WHAT IF? Microsoft & Skype

There are many people second-guessing the Microsoft acquisition of Skype. And for good reason. $8.5 billion is Microsoft's largest acquisition ever, and it was for a service which largely duplicates the existing MS Messenger application. The only two features that Skype has which MSN does not are: (1) the ability for telephones to call into it, and (2) the ability to call out to telephones.

And I am wondering if that is EXACTLY what MS wanted to buy.

A little while ago, Google rolled out Google Voice as "the last phone number you'll ever need". The idea was that you could give people your Google Voice number, and it would "bounce" the calls to whatever other phone you chose. It was paired with a clever speech-recognition system which was able to transcribe voice mails and send them to you as text messages and/or e-mails. The whole thing is quite clever, but it is ultimately a hack looking to work around the existing phone systems.

What if, rather than just adding Skype to XBox, Microsoft wants to change Windows Phone such that all calls thru it are done via VOIP, routed thru Microsoft servers. If Microsoft "owns" your phone number, then all calls are over data connections and it doesn't matter if you are calling on a Verizon phone, a Sprint phone, an AT&T phone, or even over your home Wifi or your XBox's ethernet connection. It could provide true phone number portability - perhaps better regarded as phone number "agnosticism" (so long as you stay with a Windows Phone). You could even, theoretically, have a "family phone" where all members of the family have their cell phones/laptops/XBoxes/Zunes ring when anyone calls their Microsoft phone number.

This would truly be thinking outside the box, and could free the customer from the control of the cellular companies. Of course, I doubt the cell phone companies would be too fond of that idea.

Is the future of Magazines a Netflix-like service?

This is a very interesting idea, and one that had not occurred to me. Interested to see what a newspaper/magazine industry veteran like Sean thinks of this.

Imagine if you could pay $10-$15 per month to have access to the daily editions of hundreds of newspapers, or the latest issue of any magazine that crosses your mind. Yes, publishers would need to get used to running with lower profit margins than they'd like. But those margins are going to get thinner every year unless the industry finds some way to meet the digital age head on.

How would YOU respond to a Fukushima-type disaster

As we look at Japan with pity as they try to deal with the Fukushima Diachi nuclear disaster, it raises a very important question: HOW WOULD I REACT TO SUCH A DISASTER? Living in the New York Metropolitan area, there are a number of nuclear reactors within a few hours drive. And most of them could throw fallout my way in the case of a major accident. So what do I do? Luckily, some websites have posted maps showing the likely evacuation areas around NYC, Chicago, and LA for various nuclear plants.

This is useful info to have. If nothing else, it tells me that my best bet is to head NORTH in case of a disaster, as heading South might simply take me deeper into another reactor's radioactive shadow.

What if?

One of the differentiating marks of a Moderate over either a Liberal or a Conservative, these days, is the ability to see and the honesty to acknowledge the strengths of both sides. So in that vein, let me ask a question.

Barack Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change," where his core promise was to "change Washington". He noted that the political culture was broken, and pledged to fix it. The last year and a half seems like a bust on that score. Partisanship is worse than ever. Now that it looks like the Democrats may lose the House, Republicans are already talking about returning to the old practice of White House probes and hinting at special prosecutors. This is the new rhythm that has existed since Reagan, where the wrongs of the last majority are used to justify those same wrongs by the new majority over and over.

What if Barack Obama's real legacy of "change" is turning the other cheek? What if he manages to break the cycle by making such tit-for-tat politics unsavory, by letting his enemies destroy themselves as they overplay their hands? In theory, it could work and could lead to a new era free of the hardball politics that have characterized the USA since at least the Clinton era.

Honestly, I remain skeptical. The President has shown himself to be, if anything, an old-school Chicago politician. But if this were his only legacy, it might be one of great service to the American system.

Star Wars Controversy

Star Wars is no stranger to debate and controversy. Fans love the films and are willing to argue about the tiniest details of the films, books, and mythology. And George Lucas's desire to constantly fiddle with the films to bring them closer to his own vision has only made the controversies more intense.

But, CELEBRATION V may have kicked over the hornet's nest in a new series of interviews with Gary Kurtz. Kurtz directed the most beloved of the Star Wars films - THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK - and left the films during the early stages of RETURN OF THE JEDI. He has remained silent over the details for decades. But he has finally broken his silence.

“We had an outline and George changed everything in it," Kurtz said. “Instead of bittersweet and poignant he wanted a euphoric ending with everybody happy. The original idea was that they would recover [the kidnapped] Han Solo in the early part of the story and that he would then die in the middle part of the film in a raid on an Imperial base. George then decided he didn’t want any of the principals killed. By that time there were really big toy sales and that was a reason.”

The discussed ending of the film that Kurtz favored presented the rebel forces in tatters, Leia grappling with her new duties as queen and Luke walking off alone “like Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti westerns,” as Kurtz put it.

Kurtz said that ending would have been a more emotionally nuanced finale to an epic adventure than the forest celebration of the Ewoks that essentially ended the trilogy with a teddy bear luau.

This new story vindicates conspiracy theorists who have speculated for years that Kurtz had a "better" story in mind for the film than the final version produced. And this ending sounds a lot more satisfying to the adults that most fans are today. Although, I can't help wondering if the children who first watched JEDI would have agreed.

What if Obama loses?

After a nearly euphoric month for Barack Obama, signs are now beginning to show up that John McCain may be competitive after all. In early voting, turnout among new voters is light and this is a major demographic that Obama is counting on. Likewise, many poll show a tightening race overall with a significant number of undecideds still out there. If Obama were to lose next week, it will raise many questions amongst Obama supporters (including inevitable charges that the "election was stolen"). If that does come to pass, here are a few thoughts I think are worth remembering.

• Despite perhaps the worst since Nixon for Republicans, due to the War and the Economy, Obama has rarely held a commanding lead. This should have been a warning sign from the start.
• Obama took on a risky strategy for this race, running on his personality (and his "inevitability") more than issues. Yes, he has been strong on opposing the war, but otherwise has cloaked specific policy goals under the banners of "Change" and "Hope." Voters like a big thinker, but also want one who actually can articulate a plan.
• Americans like divided government, where one party can keep a check on the other. Perhaps all the talk about a one-party system in Congress and the White House has reminded people that unrestrained government (Right or Left) is a dangerous thing. But if so, expect a massive win for the Democrats in Congress.
• Electronic voting failures should not be laid at the feet of just one party. The Democrats have been in power in Congress and in many State governments for years, and have had plenty of time to debug the process.
• America is still a center-right country, by and large. While they want to throw out the bums who got us here, they may not be ready for a wholesale lurch the the Left.

I have no inside info here, and to my mind I still think Obama is going to win with Bill Clinton-style margins. And you all know I am no fan of John McCain. But it is worth getting these out here now, before the heat of the moment arrives.

Do Mod-Bloggers think we should add anything else to this list?

If Obama is inevitable, what then?

After Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina and his endorsement by the Kennedys, I have started to wonder if history is on the side of the Senator from Illinois. While Democrats and Independents are boarding the Obama train, Republicans are trying to figure out which candidate they dislike the least. Many Conservatives are even considering voting for Obama over the "wrong" GOP candidate.

If - and yes, I know it is WAAAY to early to count out Hillary Clinton, much less John McCain, Mitt Romney, or even Rudy Guiliani - but *if* this is the case, how do Moderates and Conservatives ensure that they have a seat at the table in an Obama White House? Should Republicans look to capitalize on the bad blood with the Clintons? Should they appeal to the legacy of Lincoln? Or should they instead look for a way to inoculate the electorate against his likely policies?

What are your thoughts?