[PCWorld]

Post your comments for The 10 Most Disruptive Technology Combinations here

[JayJaySmacker]

While this is not an all-inclusive list, it is very well done and does point out some very significant technologies of the past 30 years. Well done.

[CMagnusB]

Hi
Nice compilation. But for the future, the Plastic packaging have an interesting solution:
Controlled Delamination Materials is easy to open without a tool, as long as You have paid for it. Shoplifting (by breaking the package and claiming it's something You brought on another occation) is still a PIA as intended.
Please follow link: http://www.storaenso.com/CDAvgn/main/0,,1_EN-8041-18573-,00.html

[NeoTechni]

Trillian disrupted instant messaging for you

[buckwalter]

I think one disruptive tech combo that is definitely missing from the list is VoIP and broadband. Think about it.. from skype to nearly every cable company offering VoIP services to their customers... VoIP is revolutionizing P.O.T.S. - not sure how the author missed that one.

[djsyntek]

He did mention VoIP. Not enough people are using it yet because not enough people have broadband and why would you want VoIP or even a home phone if you have a cell phone. Having a house phone is pointless for most people. And even will cellular service most companies now offer unlimited plans, where you pay 99.99(seems to be the popular price) and you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, how ever long you want on the network at no additional cost. Plus its portable, so why have a home phone.

On the subject of the wishlist you mentioned. Yes I agree, except trillian did disrupt IM, just not enough people know about it.

Adds on websites - only computer illerate people click on those, which means my mom and grandma click on those. But as this older computer illiterate generation dies out, we'll see less and less of this "Congradulations you WON!" adds because I have never actually click on one and I'm sure the majority of the readers here can say the same thing. In the 12 years ive been activily on the internet, I've probably clicked on less then 50 ads and those 50 were things I was actually interested in. Take for example, on this page I'm seeing an ad for a lenovo thinkpad r61. I probably won't click on it, but If I was in the market for a laptop, I might, but more likely I would just goto something like newegg.com or amazon.com or buy.com when looking for these products, or evens google to search for one instead of clicking on an ad.

The advertisement on the bottom of the TV while I'm watching TV for some show, well I have digital TV with a freakin guide on it that tells me whats coming on for oh... the next week or more. Plus its easy to schedule the set top box to record or automatically change the channel to the show you want, so yes, get ridd of that crap, you interrupting my HD programming already with commercials, no need to put more on while I'm watching your show. I'd like to see TV with no commercials. We already have commercial free radio (XM and Sirius and other Internet Streaming Radio[I listen to Digitally Imported and have both XM in one car and Sirius in another] so when is Commercial Free TV coming besides On-Demand. I would easily pay 150 or more a month to be able to watch TV with no commercials. Commercials have taken, we'll just say 2 years (big estimate) so, yeah, I'll pay to not listen to companies try and sell me crap I'll never buy.

[eMJay]

This is a very comprehensive list although i don't necessarily agree with the ranking sequence. I'd rank Mp3s as having been far more disruptive than blogs as it's had a far greater impact globally than blogs or google ads. I definitely agree that the most visible disruptive technology has been the cell phone. Even my grandmother has caved in to getting one after years of resistance...this is from a woman who's managed to resist using the internet!...my cousin even taught her how to use text-messaging. At the university i attend, it's practically mandatory to have a cell and a thumb drive with you at all times. The only students who don't have one of these just had theirs stolen! Being able to carry around as much data as you want is life-altering stuff but mobile internet access through my cell has practically made me online for life.

[djsyntek]

FYI
*This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by
the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music
Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price
of $15.99.

$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead

So the artist only makes $1.60 or 09.99375% of each CD

So lets say the Rolling Stones sold 1 million albums (which they did in 2005 "A Bigger Bang"ª), thats $15,990,000 total made and they get $1,600,000.

*From touring, the Rolling Stones made $150,600,000. So CD sales only count for %1.0512483574244416 of their net income for touring and cd sales.

It would almost be better for Rolling Stones to give the music away for free via MP3 (1/3rd the quality of CD), build a bigger fan base, and do more shows. Which funny enough a lot of artist are doing. The only people losing out doing this are the Record Labels, and I say screw them and the RIAA.

ª According to the Wikipedia page, They only sold 545,000, the other site claims 1,000,000 which works easier for example shown above. But if it is only 545,000 then they made even less, and that's lifetime sales. While the Rolling Stones may make another $100,000,000 this year from touring, while the sale of the CD will likely not sell much more. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The[uRolling[/u]Stones_discography]
*[http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6558540/walmartwants10_cds]
[http://www.beatzenith.com/therollingstones/rssalzcerts.htm]
*[http://www.thelongtail.com/thelongtail/2007/01/giveawaythe_m.html]

[eMJay]

So music artists make about 10% from CD sales. That's not enough for a group like the Stones that writes and produces it's own music. However, most artists (esp. Pop) today don't write their own stuff; alot of it is just mass-produced by the studio musicians with little or no direction given by the artist. Artists today are mostly just faces with voices used to sell music. Most have no real song-writing talent. But it seems that Mp3 sales should give more to artists since much of the middlemen are cut out - no distribution costs, no packaging or manufacturing...each song is sold on it's own merits and no longer are we forced to buy a few good songs bundled to obviously bad ones.


Then there's the new gimmick called 'American Idol'. And what a clever gimmick it is! First you make money through ratings as the viewers pick the 'next big thing' - no more marketing required. Then you rake in the dough after you give the finalist a non-negotiable contract which gives the studios the lion's share of profits and practically hands them the studio's own copyrighted music to sing to. Minimum marketing necessary, and cd sales are a sure thing because the artist is already made popular by the process of selection.

[CMagnusB]

It's interesting to see how modern information technologies are affecting even the politics in new ways. In sweden the pirates startad a new party: The Pirate Party http://www.piratpart.../international/ and it's spreading like wild fire :D