The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater operational utility to the joint commander and provide better protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats,” said former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman, in a Boeing statement.

 Factoring in two or three days for the bill to arrive, two or three days for the check to get back to AT&T, and a Sunday or two, that leaves three to five days for customers to pay their bills before the angry letters and phone calls begin.

In the age of the Internet, this may seem reasonable because payments should be in on or around the due date, except the problem in this case is that notices of late payment or non-receipt come only a few days before collection harassment officials are notified.

First and foremost, online ads are ineffective because, point blank, people are programmed to ignore and look past them. This is largely due to the active nature of web-browsing.

T.V vs. Internet

When people watch TV, they passively sit there as information is displayed across the screen. Watching TV is akin to saying “I’m going to sit down here, not think, and just absorb whatever is on the screen.” Internet browsing, however, is a much more involved activity, and one that puts the user in complete control. Instead of passively sitting on the couch, you’re actively browsing through a variety of websites, mouse in hand. Because of that, advertisements on the web are seen as a nuiscance, an intrusion of sorts. Rightly or wrongly, people have not accepted ads on the Internet in the way that they accept commercials on TV, and as a result, ads on the web are rarely absorbed and are mostly tuned out as people ignore them.
Confined Space

A problem with web advertising, as opposed to other mediums, is that ads on the web don’t exist within their own separate space. As opposed to Magazine or Television ads, online ads sit side by side next to the content, and because of that, there is only so much you can do with an online ad. Advertisers operate within such a confined space that the odds of producing a riveting and memorable ad is practically zero. Some websites have had moderate success with placing ads on digital media, such as being forced to watch 2-3 commercials on ABC.Com if you want to watch one of their Television shows online, but that example, not surprisingly, is related to TV. Watching 2-3 30 second commercials in exchange for watching LOST is something most consumers can agree to. On the other hand, ads emblazoned on web articles are lost in the shuffle and largely ignored because consumers feel they have a right to access web content for free with no hassle. Some companies have realized the futility of the banner ad and some websites have started showing full page ads before redirecting you to the article you were searching for – but there is always a button that says “Click here to skip this Ad” and undoubtedly the majority of websurfers click it. At best, a company might have some success with targeted ads, but even those are often ineffective as a marketing tool.

Does Volume overcome all?

Some successful websites generate over a million hits a day, and some argue that the general ineffectiveness of web ads is counteracted by the sheer volume of people who use the web. They claim that even if only .001% of users see and click on an ad, .001% of an insanely large viewing number becomes significant. This is a valid argument, but killing consumers on a volume basis has never proven to be an effective means of advertising. Another problem is the fact that up to 50% of ad click throughs are done by 6% of Internet surfers, otherwise known as serial clickers.

But aren’t companies and people making millions off of ads?

Yes, Google and co. are making millions off of online ads. But where is that money coming from? It’s coming from corporations who don’t necessarily understand the web and feel that any advertising is good advertising. I’ve been browsing the web for over 10 years and can’t remember more than 2 online advertisements that I’ve ever seen. In contrast, I could probably name 5 commercials that I’ve seen on TV in the last week.

Many companies are under the impression that online advertising is the next big thing. They assume that people will see their ads on blogs and popular websites, and in turn, their company will gain exposure leading to an increase in business and profitability. But online advertising doesn’t create exposure because the online medium is not conducive to advertising in any way, shape, or form.

Online Ads are like Casinos
Casinos make a ton of money because, in the end, the house always wins. That’s not to say that you can’t make money gambling, a lot of people do. But generally speaking, the average gambler is not going to come out on top. When it comes to online ads, Google and Microsoft are the Casinos. They’re gong to be making money and the Corporations are the gambling addicts who are spending hundreds of millions of dollars today, but will soon cure their addiction tomorrow when they see that the expected increase in brand awareness and profitiablity is non-existant or not even close to what they expected.

The Future of Online Advertising

Some say that because the internet is the future, that online advertising is the future. While that makes for a great tagline, companies will have to figure out how to do ads correctly before online advertising actually becomes effective. The advertising paradox, however, is that a good online ad is one that people don’t notice is there. So until someone figures out how to do online ads correctly, the underlying problem with internet advertising will continue to rear its ugly head — that being that the online medium simply doesn’t lend itself to creativity when full page ads are seen as nothing more than an intrusion. At the end of the day, people ignore ads, look past them, and forget that they were even there.

Well, some new research suggests that up to 50% of the clicks on advertisements are done by serial clickers.   These people make up 6% of the total Internet population, but their attention is grabbed by ads in a way that overwhelms and throws off previous research on the topic.  With a potential 6% of Internet surfers responsible for 50% of the clicks online, does that make branding and CPM ads that more important?  The research claims that although this small percentage of Internet users are online for hours more than others, they are not as likely to purchase the goods after they click.

The average salary of these surfers — that in my non-professional opinion I’d attribute to OCD — is below 40,000 / year.

The study was carried out by the media agency Starcom USA, behavioral targeting network Tacoda, and digital consumer insight company comScore.  They worked on research that would study click-through rates, their source, and the effect it has on online advertising.

The study reveals that a very small group of consumers who are not representative of the total U.S. online population is accountable for the vast majority of display ad click-through behavior. 

This is an interesting story because online advertising is such a hot topic right now and every major Silicon Valley company is trying to gain ground in a market that Google currently dominates.

While many online media companies use click-through rate as an ad negotiation currency, the study shows that heavy clickers are not representative of the general public. In fact, heavy clickers skew towards Internet users between the ages of 25-44 and households with an income under $40,000.

Their relatively younger age tells us a lot about their behavior alone.  I’d imagine that this group is the prime targeting group for marketers as they probably tend to be more impulsive and more easily distracted from the content by animations and vivid marketing visuals.

Heavy clickers behave very differently online than the typical Internet user, and while they spend four times more time online than non-clickers, their spending does not proportionately reflect this very heavy Internet usage. Heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites – a markedly different surfing pattern than non-clickers.

While this may be seen as a ‘negative’ because conversion rates are low, it’s an obvious benefit to the ad serving companies like Google because they can leverage the additional hits for CPM ads and also use the inflated hit count to negotiate better deals.  As far as CPM ads are concerned, the analysis that came about as a result of the research did not allow them to conclude that there is a correlation between  branding and click ratios.

Starcom data suggests no correlation between display ad clicks and brand metrics, and show no connection between measured attitude towards a brand and the number of times an ad for that brand was clicked.

Of course, advertisers will probably use this data to try and shift the burden on ad servers to yield better production or reflect this fact in the price.  It’ll be interesting to see if any companies budge on this matter, though, since Google itself dominates the industry and has a virtual monopoly on online quality ads and sites.  They are also cutting down on spam sites and domain parking exploitation of ad serving — although not entirely, as Google has deals w/ companies like Go-daddy to serve their ads.

“There is more and more emphasis by advertisers for greater return-on-objectives in campaigns, particularly in the digital space where the accountability data is so readily available,“ says Starcom USA Director of Connections Research and Analytics Grant Prentice. “Natural Born Clickers shows us that we can’t count on click-through rate as our primary success metric for display ads; Starcom is more reliant on shifts in brand attitude metrics and analytics tying on-line exposure to sales as the true measures of online advertising efficacy.” 

This doesn’t mean a whole lot because of how ad publishing works though.  Basically the market decides how much each click is worth, marketing agencies and departments have to decide how much they are willing to pay for targeted traffic.  Sometimes branding is more important than selling products, especially early on and CPM might actually be less effective than a CPC type model.

 “While the click can continue to be a relevant metric for direct response advertising campaigns, this study demonstrates that click performance is the wrong measure for the effectiveness of brand-building campaigns,” said Erin Hunter, executive vice president at comScore.

“For many campaigns, the branding effect of the ads is what’s really important and generating clicks is more of an ancillary benefit. Ultimately, judging a campaign’s effectiveness by clicks can be detrimental because it overlooks the importance of branding while simultaneously drawing conclusions from a sub-set of people who may not be representative of the target audience.”

I  know that bloggers and small business providers are usually at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to their revenue interests, but it sure would be nice if research would yield results that benefits the little guy, too!  In my view, I don’t think advertisers are paying enough for sites with quality content.  If they want to pay peanuts then serve their ads at spam sites.  For producers of strong original content maybe the big boys should consider raising prices based on venue. This may actually encourage higher quality content online rather than mass producing garbage sites to make a dime off unsuspecting Internet users.

This helps to explain why Apple has chosen to account for iPhone sales on a subscription basis, choosing to amortize the phones over a 24 month period.  In doing so, Apple can provide iPhone users with new features without having to charge them.

Apple is planning to further expand its worldwide retail presence by opening up stores in Germany, Switzerland, Australia and Mexico.

This is a significant move as Apple’s retail stores have been an integral part of Apple’s resurgence and in the company’s meteoric stock performance over the past 4 years.  Apple’s retail stores account for approximately 20% of its revenue, and not only that, but they also generate revenue that comes in at more than $4,025 per square foot, besting typical leaders such as Tiffany’s and Best Buy by as much as $3000 per square foot.

Apple currently operates over 200 retail stores in the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Ireland, and Japan.

Speculation is mounting that Google is plotting the launch of a mobile phone in partnership with computer giant Dell.

For the sake of innovation and the competition in the market that mobile niche that Apple currently dominates, let’s hope that Google and Dell can get it together on this potential alliance!

Senior industry sources claim the two companies will reveal their plans at next month’s 3GSM telecoms conference in Barcelona, al-though Google insiders deny an announcement is due in the near future.  But the rumors will once again throw the spotlight on Google’s mobile strategy, which has been the subject of much conjecture over the last year.  There had been widespread talk of Google launching its own handset, known as the “Gphone”, to go up against Apple’s iPhone, which launched in November last year.

We may be dealing with rumors and hype, but it seems that the rumors of Google’s interest in the mobile market are all consistent with their desire to launch their own  handset and mobile software.

Google recently announced its operating system for mobile phones, dubbed “Android.”  The purpose of the software is to create a platform for developers to create mobile applications that will easily run on handsets.

Dell might see the potential of expanding its reach into this market and it’s an interesting storyline given that Apple and Dell have a cute little rivalry going on that Apple is easily winning at this point.

In my opinion, however, Super Bowl commercials have lost their relevance.  Why?  Well, in case you aren’t already aware, we are now bombarded with advertisements at every corner and every turn.  In turn, it’s getting increasingly difficult for today’s consumer to be that impressed with a commercial.  After all, we’re exposed to media advertising nearly every waking hour.  With the cost of Super Bowl advertising getting costlier every year, it makes sense that only some of the biggest name-brands would be willing to shell out the cash necessary for a 30 second spot.

And that, I feel, is what has caused a general ‘blandness’ to envelop what was once a showcase for the best ads on the planet.  With only a few companies being able to compete for the most sought after spots during the Super Bowl, it only makes sense that the commercials that make it to air aren’t necessarily the best in show.  Rather, they are the best in show for the companies that actually afford a Super Bowl spot in the first place. They’re still great commercials, but I feel that the day of the Super Bowl commercial as a defining marketing tool is a thing of the past.

From USA Today: 

Domino’s claims the system is accurate to within 40 seconds, regardless of whether you placed your order online or by phone. The only thing that won’t be tracked is the actual journey of the pizza from the store to your house, but Domino’s will give you the exact time your pizza left the store.

Honestly, with the resources of a large corporation, tracking pizza and other delivery outlets can’t be far behind.  Set up a network that tracks devices on all company vehicles and allow users to see the delivery online.  That would be a nice marketing gimmick and whoever does it first will probably make a pretty buck off of the advertising campaign that follows.

Rival Pizza Hut is unimpressed. PizzaHut.com already provides an estimated time when customers will receive their orders, says Bob Kraut, vice president of marketing.

Way to try and take the wind out of their sails, Pizza Hut!  You’re just jealous!  On a side note, I don’t know that the technology is going to compensate for the ‘bleh’ pizza at their regular prices, but I guess for Super Bowl parties it really doesn’t matter.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Microsoft Corp. offered $44.6 billion to buy Yahoo Inc., in a bold attempt to dramatically expand its online business and compete more effectively with Google Inc. in services ranging from email to Internet advertising sales.

Adding to the drama, here’s the best part of it all — Microsoft decides to bully it’s rival:

The offer was made in a letter sent Thursday by Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer to Yahoo’s board of directors. One person familiar with the matter said that Microsoft decided to “go hostile” with its bid within the last few weeks after Yahoo ignored its latest overtures.

The offer, $31 a share in cash and stock, is a 62% premium to Thursday’s closing price.

Aside from a larger market share on internet search, Yahoo may have a leg up with their YPN ad publisher program.  Additionally, Yahoo stock has been plummeting and with rumors of previous flirting between the silicon valley giants, it seems like now is a good time for Yahoo to consider such an offer.  Though, I don’t know if you can call it flirting if one party seems consistently interested and the other is generally turned off by the proposition.

Not surprising, but the Dow is reacting positively to the news. 

 Google takes a stand against exploiting domain names for profit

Google’s AdSense program would exclude those names so no one can generate advertising revenue from claiming them temporarily, a practice known as domain name tasting — the online equivalent of buying expensive clothes on a charge card only to return them for a full refund after wearing them to a party.

“We believe that this policy will have a positive impact for users and domain purchasers across the Web,” Google spokesman Brandon McCormick said.

Name tasting exploits a grace period originally designed to rectify legitimate mistakes, such as registrants mistyping the domain name they are about to buy. But with automation and a burgeoning online advertising market, entrepreneurs have generated big bucks exploiting the policy to test hoards of names, keeping just the ones that turn out to generate the most revenue.

Oddly enough, one of the major criticisms of Google’s empire is that it is quick to profit off of such kiting schemes.  It looks like the higher ups have had a change of heart and Google can now claim once again to be a proud member of the “Do No Evil” society.

Within the Church of Scientology, you are taught that Scientology is the one and only solution to all mankind’s problems, and during this narrow window of opportunity in mankind’s history it is possible to “clear the planet” (ie give everybody auditing) and save humanity from itself. Most other goals pale in comparison and anything that detracts from Scientology, or its expansion is in essence a mortal sin against humanity. This belief is strong enough to get people sign up the Sea Organization [wikipedia.org] (LRH’s private navy) on a billion year contract (ie you are in for the long haul… and not just this lifetime)

Anyone who attacks the church is either a suppressive person (2.5% of the population who are evil – think Hitler), PTS due to a connection to an SP (Potential Trouble Source – 20% of the population), or has committed various other overts and withholds (ie sins and secrets) and it trying to justify their own actions by making the Scientology seem less (because if you admitted to yourself that Scientology was the “one and only solution” then your otherwise small crime would have to weigh fairly heavily on your conscience). Anyone who commits various sins and suppressive acts, will be subconsciously aware of this, and slowly do themselves in (ie get sick, have an accident) to prevent themselves from committing more crimes.

You can read the insightful comment in detail at slashdot: “Internet Group Declares War on Scientology”

L Ron Hubbard is rumored to have suggested that the best way to make money is Religion, that’s where the money’s at!  Whether he said it or not, that is so damned true.  People will pour millions of dollars into any religion that is ‘legitimized’ by the masses.  In the case of Scientology, it has become a life philosophy for the rich and powerful to learn to hone their “skills” and improve their lifestyles.

A young Steve Jobs announced the arrival of the Macintosh computer.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“The technology exists right now to move cars without a driver,” Mr. Fosgard said, adding that a self-driving vehicle would “know where all the vehicles are around it, dramatically reduce accidents and even reduce congestion.”

G.M. hopes that the prospect of a driverless car will make the company, which has struggled to shed its image as a lumbering industrial-age behemoth, appear more cutting-edge.

The vehicle that G.M. is showing this week won a contest sponsored by the Defense Department that required vehicles to drive themselves for 60 miles in a mock urban setting. The government believes this type of technology can dramatically reduce traffic deaths, most of which occur as a result of human error.

Full article: “GM to show a vehicle that drives by itself.“

I don’t write about issues related to film and entertainment that much, but this story is too funny to pass up. To be honest, I know very little about Jessica Simpson other than she looks great in a Bikini.

Her hot bod wasn’t enough to bring the perverts or the ladies to see her latest flick, though! Blonde Ambition averaged $48 per screen on Friday for a total box office of $384. Based on an $8 ticket price, it means 6 people paid to see the movie at each theater (avg) and only 48 people went to see the flick.

Ouch! I guess that’s what she gets for distracting the Dallas Cowboys last week! In case you’re not a sports fan, they lost for only the second time this season to the lowly Philadelphia Eagles — at home!

Coffee Drinkers’ 1,013 Good Deeds

MARYSVILLE, Wash. (AP) — One woman’s kindness to a fellow Starbucks patron resulted in more than a thousand others spreading the holiday-season generosity in this northwest Washington town. A regular patron at the chain had paid for the person in line behind her a few times before, according to The Everett Herald. But on Wednesday, her good deed set off a chain of 1,013 customers paying for the next person’s drink.

Many coffee shop patrons tacked on an extra $10 or $20, which shift manager Sarah Nix said Starbucks Corp. will donate to its ongoing holiday toy drive.

This is such a nice story to read during a holiday season that is burdened by a weakened economy and the never-ending War in Iraq. From a business standpoint, it’s great for Starbucks too.. makes me want to go out and buy a nice warm coffee.

Would anyone seriously want to use their phone to film a video response to someone dropping a turkey? Do the creators of this ad really think that people talk like this: “Busted!”? And call me cynical, but I’d be somewhat surprised if this feature works as quickly and as simply as it seems to work in the commercial. All too frequently, companies attempt to cram in as many features as possible into their devices without ever stopping to think of whether or not people would actually have any practical use for it. This might be a perfect example of that. Maybe I’m needlessly ranting here, but take a look for yourself and see. DISCLAIMER: I find the girl in this commercial to be extremely annoying, so perhaps that’s clouding my better judgment.

Life changes when the money starts rolling in, corporate profits and greed corrupts, what else is new?

Two privacy groups filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission today asking the commission’s chairwoman, Deborah Platt Majoras, to recuse herself from the commission’s review of Google’s merger with DoubleClick.

Ms. Majoras’s husband, John M. Majoras, works at Jones Day, a law firm representing DoubleClick as the merger is considered. Ms. Majoras also worked at Jones Day.

Privacy groups have been fighting Google’s proposed acquisition of DoubleClick, an ad-serving company, because they say it would give Google access to too much data about Web users. The Center for Digital Democracy and the Electronic Privacy Information Center jointly filed the complaint today. The two organizations have filed other complaints about the proposed merger.

Jones Day announced that it was representing DoubleClick on Nov. 17, long after the commission began considering the deal. Google announced the $3.1 billion deal with DoubleClick in April.

I’m not sure what the answer is to this DoubleClick drama, but Google needs to fess up if they screwed up on this.  Google ad sense currently has bloggers and small businesses by the balls, pardon my French.  They own online PPC marketing and advertising and their only competition is the “bottom feeding” affiliates and crappy porn advertising companies like Ad Brite.

I’d like to see Google become good.  I have no problem with them making tons of money off of it either, but right now they have a bad operation going on and something has to give.

“My husband and I were having a conversation about what foods could and could not be made better with the addition of bacon. Sure, that was a good salad, but it would have been so much better with bacon. That was a delicious baked potato.. I wish it had some bacon on it. You know what was missing from breakfast this morning?- bacon. I think we’ve come up with so many foods which bacon can enhance, that we really were wondering what foods it wouldn’t.”

A woman after my own heart! I know what you’re thinking right now, “oh no, they didn’t…”

Yes, yes they DID!

Delicious Chocolate Chip Cookies with Bacon

I just about fell out of my chair when I saw the beautiful cookies.

I was excited and I wanted to share the news of chocolate chip bacon cookies with my friends. Only one problem, all of my buddies on IM at the time were Jewish. As funny as it sounds, I thought it might be offensive or taken improperly and maybe I’d seem culturally insensitive so I sent it to my non-Jewish friend.

He happens to have Polish roots and I thought to myself, hey, “Polish Sausage!” I knew for sure he’d love it! Here’s how he responded:

M: 12/10/07 2:56 PM: Oh God.
M: 12/10/07 2:56 PM: That is so disgusting.
Fred: 12/10/07 2:57 PM: No man, so delicious!
M: eeeeeeew

Well, I guess Chocolate covered cookies with bacon may not be ready for prime time. I personally love the idea and I think it could be the next million dollar project, but you never know how fickle consumers will react.

This got me thinking, with proper marketing and a solid recipe, who knows, maybe it could work?

This is one of the reasons why I need great people around me when it comes to making business decisions. I get so excited and want to take over the world with bacon covered chocolate chip cookies. My advisers and friends tell me that it’s not a wise move and I should consider something more “safe”, like… bacon-flavored ice cream.

Glad I asked!

About a month ago, we released a new feature called Beacon to try to help people share information with their friends about things they do on the web. We’ve made a lot of mistakes building this feature, but we’ve made even more with how we’ve handled them. We simply did a bad job with this release, and I apologize for it.

This is a good move from a personal standpoint, it probably helps relieve some of the personal anxiety that comes with being responsible for so much outrage out there. It’s also a great move for the company, because if anything, this privacy issue has created some real resentment between long time users of Facebook’s platform.

While I am disappointed with our mistakes, we appreciate all the feedback we have received from our users. I’d like to discuss what we have learned and how we have improved Beacon.

All of the negative press won’t be enough to overwhelm Facebook in the long term, but I’d be surprised if it’s potential for growth slows due to the bad press. Hopefully this is a lesson for all hot companies that look to act as data-mining operations and conduits for corporate preying and exploitation of social web users.

Mashable put up a poll to gauge the public reaction to Facebook’s drama.

Recently, AT&T’s CEO, Randall Stephenson announced that there would be a 3G iPhone from Apple released sometime in 2008. Everyone knew that 3G IPhones were inevitable. After all, more than any other feature, the slow browsing capability of the IPhone on AT&T’s sluggish Edge network has garnered numerous complaints. Apple initially chose not to make the IPhone 3G capable because the 3G chipsets at the time were battery hogs and would have rendered a user intensive phone such as the IPhone a hassle to maintain. Now, it’s only a matter of time before the IPhone goes 3G as battery effecincies have improved. In fact, Steve Jobs himself has alluded to this!

So what does AT&T do? They announce to the public what many have already been aware of. Oddly enough, what shouldn’t have been a particularly newsworthy story has spawned an avalanche of animosity claiming that AT&T has pulled a fast one on Apple because their holiday IPhone sales are going to take a hit as a result. The argument is that a number of people looking to buy IPhones this holiday season will instead hold off until a 3G IPhone is released sometime in 2008.

Some have suggested that this will cost Apple millions in sales. This seemingly logical mental leap doesn’t hold any weight, however, when scrutinized closely. Potential iPhone customers can be categorized into two groups. First, you have the tech-savvy consumers who read articles like this one and get all wound up by any news (good or bad) related to apple and their products. Then you have your average holiday shoppers who has no interest in nonsensical terms such as 3G. Okay, are you with me? Good! Tech-savvy consumers would likely already be aware that a 3G phone is in the works. So if they were planning to wait for a faster iteration of the IPhone from the get go, then they weren’t going to be making any IPhone purchases this holiday season to begin with.

Any techie who was willing to endure the Edge network this holiday season would have been willing to endure it last June (when the IPhone came out) and probably owns one regardless of that fact. Average mainstream consumers tend to be entranced by the “coolness” factor and features the iPhone has to offer. This is definitely the case with AT&T’s Edge Network — which may as well be undecipherable code as far as the average consumer is concerned.

Your average consumer is probably familiar with wi-fi and that is probably how most will browse the web on first generation iPhones. Further, Apple has been continuously updating and revamping one of their most profitable products for years — the iPod. Apple will always have “the next best thing” in the works and the lifespan of any iPod is finite, duh! Does the fact that a ‘better’ ipod is always just around the corner impede iPod sales in the interim? Nope. The sales figures from Apple can back me up on that one.

In fact, analysts are predicting this current quarter will be Apple’s most sucessfull iPod quarter in HISTORY. The fact remains that the iPhone is technologically superior to any other phone on the market and people will be lining up in droves to purchase them for themselves and as gifts for family and friends. Is it 3G? Who cares! It has a touch screen. Google Maps. Photos. A WideScreen IPod. The list can go on an on.

3G gets lost in the shuffle as a “geek” term that will have no bearing on the decision making process of the masses. In short, anyone (for the most part) waiting for a 3G iPhone wouldn’t have been contemplating an iPhone purchase to begin with. So did AT&T “give a smackdown” to Apple? Nah.

Did AT&T just cost Apple millions in holiday sales? Not a chance.

This gem below will allow me to get started on my quest to squash the angry mob that is constantly looking for a reason to bash Apple’s latest gadget.

Lately, it seems that everyone and their mother is suing Apple. “iTunes is a monopoly”, they chant. “iTunes is unfairly tied to the iPod”, they scream. “My iPod is too shiny and it’s hurting my eyes”,they yell. Recently, a lawsuit has emerged from the depths of Florida alleging that Apple unfairly ties its iPod music player to iTunes. Among the allegations is that content purchased via iTunes cannot be played on any other media player and that Apple disabled support for rival media formats. In short, the suit claims that Apple has attained (drum roll please….) MONOPOLY POWER. Big words for such a frivolous lawsuit. In any event, it has become en vogue to accuse Jobs and co. of having monopolistic power and some even go so far as to compare Apple to the Microsoft of old.

In the 1990’s, Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows in such as way as to unfairly influence (some might say force) users to make and keep IE as their default browser. Moreover, Microsoft nefariously tied IE to the operating system itself, thereby making attempts to toss IE into the recycle bin an effort in futility, or worse, disaster. In effect, with over 95% of the computer market, Microsoft was essentially able to force consumers to use Internet Explorer, or at the very worst, not allow them to throw it away. Recently, critics and Plaintiffs alike have asserted that Apple similarly and unfairly ties and bundles the iTunes store to its iPod media players.

One particularly ridiculous tech analyst recently wrote the following: ” Want to buy music from Apple? Guess what? You must install iTunes. Want an Apple cell phone from AT&T? Yes! ITunes is required if you want only to make phone calls. Want to buy ring tones for your Apple phone? iTunes. Apple not only “bundles” iTunes with multiple products, it forces you to use it. At least with Internet Explorer, you could always just download a competitor and ignore IE.”

Lawsuits alleging monopolistic practices against apple are absurd!

Please don’t confuse me with an apple “fan boy” who can’t stand to hear Apple criticism. I just get really tired of seeing blog spam filled with animosity that seems misguided or forced.

Anyone with an iPod is familiar with the iTunes software. If you want to buy music from Apple, you’re forced to go through iTunes. So what, where’s the scandal? Every person has the right to their opinion, but the best way to talk to the company is through your wallet! If you don’t want to download music from Apple or use iTunes, then just don’t! It’s that simple.

Apple created the iPod for a reason, it’s called business and making a profit for its investors. The company makes money off of sales of its hardware and software, sounds simple enough! Is it so wrong for Apple to take a sound business position on iTunes that will compliment it’s products and company business strategy?

The reason the iPod has been successful is because Apple controls the user experience. If that doesn’t float your boat, don’t use iTunes. Heck, if it really bothers you, don’t purchase apple products in the future. When people clamor about Apple being monopolistic, they seemingly forget that there are a number of other avenues out there whereby consumers can purchase music. Buy a Zune. Buy a SanDisk player. Hit up some sleek looking Samsung devices.

Visit any Best Buy store or your gadget vendor of choice and you’ll see that the iPod is just one of many options out there for consumers. And when it comes to music management software, itunes is hardly the only game in town. Go to the Zune marketplace or Amazon, for example. Hell, why not take it old school and go out and buy a CD?

You don’t have to use iTunes or the iPod, it’s not like Microsoft Windows in the early 90’s. Calling Apple’s attempt to monopolize and engage in anticompetitive practices is reaching a bit. The apple attack squad, aka “fan boy haters” ignore the vast competition that exists in the digital marketplace. Apple is successful because they’ve created the best overall user experience, bar none. They’ve created a gated community, sure, but you’re not bound to it if you don’t want to be.

Why can’t I use other music management software and sync it to my iPod?

Allowing the iPod to sync up to other music software would cause a bevy of technological and usability hurdles that would turn the iPod into a subpar device. More importantly, the iPod is an Apple product and Apple thinks iTunes is the best way for the ipod to interact with digital media. It is not Apples job, responsibility, or obligation to ensure that third party software runs smoothly on its iPod players. Should people be suing Microsoft because PS3 games won’t run on their 360? The iPod/iTunes experience has not changed since day one. If anything, it has become more open with advent of the drm-free section of iTunes.

The iPod is just one of many mp3 players, yet it attracts the most attention because it has been the most successful — largely due to the fact that it is the easiest to use and provides the best user experience. Again, it is important to remember that Apple has been able to provide that experience because it controls all facets of the ipod ecosystem. If you don’t like iTunes, then don’t use an iPod. If you love your iPod so much that you can’t live without it, then recognize that iPods are so great precisely because it’s tied so closely to iTunes. If you love iTunes but have another music player, then buy some DRM-free music. There really is no need to go to court over this.

Monopolistic allegations against Apple are, (no pun intended), fruitless. The iPod is not the only media player in town nor is the iTunes the only way to attain digital media. A slew of other companies exist that provide a number of different ways to organize and access media content on portable devices. A cursory glance at what a Monopoly truly is, legally speaking, and it makes you wonder what kind of lawyers are actually taking on this ridiculous and overtly frivolous case. Apple is ahead of the pack because it has the best product on the market. It doesn’t stifle innovation, and if anything, it has encouraged it by continuously churning out amazing and groundbreaking products that leave competitors scratching their heads and heading back to the drawing board.

Unfortunately, people are stuck in the Microsoft mindset that if a company has a huge lead in market share, it must be the result of a monopolistic wielding of power. A few minutes with an iPod and it’s easy to see that Apples market share is the result of impressive innovation and nothing more.