April 2009 - I’m of the belief that patents don't matter in software. Why? First of all, a patent by definition is exclusive rights to an idea or invention if, and only if, you fully explain how the idea or invention works and publicly disclose it. In software there are a million ways to solve the same problem. Why disclose something to the public and allow them to see how your idea works when they could simply take that idea and implement it in a different way?
Yes, the patent protects the idea or invention - rather than the specific implementation - however, try litigating something that looks and smells different, yet solves the same problem. That is, I think you'd have a hard time litigating parallel products, one written in Java and the other in .NET. You'd only win after five years of court and millions of dollars in court fees. And by that time, the idea or invention would be outdated. Which brings me to my second point.
Software is so dynamic, most technologies become extinct before their patent (usually 20 years) runs out. Gopher, a textual interface to the Web before the Web, started in 1991. What if it had a patent (maybe it did)? You mean to say I can't create a text based internet protocol that works well on green screens until 2011? Damn. I guess I'll have to wait until the patent runs out before I can develop a similar technology. Or, just use today's Web 2.0. Hum?
A better way to protect software is to copyright. A copyright protects you from users coping and pasting your software. You have it for 100 years (or something like that). Or, even better yet, if you have a sensitive software package, copyright it and then don't disclose it (just put the funny © symbol on it). Do what Coke does and lock the secret formula up in a vault.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Monday, February 09, 2009
What are the three phases of a new project?
February 2009 - I'm of the belief there are three phases of a new project - Vanity, Humbleness, and Crisis. Let me explain.
A project starts in the Vanity phase. During Vanity, everyone is overly confident. It's believed the project will be a massive success and will solve all problems that have caused suffering and harm in the past. A common management saying is to "Break down the barriers - we're going to do things different." "Different" is what the project team infers as "better."
Verbose project team members dominate during the Vanity phase. Everyone has a voice and those that enjoy hearing themselves, take control and provide, what they call, "leadership." Myriad documents are produced laying out how the project will work and the problems it will solve. A common output is a Return on Investment (ROI). The ROI is what management will use to secure funding from upper management.
Often during the Vanity phase, new amenities like "free food" or "free pop" are offered as tokens. Off-sites are common. They make the layperson feel important. Moreover, closeness is important during this phase. It's thought that cramming more people into meetings is a benefit. Making people sit closer is seen as a way of promoting knowledge sharing.
The Vanity phase ends when the project requirements start to be realized. You know you're into the Humbleness phase when hard questions start being asked. For example, let's say you're developing a new pop can which provides a tighter seal than the current flip tops. The idea is to have end users open the can with their Boy Scout pocket knife. Sounds great until a layperson asks management how many people carry around pocket knives? At this point, everyone knows they are in the Humbleness phase. Off-sites will diminish and the thought of doing everything different (remember "different" means "better" for new projects) becomes less vogue. In fact, it's during this phase that the term "leverage" comes into play. Management might say "we need to leverage our existing resources."
Humbleness exists until upper management asks for a finite time-line of when the project will be finished. Crisis is next. It's at Crisis, people are finally held responsible. During Vanity there is absolutely no accountability. If a verbose idiot said something erroneous, they were simply brain storming. Back to the new pop can design; "I didn't really mean that a user needed a pocket knife to open the can. I was just tossing out ideas."
Another indicator that the Crisis phase is beginning is, consultants, and/or overly verbose individuals, start leaving the project or being asked to shut up. Crisis is the fun part. You get to see the big important people squirm in their seats. The verbose people are the best. If they are still on the project, their jubilant behavior is whittled to slivers. They sit in their cube, knowing they are overwhelmed with work, and stare into their computer hoping that someone would put an end to the misery.
The Crisis phase ends in one of two ways. The project is cancel by upper management or the project completes and a mediocre product is released to customers. If the product is a modest success, upper management funds phase two, but requests a new set of management. The new management is typically aware of the near failure and avoids and changes that might further damage the product and or their career. They move the project into maintenance mode and hire below average personal to fix bugs and make minor adjustments.
A project starts in the Vanity phase. During Vanity, everyone is overly confident. It's believed the project will be a massive success and will solve all problems that have caused suffering and harm in the past. A common management saying is to "Break down the barriers - we're going to do things different." "Different" is what the project team infers as "better."
Verbose project team members dominate during the Vanity phase. Everyone has a voice and those that enjoy hearing themselves, take control and provide, what they call, "leadership." Myriad documents are produced laying out how the project will work and the problems it will solve. A common output is a Return on Investment (ROI). The ROI is what management will use to secure funding from upper management.
Often during the Vanity phase, new amenities like "free food" or "free pop" are offered as tokens. Off-sites are common. They make the layperson feel important. Moreover, closeness is important during this phase. It's thought that cramming more people into meetings is a benefit. Making people sit closer is seen as a way of promoting knowledge sharing.
The Vanity phase ends when the project requirements start to be realized. You know you're into the Humbleness phase when hard questions start being asked. For example, let's say you're developing a new pop can which provides a tighter seal than the current flip tops. The idea is to have end users open the can with their Boy Scout pocket knife. Sounds great until a layperson asks management how many people carry around pocket knives? At this point, everyone knows they are in the Humbleness phase. Off-sites will diminish and the thought of doing everything different (remember "different" means "better" for new projects) becomes less vogue. In fact, it's during this phase that the term "leverage" comes into play. Management might say "we need to leverage our existing resources."
Humbleness exists until upper management asks for a finite time-line of when the project will be finished. Crisis is next. It's at Crisis, people are finally held responsible. During Vanity there is absolutely no accountability. If a verbose idiot said something erroneous, they were simply brain storming. Back to the new pop can design; "I didn't really mean that a user needed a pocket knife to open the can. I was just tossing out ideas."
Another indicator that the Crisis phase is beginning is, consultants, and/or overly verbose individuals, start leaving the project or being asked to shut up. Crisis is the fun part. You get to see the big important people squirm in their seats. The verbose people are the best. If they are still on the project, their jubilant behavior is whittled to slivers. They sit in their cube, knowing they are overwhelmed with work, and stare into their computer hoping that someone would put an end to the misery.
The Crisis phase ends in one of two ways. The project is cancel by upper management or the project completes and a mediocre product is released to customers. If the product is a modest success, upper management funds phase two, but requests a new set of management. The new management is typically aware of the near failure and avoids and changes that might further damage the product and or their career. They move the project into maintenance mode and hire below average personal to fix bugs and make minor adjustments.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Should we have bailed out the U.S. car companies?
January 2009 - My stance on the government bailing out companies is simple. If the company is failing because their products or business practices are inferior, let creative destruction destroy them.
However, if the company is at an unfair disadvantage due to government policy, then it's the government's job to ensure said company is compensated. Here is an example to help explain.
When I was a young man my family would go to the local Ben Franklin's and gawk at toys. They seemly had everything. Guns that looked like real guns (I was a big fan of "Cap Guns"). Dangerous, plastic knives. The ever-popular Green Machine Big Wheel. We never got half of the stuff we wanted, but it was fun to look.
As I got older, the annual slobber fest moved to Pamida. Pamida - Your Home Town Store - was like Ben Frankin's on steroids. The building was huge! Their toy isle was double that of a kid's imagination. After Pamida, we went to Shopko because Shopko was better than Pamida.
Albert Lea - the large town near my small town - no longer has a Ben Franklin's or Pamida. As a side note, I see they are both still in business which was a pleasant surprise while researching this piece. Shopko is still around, but has competition from Wal-Mart and Target.
Ben Frankin's and Pamida were run out of town because Shopko, Target and Wal-Mart offered more for less. That is, they offered more value. The people are better off now than they were before.
If the local government would have "bailed out" Ben Franklin or Pamida, Wal-Mart or Target would have stayed away. The poor kids would have been left with an isle or two of antiquated toys instead of dragging their parents across entire departments at the likes of Target. Wait, now that I'm a parent, maybe that wouldn't be half bad....
I think you probably get my point. Creative destruction - letting Ben Franklin and Pamida fail - allowed new, fresh, better companies to move in. And someday Shopko, Target and Wal-Mart will be challenged by newer, fresher, better competitors. With Amazon.com, they already are.
Back to the car companies. I bought a Honda because I feel Honda's quality and value are better than Ford's. It's my opinion, that U.S. car companies have failed to keep up with their International competitors. Honda engineers are producing a better product, and so it's my feeling that we should let the U.S. car companies go into bankruptcy. Moreover, instead of using the money to bailout corporations, government should give it to the employees to help retrain the millions of people affected.
This is easy for me to say as first, I don't work for the car companies. I'm sure if I was an engineer for Ford, I'd have different feelings. Second, I don't have enough information on the fairness of the environment. That is, is a Hyundai cheaper because the South Korean government pays Hyundai's medical bills? If so, then I'd be more understanding of a company bailout, rather than an employee bailout.
My gut feeling is that we have a combination of environment unfairness and inferior products. That is, International companies may be getting some added benefits from their government. And U.S. cars are probably slightly inferior, as a whole, to Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Hopefully the government brain-trusts have looked at all the factors and bailed out the car companies based on unfairness. If not, then we've just chocked off creative destruction and we'll all be worse off for it.
However, if the company is at an unfair disadvantage due to government policy, then it's the government's job to ensure said company is compensated. Here is an example to help explain.
When I was a young man my family would go to the local Ben Franklin's and gawk at toys. They seemly had everything. Guns that looked like real guns (I was a big fan of "Cap Guns"). Dangerous, plastic knives. The ever-popular Green Machine Big Wheel. We never got half of the stuff we wanted, but it was fun to look.
As I got older, the annual slobber fest moved to Pamida. Pamida - Your Home Town Store - was like Ben Frankin's on steroids. The building was huge! Their toy isle was double that of a kid's imagination. After Pamida, we went to Shopko because Shopko was better than Pamida.
Albert Lea - the large town near my small town - no longer has a Ben Franklin's or Pamida. As a side note, I see they are both still in business which was a pleasant surprise while researching this piece. Shopko is still around, but has competition from Wal-Mart and Target.
Ben Frankin's and Pamida were run out of town because Shopko, Target and Wal-Mart offered more for less. That is, they offered more value. The people are better off now than they were before.
If the local government would have "bailed out" Ben Franklin or Pamida, Wal-Mart or Target would have stayed away. The poor kids would have been left with an isle or two of antiquated toys instead of dragging their parents across entire departments at the likes of Target. Wait, now that I'm a parent, maybe that wouldn't be half bad....
I think you probably get my point. Creative destruction - letting Ben Franklin and Pamida fail - allowed new, fresh, better companies to move in. And someday Shopko, Target and Wal-Mart will be challenged by newer, fresher, better competitors. With Amazon.com, they already are.
Back to the car companies. I bought a Honda because I feel Honda's quality and value are better than Ford's. It's my opinion, that U.S. car companies have failed to keep up with their International competitors. Honda engineers are producing a better product, and so it's my feeling that we should let the U.S. car companies go into bankruptcy. Moreover, instead of using the money to bailout corporations, government should give it to the employees to help retrain the millions of people affected.
This is easy for me to say as first, I don't work for the car companies. I'm sure if I was an engineer for Ford, I'd have different feelings. Second, I don't have enough information on the fairness of the environment. That is, is a Hyundai cheaper because the South Korean government pays Hyundai's medical bills? If so, then I'd be more understanding of a company bailout, rather than an employee bailout.
My gut feeling is that we have a combination of environment unfairness and inferior products. That is, International companies may be getting some added benefits from their government. And U.S. cars are probably slightly inferior, as a whole, to Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Hopefully the government brain-trusts have looked at all the factors and bailed out the car companies based on unfairness. If not, then we've just chocked off creative destruction and we'll all be worse off for it.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
How am I affected by the tax change to my ESPP?
November 2008: A few months back a respected colleague of mine asked me to comment on the pending, now implemented, tax change to our Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). Consider this my response.
First let's understand the change. My company offers, as a benefit they proclaim, company stock at a 15% discount of the stock price. For example, if the stock is trading at $25 on the market, we can buy it for $21.25 (i.e. .85 * 25). You have to pre-allocate dollars from your paycheck and can only purchase at the market close of each quarter.
When you sell the stock you must pay income on the 15% the company gave you as a benefit. Before the tax change; if the stock sold for $25, I bought at $21.25 via the ESPP, then turned around and sold it for $25, I'd have to pay income taxes on $3.75.
Moreover, if the stock sold for $25, I bought at $21.25 via the ESPP, then kept it, I wouldn't have to pay any income on the potential gain until I sold it. As a side note, this is what I've done and thus never claimed any income. I'm actually far in the hole and would be able to claim a loss of income if I sold the &%$#@ shares today, Yes, I'm a bit miffed over the ordeal.
This approach is simple and straightforward. However, we all know that it's in our best interest to make taxes complicated and thus, the company ESPP has changed its policy on when income is realized.
After the tax change, income is realized whether you sell or keep the stock. Using the $25 example again; if the stock sold for $25, I bought at $21.25 via the ESPP, then turned around and sold it for $25 OR kept it, I pay income tax on $3.75.
My thoughts on this are twofold. First of all, it complicates your tax situation. You could buy at $21.25, pay income on $3.75 in year 1, then sell for $20 in year 2 and deduct $3.75 in income losses and $1.25 in capital gain losses (if the government differentiates the two) from year 2's taxes. I hope my broker keeps track of this for me, as I won't be smart enough to.
My second though is, you're losing the time value of money. You're paying taxes on $3.75 today, however $3.75 in year one is only worth $3.68 in year 2 (assuming 2% inflation). That sucks.
Overall, the change complicates your taxes and screws you on the time value of money. One should only expect that from big companies and government.
First let's understand the change. My company offers, as a benefit they proclaim, company stock at a 15% discount of the stock price. For example, if the stock is trading at $25 on the market, we can buy it for $21.25 (i.e. .85 * 25). You have to pre-allocate dollars from your paycheck and can only purchase at the market close of each quarter.
When you sell the stock you must pay income on the 15% the company gave you as a benefit. Before the tax change; if the stock sold for $25, I bought at $21.25 via the ESPP, then turned around and sold it for $25, I'd have to pay income taxes on $3.75.
Moreover, if the stock sold for $25, I bought at $21.25 via the ESPP, then kept it, I wouldn't have to pay any income on the potential gain until I sold it. As a side note, this is what I've done and thus never claimed any income. I'm actually far in the hole and would be able to claim a loss of income if I sold the &%$#@ shares today, Yes, I'm a bit miffed over the ordeal.
This approach is simple and straightforward. However, we all know that it's in our best interest to make taxes complicated and thus, the company ESPP has changed its policy on when income is realized.
After the tax change, income is realized whether you sell or keep the stock. Using the $25 example again; if the stock sold for $25, I bought at $21.25 via the ESPP, then turned around and sold it for $25 OR kept it, I pay income tax on $3.75.
My thoughts on this are twofold. First of all, it complicates your tax situation. You could buy at $21.25, pay income on $3.75 in year 1, then sell for $20 in year 2 and deduct $3.75 in income losses and $1.25 in capital gain losses (if the government differentiates the two) from year 2's taxes. I hope my broker keeps track of this for me, as I won't be smart enough to.
My second though is, you're losing the time value of money. You're paying taxes on $3.75 today, however $3.75 in year one is only worth $3.68 in year 2 (assuming 2% inflation). That sucks.
Overall, the change complicates your taxes and screws you on the time value of money. One should only expect that from big companies and government.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
How did we get in this financial disaster?
October 2008 - A number of you have asked me to opine on the pending financial disaster we're going through. So far my only response has been to not worry about it and just make sure you continue buying stocks. Today as I sit here writing this blog entry, I continue to feel that most of us should buy stock and continue on with our lives. We're in it for the long hall and eventually things will turn around.
I thought it would be good this month to take a look and try to explain, in simple terms, how we got in this mess. I won't try to explain it all as to be honest, I don't really understand all of it. However, I think I understand the basics. Here it goes.
Let's say both Person A and Person B take out $100 mortgages, respectively, to finance a new home. The bank's appraisal agrees that both homes are worth $100 and gives Person A and Person B each a loan. At this point the bank basically owns both houses and expects monthly payments.
The first year goes well for both the home owners and bank. After one year, Person A and Person B have paid off $5 and only owe the bank $95. However, the second year the real-estate market takes a turn for the worse, and both homes drop in value by 10%. That is, now both homes are worth only $90 each. Yet, Person A and Person B owe $95.
This creates a situation where the bank needs $95 in payments for an asset that is worth $90. To complicate matters, both Person A and Person B lose their jobs and are unable to pay their mortgage. Now the bank owns the assets. They paid $100, got $5 in payments, but own houses worth $90 each. Economically, this is considered bad. Unfortunately it only gets worse.
When a bank sells a mortgage (NOTE: I'm using the term bank as an all inclusive term for the mortgage industry) they toss them together and divide up trillions of dollars in mortgages and sell the pieces as securities to investors. Who buys these securities? Those of us looking for a "low risk" investment (e.g. money market funds).
What we have now is banks trying to sell a security, banked by bad mortgages, which nobody knows who much the security is worth. In the example above, is the security worth $200? No, the asset dropped by 10%. Is it worth $180 then? Who knows, the real-estate market could be down another 10% next year and %10 the year after. This uncertainty causes banks to seize up. Investors won't buy securities as they don't know what they're worth. Moreover, banks don't want to lend to other banks as they don't know what the other banks hold in assets. And vice versa.
The mortgage disaster has created fear and thus created a liquidity crisis. People are fearful and money exchange has come to a halt. And when people get fearful and money stops exchanging, bad, bad things happen.
I thought it would be good this month to take a look and try to explain, in simple terms, how we got in this mess. I won't try to explain it all as to be honest, I don't really understand all of it. However, I think I understand the basics. Here it goes.
Let's say both Person A and Person B take out $100 mortgages, respectively, to finance a new home. The bank's appraisal agrees that both homes are worth $100 and gives Person A and Person B each a loan. At this point the bank basically owns both houses and expects monthly payments.
The first year goes well for both the home owners and bank. After one year, Person A and Person B have paid off $5 and only owe the bank $95. However, the second year the real-estate market takes a turn for the worse, and both homes drop in value by 10%. That is, now both homes are worth only $90 each. Yet, Person A and Person B owe $95.
This creates a situation where the bank needs $95 in payments for an asset that is worth $90. To complicate matters, both Person A and Person B lose their jobs and are unable to pay their mortgage. Now the bank owns the assets. They paid $100, got $5 in payments, but own houses worth $90 each. Economically, this is considered bad. Unfortunately it only gets worse.
When a bank sells a mortgage (NOTE: I'm using the term bank as an all inclusive term for the mortgage industry) they toss them together and divide up trillions of dollars in mortgages and sell the pieces as securities to investors. Who buys these securities? Those of us looking for a "low risk" investment (e.g. money market funds).
What we have now is banks trying to sell a security, banked by bad mortgages, which nobody knows who much the security is worth. In the example above, is the security worth $200? No, the asset dropped by 10%. Is it worth $180 then? Who knows, the real-estate market could be down another 10% next year and %10 the year after. This uncertainty causes banks to seize up. Investors won't buy securities as they don't know what they're worth. Moreover, banks don't want to lend to other banks as they don't know what the other banks hold in assets. And vice versa.
The mortgage disaster has created fear and thus created a liquidity crisis. People are fearful and money exchange has come to a halt. And when people get fearful and money stops exchanging, bad, bad things happen.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Should I drop Frontier all together?
September 2008 - Below is a complaint letter I sent to Frontier's Management in regards to a recent sales experience I had with them. What do you think I should have done? Left well enough alone and stuck with digital service? Called to revert my services? Cancel Frontier all together and go with Charter phone?
Good afternoon,
My name is Mac Noland and I'm a customer of yours in Apple Valley, MN. A few weeks back a young man showed up at our door on a sunny Saturday afternoon informing us, in so many words, that Frontier may be doing some digging near our house to install new "digital equipment," or something along that line. I cordially thanked him for the heads-up. He then took out a long list of names and said that he could also sign us up for digital service. Being we're not really interested in the digital features (e.g. call waiting) I thanked him again and tried to shake hands.
Not taking my hint, he said that our current phone bill was around $27 dollars. I don't pay out bills, but I remember my wife telling me the monthly charge was around $28 so I figured he was right. He stated; the new digital service was only $24.99 so it would actually be cheaper. My goodness, that does sound like a good deal. So I signed up right away. He then went into internet service at which point I became skeptical (as I usually am) and said that was quite enough. The digital phone would be enough for us today.
Two nights ago, my wife opened our Frontier bill and to my surprise started asking me pointed questions about what I had signed us up for. Our bill went from around $28 to over $40. I looked at the charges and other than around $5 in setup fees, I couldn't find any mistakes. Sure enough, the charge for our new service was $24.99. I then started to read the entire thing (which I've never done) and found that in addition to our $24.99, we are charged around $10 in taxes, and such.
I took all this information and forged my way to the basement where I keep all the old bills. There starring at me was our previous Frontier bill. I opened it up right away and found that, we also paid around $10 in taxes. What was different though, is the price of the service. It was only $17 (or so).
Honestly, I should have done more research before I signed up. It's my fault. However, my entire complaint here is that your service/sales person sold me on the fact that the digital service, and all its amenities, are less expensive than my current services. In fact, they are not.
We actually really liked the digital services. In fact, I had a note to call back about the internet services as I think my cable company is being a bit aggressive with their charges. But instead, I called back two nights ago and reverted my services to what I had before. It's not the dollar about - I'd actually be happy to pay the extra money for call waiting, caller ID, etc. But the young man's disingenuousness upset me. So much, that I decided to revert our services.
If you'd like to talk in person about my complaint I'm more than willing. You can use this email address or look my number up and call me. Again, it's not the dollar amount. It's that your service/sales person was not genuine. And that is frustrating.
Good afternoon,
My name is Mac Noland and I'm a customer of yours in Apple Valley, MN. A few weeks back a young man showed up at our door on a sunny Saturday afternoon informing us, in so many words, that Frontier may be doing some digging near our house to install new "digital equipment," or something along that line. I cordially thanked him for the heads-up. He then took out a long list of names and said that he could also sign us up for digital service. Being we're not really interested in the digital features (e.g. call waiting) I thanked him again and tried to shake hands.
Not taking my hint, he said that our current phone bill was around $27 dollars. I don't pay out bills, but I remember my wife telling me the monthly charge was around $28 so I figured he was right. He stated; the new digital service was only $24.99 so it would actually be cheaper. My goodness, that does sound like a good deal. So I signed up right away. He then went into internet service at which point I became skeptical (as I usually am) and said that was quite enough. The digital phone would be enough for us today.
Two nights ago, my wife opened our Frontier bill and to my surprise started asking me pointed questions about what I had signed us up for. Our bill went from around $28 to over $40. I looked at the charges and other than around $5 in setup fees, I couldn't find any mistakes. Sure enough, the charge for our new service was $24.99. I then started to read the entire thing (which I've never done) and found that in addition to our $24.99, we are charged around $10 in taxes, and such.
I took all this information and forged my way to the basement where I keep all the old bills. There starring at me was our previous Frontier bill. I opened it up right away and found that, we also paid around $10 in taxes. What was different though, is the price of the service. It was only $17 (or so).
Honestly, I should have done more research before I signed up. It's my fault. However, my entire complaint here is that your service/sales person sold me on the fact that the digital service, and all its amenities, are less expensive than my current services. In fact, they are not.
We actually really liked the digital services. In fact, I had a note to call back about the internet services as I think my cable company is being a bit aggressive with their charges. But instead, I called back two nights ago and reverted my services to what I had before. It's not the dollar about - I'd actually be happy to pay the extra money for call waiting, caller ID, etc. But the young man's disingenuousness upset me. So much, that I decided to revert our services.
If you'd like to talk in person about my complaint I'm more than willing. You can use this email address or look my number up and call me. Again, it's not the dollar amount. It's that your service/sales person was not genuine. And that is frustrating.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Should I use Windows Movie Maker?
August 2008 - My wife rarely reads this blog so I’m not concerned about her finding out. However, if you do run into her, try to keep this our little secret.
We have our five year wedding anniversary coming up in about a week. I've never considered myself a great gift buyer (she took back the mother's day gift I gave her and last year's Christmas gifts) so I decided to dust off my creative energy and make something.
The thoughts are to produce one of those photo videos, with music, that shows us before our son, our son, dad with son, mom with son and then our family. It's kind of like those videos you see at weddings where tender music plays while old, sometimes embarrassing, pictures of the groom and bride transition through. We had one and paid (as in dollars) dearly for it.
My dad, who is an Microsoft curriculum instructor at a community college, is a big fan of Microsoft's Movie Maker. I once asked him how he produces his videos and he pontificated for a good half hour about how Movie Maker can do just about everything, including wash his car. Given his backing, I thought we'd give it a try.
Things started off well. I did a short proof of concept (POC) with one Johnny Cash song and about ten pictures that I had locally on my PC. Using Movie Maker, I was able to put the POC together in about fifteen minutes. Thinking I had everything mastered, I started with the gift.
I have about 110 pictures that I imported and started to work with. I dragged them here and there to make sure they were sorted just the way I wanted them. After about an hour, I decided to add some music and then preview it. Seemed to work well except the music was a bit too long. This is where the problems started.
The first problem I had was you can't change the duration of a picture which is added to your timeline. The default is 5 seconds, but if you wanted to make it say 6 seconds (to match up the duration with your song length), you can't. The only way you can do this is delete the picture, change the default duration and then re-add it. Movie Maker is free (or at least priced in the purchase of your OS) so I didn't complain too much. However, when I highlighted the picture to remove and replace it, Movie Maker froze up. This is after an hour of adjusting pictures and not saving. ;)
Now you're probably thinking that I'm an insouciant idiot for not saving my project. I'll give you that. But, it is my belief that software should not just "hang." I shut down all other applications and waited over an hour. Nothing. Thinking that Movie Maker might have saved a temporary copy of the project for me (like Word does), I ended the Movie Maker process and started to sweat.
From what I can tell Movie Maker was able to recover some of my changes, but I can't verify how many. 110 pictures is hard to keep track of, but I did notice a few were out of place. For the next fifteen minutes I started to adjust the pictures again. Low and behold, once again Movie Maker froze on me. Luckily this time I had saved a copy every five minutes.
This entire process went on for about two days (not contiguous of course). I found myself saving the ignominious Movie Maker file after every change I made. It was getting ridiculous.
Oddly, the fact that I had to save the file so often wasn't the turning point in my relationship with Movie Maker. It was the fact you can't change the duration for added pictures. This small, missed feature is at the nexus of my frustration. And given I was adjusting songs (with different lengths) at the same time, I was pulling my hair out.
It was at this point I decided to change vendors and look for a more robust commercial product. Remembering that Adobe had a number of "creative" tools, I checked out their site and found Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0. I wasn't prepared to pay the $100 purchase price, but I did find a 30 day evaluation. And it was probably the best decision I've ever made.
Not only does Elements provide a far better user experience, you can easily change the picture duration!!! And even better, you can click a button that says something along the line of "Match duration with song length" which automatically adjusts your video slide show. The duration for 110 pictures over three songs is 5.3 seconds (transitions are two seconds). Instead of adding/removing pictures in Movie Maker, all you do is click a button in Elements.
My conclusion is, that I should never use Movie Maker again and buy Adobe Elements. I see Adobe had a video editing software as well called Adobe Premiere Elements 4.0. The best price I've found is from Amazon.
We have our five year wedding anniversary coming up in about a week. I've never considered myself a great gift buyer (she took back the mother's day gift I gave her and last year's Christmas gifts) so I decided to dust off my creative energy and make something.
The thoughts are to produce one of those photo videos, with music, that shows us before our son, our son, dad with son, mom with son and then our family. It's kind of like those videos you see at weddings where tender music plays while old, sometimes embarrassing, pictures of the groom and bride transition through. We had one and paid (as in dollars) dearly for it.
My dad, who is an Microsoft curriculum instructor at a community college, is a big fan of Microsoft's Movie Maker. I once asked him how he produces his videos and he pontificated for a good half hour about how Movie Maker can do just about everything, including wash his car. Given his backing, I thought we'd give it a try.
Things started off well. I did a short proof of concept (POC) with one Johnny Cash song and about ten pictures that I had locally on my PC. Using Movie Maker, I was able to put the POC together in about fifteen minutes. Thinking I had everything mastered, I started with the gift.
I have about 110 pictures that I imported and started to work with. I dragged them here and there to make sure they were sorted just the way I wanted them. After about an hour, I decided to add some music and then preview it. Seemed to work well except the music was a bit too long. This is where the problems started.
The first problem I had was you can't change the duration of a picture which is added to your timeline. The default is 5 seconds, but if you wanted to make it say 6 seconds (to match up the duration with your song length), you can't. The only way you can do this is delete the picture, change the default duration and then re-add it. Movie Maker is free (or at least priced in the purchase of your OS) so I didn't complain too much. However, when I highlighted the picture to remove and replace it, Movie Maker froze up. This is after an hour of adjusting pictures and not saving. ;)
Now you're probably thinking that I'm an insouciant idiot for not saving my project. I'll give you that. But, it is my belief that software should not just "hang." I shut down all other applications and waited over an hour. Nothing. Thinking that Movie Maker might have saved a temporary copy of the project for me (like Word does), I ended the Movie Maker process and started to sweat.
From what I can tell Movie Maker was able to recover some of my changes, but I can't verify how many. 110 pictures is hard to keep track of, but I did notice a few were out of place. For the next fifteen minutes I started to adjust the pictures again. Low and behold, once again Movie Maker froze on me. Luckily this time I had saved a copy every five minutes.
This entire process went on for about two days (not contiguous of course). I found myself saving the ignominious Movie Maker file after every change I made. It was getting ridiculous.
Oddly, the fact that I had to save the file so often wasn't the turning point in my relationship with Movie Maker. It was the fact you can't change the duration for added pictures. This small, missed feature is at the nexus of my frustration. And given I was adjusting songs (with different lengths) at the same time, I was pulling my hair out.
It was at this point I decided to change vendors and look for a more robust commercial product. Remembering that Adobe had a number of "creative" tools, I checked out their site and found Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0. I wasn't prepared to pay the $100 purchase price, but I did find a 30 day evaluation. And it was probably the best decision I've ever made.
Not only does Elements provide a far better user experience, you can easily change the picture duration!!! And even better, you can click a button that says something along the line of "Match duration with song length" which automatically adjusts your video slide show. The duration for 110 pictures over three songs is 5.3 seconds (transitions are two seconds). Instead of adding/removing pictures in Movie Maker, all you do is click a button in Elements.
My conclusion is, that I should never use Movie Maker again and buy Adobe Elements. I see Adobe had a video editing software as well called Adobe Premiere Elements 4.0. The best price I've found is from Amazon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
