Comments for Silicon Hutong

Comment on Apple’s China Strategy: Venturing to the Edge of Coolness by David Wolf

David Wolf — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:17:16 +0000

“Insane logic.”
Not at all. Apple sells its products at a premium. Part of that premium is based on utility, but part is based on the iPhone making a personal statement as a luxury item. If everyone was carrying an iPhone, it would lose its cachet and thus some of its value.

“You wanna see a future iPhone user, grab a Android user and ask him/her how they like their phone.”
How does that square with a 13.1% fall in iPhone market share from Q3 2011 to Q4 in China? Ugly truth: as good as the Apple experience is, lots of people in China aren’t willing to pay a premium for the difference between Android and Apple, and that number will likely grow as Android goes 4.0. Aside: I’m Apple everything EXCEPT that I carry an Android phone. My wife has an iPhone, but I’m sticking with my Droid III because it cannot touch the iPhone for how I need to use a mobile device.

“Microsoft hasn’t made a dime in China (piracy).”
Your information is out of date. While piracy still accounts for around 78% of Microsoft software used in China, a concerted program begun in 2003 by then-MS China CEO Tim Cheng and his right-hand man David Kay has brought the number down from 93%, with the trend continuing. The Wall Street Journal estimates that in 2010 Microsoft revenues from China passed US $2 billion.

Comment on Apple’s China Strategy: Venturing to the Edge of Coolness by Michael A. Robson

Michael A. Robson — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:10:05 +0000

“Apple owes much of its profitability in China to the perception that its devices are highly desirable yet difficult to obtain. The company is likely loath to tamper with that aura by significantly broadening its distribution,”

Insane logic. Apple gears sells all over the world. You wanna see a future iPhone user, grab a Android user and ask him/her how they like their phone. Apple can’t really lose in China, because they make all their money on selling HARDWARE. Microsoft hasn’t made a dime in China (piracy). See the difference?

Comment on When Life Should Imitate Art by Senin Amına Korum Liseli Capsi :D « Eriş DENİZ

Senin Amına Korum Liseli Capsi :D « Eriş DENİZ — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:59:32 +0000

[...] When Life Should Imitate Art (siliconhutong.com) [...]

Comment on Event: The Massification of Chinese Education by Joab Meyer

Joab Meyer — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 07:48:50 +0000

Sounds like a great event! Is there any chance it will be recorded? This is the sort of thing that doesn’t get captured when the U.S. politicians fear China is “eating our lunch”. It isn’t just about manufacturing, but how the Chinese change so many markets. Personally, I am excited by this – for the ambitious and diligent it is an opportunity to rise together!

Comment on Television Regulations: New Bottle, Same Wine (With Corrections) by Li Yuanyuan

Li Yuanyuan — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:31:31 +0000

That “page” is a terribly written story from an unknown paper. I could give you 500+ “pages” on how 911 was an inside job, but they don’t mean anything.

Comment on Television Regulations: New Bottle, Same Wine (With Corrections) by Li Yuanyuan

Li Yuanyuan — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:03:38 +0000

4. All TV stations report shows and their percentage of air time quarterly to local TV&Radio bureau who then report to SARFT.
2. You are not a local station if you have a national audience.
1. No.547 does not ban foreign TV shows and No.489 ONLY APPLIES TO RE-RUNS of old TV shows, as the title clears spells out. This week’s NEW BAN mentions those two because they both somehow contradict the new regulation so they have to be abolished for the new rules to be clear.

Comment on Television Regulations: New Bottle, Same Wine (With Corrections) by David Wolf

David Wolf — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:55:51 +0000

Also, have a look at this page, referring to limitations on foreign content during prime time and generally. http://media.people.com.cn/GB/17136901.html

Comment on Television Regulations: New Bottle, Same Wine (With Corrections) by David Wolf

David Wolf — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:21:06 +0000

Yuanyuan, the other reg specifically superseded by this week's regulation was 489. Check here for a copy archived on the website of the Zhongshan Public Information Center. This one clearly spells out a prime-time ban, dated August 31, 1999. I'm still looking for an earlier reg and the 25%, but this one was acknowledged by SARFT to be in effect up to this week.

Comment on Television Regulations: New Bottle, Same Wine (With Corrections) by David Wolf

David Wolf — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:04:55 +0000

Li Yuanyuan, thank you for this. Please see below: just trying to learn and correct my mistaken impressions.

4. If SARFT is checking every program on every channel in the country every day, it certainly was not always like that, or the Director General of the Social Administration Department was lying to me back in May 1999 (not impossible, but not unlikely). Which office at SARFT is doing the checking now? Is it all done by SARFT in Beijing, or do the provincial bureaus take part of the effort?
2. The laxity I refer to is during the period of 1997-1999.
2. Looking at the regs again, it specifically says “local TV stations.” At the time, “local” applied to any stations broadcasting via cable or terrestrial. Why did it not apply to local stations that were producing programming locally broadcasting via satellite? Are these not all “local” stations? Also, if those regulations were no longer relevant, why was Regulation 547 not repealed until the issuance of this week’s regulation? Again, seeking to learn, not challenging.
1. I’m digging around in my files for regs between 1995 and 1998, because I remember clearly theat the prime-time ban was in place on both cable stations and the regional satellites by 1998, but until I find them I’m going to put an update on the post to tell people to read through these comments for some important corrections.

Thank you again.

Comment on Television Regulations: New Bottle, Same Wine (With Corrections) by Li Yuanyuan

Li Yuanyuan — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:31:16 +0000

4. I had to say “there is no going around SARFT” because you say, with the clean room metaphor, that SARFT does not always have the manpower to check on the TV stations, which is not true. All shows and air time are checked by SARFT, every quarter of the year.
2. “Part of that laxity was driven by necessity”–that was not laxity. Those polices simply expired because the subjects of the policies disappeared. Local non-satellite stations were dismantled and re-organized into media groups. Whatever TV policies SARFT had in 1995 were not applicable to new satellite TV stations.
1. The regulations in 1995 by MRFTV is here: http://www.chinaacc.com/new/63/73/143/2006/2/xu50382859302822600223200-0.htm
It does not ban foreign shows but says Chinese shows need be the main fair. My point is, this week’s regulations are new, both to stations, TV producers and the audience.