top of that, dedicated fans should pay AGAIN for a copy of these shows on DVD or Blu-Ray.  Murdoch and Carey think that’s still not enough, because they now want to charge you for watching shows online as well.  Last I count, if you really enjoy a show you should pay for it at least four times – and that’s not including if you want the show on a portable device like an iPod or smartphone.

You know what’s so great about you, Hulu?  You haven’t been this way.  You’ve given people the opportunity to enjoy shows over and over and over again by only paying for them ONCE (via advertising).  What a novel concept – allowing people to enjoy shows from almost any internet-connected device, and recouping your cost via advertising.

This concept reminds me of another company you may have heard of.  Its name is Google.  Google’s market cap is currently over $170 billion dollars.  Has Google achieved phenomenal success by shifting its burden of cost to consumers via subscriptions?

Absolutely not.  Google provides consumers with free services (search, Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube, Google Docs, Chrome) then subsidizes those free services with ad revenue.  $170 billion dollars later, consumers possess a plethora of free and useful tools, advertisers have the most targeted ad venue ever created, and Google becomes the most powerful online entity in the world.

Compare this to all the multibillion-dollar online companies that recoup costs through subscription models.

…Oh.  Wait.  How many multibillion-dollar online companies do that successfully?

That’s right.  Zero.

Now this is not to say that premium subscription services cannot work, because they can.  (Although many other companies have tried that and failed.)  If you wanted to offer, say, 1080p streaming for a premium price, that would be okay with me and most of your other users.

But the key with premium services is to actually provide premium offerings.  If you attempt to take something that has been free (e.g. everything up to this point) and suddenly start charging for it, you will lose viewers.  Tons of viewers.  Maybe all of ‘em.  Imagine if Google started charging you a monthly fee to use your Gmail account.  Imagine if Facebook started charging every time you checked your “wall.”

It’ll never happen, because these companies aren’t moronic.  But Hulu, your board of directors…

…Let’s just say I’m not as sure about them.

I want this to be more than just an angry rant, so let me share some concrete ideas on how you can increase profitability without alienating your entire userbase.

1. Improve international offerings. Do you have any idea how popular you could be if you became less U.S.-centric?  Even if your shows remained available only in English, you could easily increase viewership by an entire order of magnitude through an improved international presence.
2. More stand-alone software clients. Your recent desktop Linux client was a great move.  A PS3 client would be even better.  Clients for mobile OSes?  Pure gold.
3. Start cross-selling DVD versions of shows, and consider partnering with Amazon or iTunes for downloadable sales. If someone is watching back episodes of “The Office” and loving every minute of it, why not sell them a DVD box set right there?
4. Convince CBS and other leery networks to sign up. I’d love some online Big Bang Theory, so help CBS realize that they make more money off me watching BBT on your site than they do when I DVR the show and watch it commercial-free over and over and over again.

If you try all four of these ideas and none work, then consider some kind of paid premium offering.  Just don’t jump straight to a subscription model, because it makes no sense.

Sorry for being so bold, but I like you, Hulu.  I want you to succeed.

But facts are facts, and let’s face it – your competitors are only getting stronger.  YouTube is already offering ad-supported movie services.  Crackle is getting better, even if it remains U.S.-only.  Netflix’s Instant Watch offers most of what you do PLUS the ability to get my HD fix via Blu-ray.

So to try and switch to a subscription model amidst all this competition is nothing short of suicide.

I want better for you.

I recently joined many others in canceling my cable service because I have better places to send $75 a month.  First thing I did was buy a $20 antenna that gets me all the major TV stations (in hi-def).  This, combined with Linux’s MythTV and a digital tuner card, gives me a great HD-DVR.  Netflix and you fill in the rest of the gaps, and with all the leftover money I can buy every show I’ve ever enjoyed on DVD or Blu-ray.

Lots of people have left cable and dish behind because of services like yours, Hulu.  With the economy in the state it’s in, you can bet that many more people will take this leap in the near future.

So the question becomes – when these millions of viewers look to online viewing offerings, are they going to pick the free YouTube, the less-shows-but-free Crackle, or the as-good-as-you-plus-physical-media Netflix?

You fill a niche that no other site currently fills, and you are throwing away years of progress if you move to a subscription-only model.  Let NetFlix fill that niche.  It already does it much better than you could because of its pairing with rental services.

I’m here to help, Hulu.  Don’t make me leave you.

Because if you become “subscription only,” I will.

Paul Kurtz – better known as the “father of skeptical humanism” – wrote the following affirmations for the back cover of the May/June 2009 issue of Skeptical Inquirer.  Though I find some of the terminology less-than-perfect (particularly “believe”, which would read better as “affirm” or “assert”), the overall message is thought-provoking and well worth a read.

Thanks to TPO for transcribing the text.

AFFIRMATIONS OF THE NEW SKEPTICISM

The methods of critical inquiry used so effectively in science need to be extended to all areas of human interests. All claims to knowledge should be open to revision in the light of inquiry.

Skeptical inquiry is essential for the development of human knowledge. It represents a historic tradition in science, philosophy, and learning. We may distinguish skeptical inquiry, with emphasis on inquiry, from classical skepticism, which was apt to be negative, even nihilistic. This form of skepticism is a new skepticism, for it is positive and constructive; its principles are essential for the development of knowledge about nature and human behavior. With these considerations in mind, a set of principles serves as guidelines for skeptical inquirers:

WE BELIEVE in the possibility of discovering reliable human knowledge. We affirm the positive powers of human intelligence. We believe that the methods of scientific inquiry can expand the frontiers of knowledge and that these can be used for the betterment of humankind.

WE SUBMIT that skepticism is an essential part of scientific inquiry and that it should be extended to all areas of human endeavor—science, everyday life, law, religion and the paranormal, economics, politics, ethics, and society—and that the standards of rationality apply to each area of human interest.

WE BELIEVE that critical thinking is inherent in all worthwhile inquiry about the world and that it can be enlisted to solve problems, neutralize animosities, compromise hatred, and negotiate differences.

WE BELIEVE in clarity rather that obfuscation, lucidity in the place of confusion, and linguistic definitions to overcome vagueness or ambiguity.

WE DO NOT reject any claim to knowledge prior to inquiry. We insist, however, that claims be framed in testable form and that the burden of proof rests primarily with the party asserting the claim.

WE ASK for facts, not suppositions; experimental evidence, not anecdotal hearsay or conjecture; logical inference and deduction, not faith or intuition.

WE DO NOT believe in absolute dogmas or creeds, whether set in stone or proclaimed as official doctrine.

WE REJECT mythologies of salvation whether based in ancient fears or current messianic illusions, unsubstantiated by corroborative empirical grounds. We believe in inquiry rather than authority, reason in the place of tradition.

WE MAINTAIN that reason and science can be used to develop new technologies, alleviate suffering and reduce pain, and ameliorate and enhance human happiness.

WE SUBMIT that rational inquiry can help us to develop and test ethical principles, moral values, and social policies and thus can contribute to human well-being.

WE ARE NOT negative skeptics, naysayers, debunkers, cynics, or nihilists. We simply wish to oppose hypocrisy, cant, deception, and illusion. We emphasize instead the tests of evidence and rationality.

In short, we believe that critical inquiry is the best way to frame our means and fulfill our ends.