I understand that technology drops in price. I think its a given these days that technology is somewhat disposable that way. I get it. Most people do. But the question here isn’t one of principle. Its one of scale. How fast things are changing. A slippery slope.

I mean, does it bother me that the rear projection high definition 42″ television that I bought 4 years ago can now be had for less than 1/3 of the price? Of course. But it doesn’t really get me *angry* because its a slow process that happened over a few years time.

But a 33% drop in 66 days?

Come on, man!

That’s approaching new levels of absurdity! Unless, of course, its a tell on behalf of Steve Jobs that he’s not happy with how fast his Jesus phones are moving (or, perhaps not), and not reaching the supposed 3 million units sold in a year.

Maybe.

At any rate, I think the price drop is significant for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is that it sets a precedent. A happy precedent for some (the later adopters), and an unhappy for others (extra early adopters). I mean, if this kind of ridiculousness is par for the course, what else can we expect in the future?

$500 drops on the next iMac 6 months after its released? $750 rebates off the next Macbook 3 months after its launched?

Or should we only expect it if sales aren’t quite hitting their targets?

Some people, such as Robert Scoble, don’t really mind that they paid a $200 premium for the geekish privilege of having such a Sacred Object. Which is fine. I think companies like Apple need *more* fans like him, and not less, when Apple pulls stunts like these.  I mean, you have to be “ok” with things even when Apple treats you, its early adopters, and its business partners like chumps.

I mean if it*wasn’t* about the bottom line? Steve Jobs wouldn’t be issuing $100 credits, but full $200 ones.

If you’ve been following the crazed orgamso-frenzy hype around the iPhone, and the Lalapalooza like atmosphere around the Palo Alto Apple store, you might have had a different picture in mind. Heck — I sure did.

But I think that investors (and institutional ones) are looking for harder facts to back up the hype. Namely that Jobs either did too well a job (ha ha, what a lame pun) in stocking his stores with iPhones so that there was no shortage, or that the demand was far lighter than what was actually expected — although I have no feel for how much is “light” in consumer electronics. $170 million worth of merchandise and over 500k units sold seem like a pretty robust to me.

Over the long term I actually do expect this to change for two reasons.

• The iPhone problems will be fixed (one day): Many of the issues around this first generation iPhone will be solved with other iterations of the device, namely problems with ringtones, storage size, porting phone numbers, the overall cost, and other tech issues we haven’t even heard about yet. Apple has a long history of cranking out advanced models at a nauseating clip. First-adopters with respect to the iPod can attest to this.
• Word of Mouth Will Begin To Take Over: Once iPhones are out in circulation, word of mouth will take over from the mainstream media hype. Just like the demand for Wii’s continued well past last Christmas as more and more people saw and touched it, you can bet the same thing will happen with iPhones — in spite of the price.

The interesting thing I found, of course, is the whole disconnect between the tech coverage of the iPhone and the flat stock price. Is it really because techies are first adopters who “get it” in this circumstance? Or is mainstream America wary of the hype? Or, is it really a case of the demand being underestimated? Or, perhaps, is everyone waiting for the price to fall and there to be a change to a faster kind of network?

The iPhone story hasn’t yet been fully told, I think — in fact, now that the release euphoria is over, I suspect its just begun. ;)

[yes, I do own shares of Apple]

And I think the issue of bias, truth, and disclosure is going to be one of those perennial topics that bloggers love to get riled over. Probably because there is a perception that blogging is somehow, or ought to be, more truthful, more honest, more sincere, and have more integrity than other publishing mediums. When a blogger says something or does something contrary to that, there’s a conflict in perception, and the bigger / more beloved / more hated the blogger, the bigger reaction.

But how about this angle on things.

I blog about technology, web startups, social media and all manner of things. I’d like to think that my opinion has a certain amount of currency amongst the people who read this site, or who subscribe to my feeds.

But do you ever wonder if I have a vested interest in blogging about what I do blog about? And, no, I’m not talking about advertising, like Federated Media.

Rather, have you ever wondered whether I actually hold a position in any publicly (or even, let’s say, privately owned) companies that I may have blogged about? Do you think that might affect what I write about? What I “cover”? What I don’t? What I write positively about? What I write negatively about?

It should. And, maybe it should get you to start thinking about what your other favourite bloggers own.

For example, would it shock you if I told you that I hold shares in AOL, which owns Netscape, a direct competitor to Digg, of whom I have criticized endlessly?

(I don’t, so don’t worry).

Disclosure on this kind of level, as far as I know, happens when its convenient for bloggers, or when its topical. For example, Mike Arrington has told us on loads of occasions that he is involved with the startup, DayLife. That is a clear potential bias for his coverage, but he tells you right off the bat.How about the ones he doesn’t tell you about? And, not to single out Mike, but what about your other favourite bloggers?

And let’s be really clear and “transparent” about this argument. How about the biggest players in the business who we all love to blog about? Who owns shares in Microsoft? Google? AOL?

How about Apple?

Could anyone who owns shares in Apple — and let’s crank up the hyperbole for a second, and say, “what if your IRA is counting on it?” [or, if you live in Canada, RRSP] — really and truthfully write an honest review about its chances pre and post iPhone? Isn’t it in their best interests … even on a subconscious level — to either not write about it, or generally agree with the reviews at large that its going to be the next biggest thing since Jeebus?

So, here’s where I come in.

“What does Tony own?” … you might ask.

Well, I’ll be completely honest. I *do* own shares of Apple. Not a lot. And I mean, *really* not a lot. But, that’s an investment that I made because I believe in Apple’s long term growth, and more importantly, the svengali powers of Steve Jobs.

My own take on the iPhone is that it doesn’t really matter what it *doesn’t* have. The magic was in the marketing that lead up to this point, and more importantly, everything it *does* have. And from a company point of view? Apple is going to keep up making more and more of these things. And by “Things” yes, I mean newer, better, versions of the iPhone — just like the iPod (and therefore, it really doesn’t matter what it doesn’t have). But also other things that people are going to fall in love with.

Steve Jobs — I swear, you better not have a heart attack any time in the next 10-15 years! ;)

But that’s it.

I don’t own shares in Microsoft, or Google or anything else. Maybe I should.

But in thinking about things, it really got me thinking.

“There is absolutely no way I can write anything honest about the iPhone. I mean *really* honest.” Because I’d love for it to do well. Gangbusters well. So Apple stores can increase their revenue per square foot even MORE (did you know that Apple stores have the highest revenue per square foot in all of retailing?) Part of me wants it to fail, because I love schaedenfreude much as the next man — heck, possibly more. But I can’t revel in it fully — or even be myself — because of what I own.

So there you go. Its out there. I own a few shares of Apple.

But, what do your favourite tech bloggers own? And do you think its going to bias their coverage of tech companies now — and in the future?

But what I do know is that Jerry Yang, the new CEO of Yahoo!, is clearly the Master of Vacuously Bland Corporate Marketingspeak.

Take this paragraph, for example, on his new vision:

What is that vision? A Yahoo! that executes with speed, clarity and discipline. A Yahoo! that increases its focus on differentiating its products and investing in creativity and innovation. A Yahoo! that better monetizes its audience. A Yahoo! whose great talent is galvanized to address its challenges. And a Yahoo! that is better focused on what’s important to its users, customers, and employees.

This has got to be the most vague, useless, and idiotic vision sentiment that I have ever had read. Its full of unspecific and uninspiring platitudes, the exact *opposite* of the what Yahoo! needs in its fight to get out of being a perennial second place finisher to Google.

I mean, its nice to think that Mr. Yang wants Yahoo to be fast, clear, disciplined, differentiated, focused and galvanized. But so what? Aren’t most companies wanting to be fast, clear, disciplined, differentiated, focused, and galvanized?

And if they weren’t *already* that way, what were they before?

Slow, vague, lazy, unfocused, and lethargic?

Come on.

Some people have said that Mr. Yang is no Steve Jobs. That’s not a fair comparison, because I think there is no one who comes even *close* to what Steve Jobs has done for Apple.

Rather, I think what everyone is actually craving for is someone who has the singular vision and will to pull Yahoo! into something that is bigger than the sum of its parts — to create something that is worthy of the its legacy as one of the first real pioneers of the Internet.

Of course, being fast, focused, galvanized and — well, all that other stuff — is important, that’s all tactical. Vision statements (or sentiments) are bigger than that. To put it into the parlance of Getting Things Done — its 50,000 feet level stuff. Its stuff that’s meant to put fire in your belly, inspire everyone to bigger and better things, and define your very reason for being.

Heck, one quick and dirty way of creating Yahoo!’s vision statment — just be the opposite of Google.

How about a web entity that is utterly devoted to being enabling the best of every human interaction on the Internet? This could encompass every aspect of its media aspirations, but could also provide a way to chart its way to social networks and web2.0 applications, from everything to Flickr to MyBlogLog, to, one day, perhaps, Facebook.

Keeping a focus on making sure that every day operations are done properly important — but at this point, Yahoo! is in dire need of someone with the guts to have a singular vision to pull all of its desperate components together into something that is bigger than any one of them apart. Someone who is at the same time both inspiring, but ruthless enough to have the cajones to make changes that are necessary.

Is Jerry Yang that kind of guy?

While I’d like to think that he is, its precisely his kind of blog post which make me think otherwise. But hey — the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

For now.

[While I consider shorting Yahoo ... ;) ]