The news of Steve Jobs’ passing was not unexpected, as anyone who follows technology news, or is a devoted Apple customer, would be familiar with his failing health and recent decision to step down from his position at the helm of Apple.  There will be, for the next several days, countless articles, blog posts, and news stories about the man who drastically shaped the computing landscape, being personally responsible for many of the technologies we take for granted today.  I’m writing this short blog post, not as a news story, but as a personal thanks to a man that shaped the lives of millions of us in the technology industry. 

For anyone who grew up with technology in my generation, Steve Jobs helped to open for us the door to a new world.    I began my career in computer technology at the age of 12, and by 15 was programming at summer college courses using the Apple II.  The technologies he helped to pioneer pushed the industry forward, and propelled my career along with it.  Today, I use my iPhone for everything, and work daily to support network-attached Macs and iPads.  While I never had the opportunity to meet Steve Jobs, his ideas, concepts, and technology contributed greatly to provide for me a career and a future.

Today, with his passing, he leaves behind a world better than he found it, and for me personally, a successful career that he unknowingly helped to shape.  Thank you, Mr. Jobs.

Apparently, Netflix’s decision to raise prices by as much as 60 percent is turning into a “horror show” for the company.  Who thought otherwise?  A 60 percent rise in price, or a 50 percent cut in service, either way you look at it this was a critical mistake for Netflix.

Netflix’s stock price is down more than 40 percent compared to where it stood before the company announced the higher pricing structure, equating to a $6 billion loss to shareholders… so far.  I can only see more customers dumping their now over-priced offering and spending their entertainment dollars elsewhere.

From a business perspective, and from my experience in customer relations and customer management, I would expect any customer faced with a decision to accept either a doubling in costs or a reduced level of service, to select neither.  The customer will shop around to see if the same level of service they once had can be obtained for an acceptable cost.  This is exactly what the American consumer is doing, and exactly what Netflix should have expected.

When the decision to raise prices and cut content was announced, Netflix subscribers threatened to drop the service.  Netflix’s CEO thought it wouldn’t happen.  The customers were serious, and now they’re making good on their threat.

As reported across several media outlets, a group of so-called hackers, calling themselves the “Script Kiddies”, successfully hacked the Twitter account of NBC News.  In a public display of pure ignorance, the hackers began posting news updates of a new terrorist attack involving aircraft hijackings, and planes hitting the Ground Zero site in New York City.

This group, purportedly an offshoot of Anonymous, has likely made one of the worst public relations mistakes of all times.  While Anonymous has been busy hacking in the name of freedom and civil rights, members of their organization have turned an extremely negative spotlight on the group, using an event such as 9/11 for nothing more than a practical joke.  This reckless and irresponsible action is in stark contrast to acts of cyber hacktivism committed by Anonymous in recent months.  Whether or not “Script Kiddies” is currently associated with Anonymous is irrelevant, as any past relationship is enough to blur the line between the hacking groups.

Any support that Anonymous was able to garner from their activities is now a mere footnote.  In the minds of those impacted by September 11th, this event will be associated with the group’s activities, and will be a clear indication of the “true face” of Anonymous.

I ran across a CNNMoney article today detailing the fallout from Google’s decision to shutter a popular game, SuperPoke! Pets.  What caught my attention was the estimated $650 million in real cash that will be spent this year to purchase virtual goods as part of online games.  Admittedly, over the years I’ve spent my share of real cash for virtual goods in online games, including World of Warcraft, Archlord, and more recently Second Life (which, as some will be quick to point out, is not a “game.”)

The uproar caused by Google stems from the decision to shut down a game in which many users have invested real dollars to accumulate virtual possessions.  This has been a continuing point of contention in Second Life, which is one of the only virtual worlds whose members legally own the content they purchase or create.  The issue here is that real money exchanged hands for these items, and depending on which side of the argument you support, either the content belongs to the players or the content belongs to Google.

Many of the comments left in response to the article lambasted the players for expecting a refund, or for even paying to play an online game.  One commenter, John Huston, stated, “Time was, only idiots, losers and maybe shut-ins would waste money on such rubbish.”  I disagree with John, and see no difference in whether an individual’s entertainment dollars are spent on an online game, sporting event tickets, or to watch a movie at a theatre.  In none of these cases will the individual walk away with a tangible asset in hand, so how the dollars are spent is not the issue here. 

What is at issue is the fact that what was paid for is being taken away, apparently with no discussion or recourse.  Imagine if you paid for a ticket to attend that sporting event, and the game was cancelled with no explanation.  Imagine if you paid for a movie ticket, and after watching the movie for an hour you were informed that a decision was made to not show the ending.  In both cases you would expect an explanation and a refund.  How is this any different when the form of entertainment is online or virtual, considering that the same real dollars have been invested?  Granted, users have had the opportunity to play the game and use the virtual items purchased, but would those users have continued to invest in the game had they known 3 months ago that Google planned to shutter the service?  Probably not.

Whether or not you agree with how other Internet users spend their time and money, the fact remains that offering any type of paid online service comes with it the expectation that the service will remain available and continuously maintained.  I can see why SuperPoke! Pets users are upset, and Google should take steps to offer some type of relief. 

As one commenter stated, “Burn the masses a handful of times, and watch the e-game revenue vanish.”  For any company with a business model that includes online entertainment or virtual content, this should be a lesson in how not to treat your revenue stream. 

After all, $650 million is, in reality, $650 million.

I’m not much of a gamer, and I typically spend little time reading up on video game news.  When I read the news story about GameStop opening manufacturer-sealed video game boxes to remove a competitors coupon, I have to say that it did upset me.  It amazes me that a vendor would employ such an unprofessional practice to prevent a competitor from doing business.

After the news broke, gamers began posting on the message boardof OnLive, the game service offering the coupon discount, with many questioning the legality of breaking a manufacturer seal and then selling it as new, even after contents of the package were removed. 

When questioned about the accusation, GameStop’s Matt Hodges confirmed the coupon-clipping to CCNMoney, explaining, “Square Enix packed a competitor’s coupon within the PC version of the game without our knowledge or consent and therefore we did pull these coupons.  GameStop’s policy is that we do not promote competitive services without a formal partnership.”

Not promoting a competitive product means not selling the product altogether.  GameStop has no right to alter a product just because that product supports a competitor.  If an ISP decided to block all traffic from users with a Microsoft PC, because the president of the ISP owns stock in Apple, I would bet that Microsoft would have the ISP in court faster than those coupons were removed from the boxes.  Tortious interference, or the damage that occurs when a party knowingly interferes with the contract or business between the plaintiff and a third party, appears to apply here, since GameStop is preventing OnLive from fair competition. 

If GameStop did not want to support their competitor they should have returned the games to the distributor and refused to sell them.  Altering the product is misleading and unfair, and puts GameStop firmly in the top 10 list of companies that really should not be in business.  Hopefully the gamers out there will speak with their voting dollar, sending a clear message to GameStop management.

A relatively new hacker web site has cropped up, but this time it’s less about hacking and more about competition… sort of.  RankMyHack.com is a web site where hackers can compete amongst one another for ranking as the top hacker.  This is accomplished by earning points for the number and size of the success hacks attributed to the hacker.  The web site tracks confirmed hacks, awards points, and maintains the leader board listing the top hackers.

Unfortunately, this does not bode well for Internet security, as every “wannabe” hacker and script kiddie on the Internet will likely join the competition to score a little street cred.  “Poor men wanna be rich, rich men wanna be kings, and a king ain’t satisfied till he rules everything.”

Being an IT consultant in computer networking means passing exams and earning certifications.  For an in-house technical resource, having a single IT certification in a given area is sufficient to do the job well.  For the IT consultant, however, the name of the game is certifications and experience.  A client wants to know that the people handling their systems are highly skilled, possessing a breadth and depth of experience in their given areas of practice that ensure a successful project outcome.  In my role, one of the first questions I’m typically asked by a client is “what are your certifications?”  In IT network services, the more you can offer the client at this moment, the more comfortable the client will feel about you as a resource working in their data center.

My experience in the data networking field is heavily focused on Cisco networking technologies.  Working for a global IT services provider, I’m engaged in a variety of data networking and information security projects, from pre-sales to implementation and support.  For technical folks in a role like this it is essential to not only earn as many IT certifications as possible in your fields of practice, but to ensure that you are as technically proficient in those areas as possible.

Cisco offers a range of “specialist” certifications focused primarily on pre-sales design and engineering of network technologies.  While these Cisco certifications are not something the average data networking professional should pursue, for anyone who is an IT consultant or working in a pre-sales engineering role these certifications can add a great deal of value.  These smaller, lesser-known certifications from Cisco are not essential for every network engineer to have, but for those of us in the IT consulting arena, every qualification counts in the eyes of the client.  The exams are not difficult to pass, do not require a great deal of in-depth network training, and are applicable in all areas of data networking from network installation to information security.

I’m currently working to complete my fifth “specialist” certification, the Cisco Borderless Networks Route/Switch Support Specialist, which is a requirement for my employer to maintain “Gold Partner” status with Cisco.  The benefit for me is the ability to present another set of credentials that help to keep my technical skills in demand.

After searching around a bit I was unable to find a place to connect with other bloggers/authors from the technology industry.  There are some forums here and there, but nothing dedicated to technology bloggers as a group.  To provide such a place, I have created a LinkedIn group entitled Technology Blog Authors and Professionals, providing a resource for technology bloggers and authors to meet, network, and share ideas.

If you are a blogger or author in the technology field, please feel free to join the LinkedIn group and help to expand our network of peers.

The announcement this week that a team of hackers have began to target the members of another hacking group has put an interesting spin on recently publicized cyber attacks against several organizations.  A group calling themselves the “A-Team” have targeted the members of LulzSec—a group claiming responsibility for many of the latest successful security beaches–in an apparent attempt to reveal their identities to both the public and law enforcement.

An announcement this week made by a member of the A-Team stated that members of LulzSec “lack the skill to do anything more than go after the low-hanging fruit”, insinuating that LulzSec is capable of breaching only the most susceptible of targets.  Whether this signals the disapproval of the actions of LulzSec by others in the hacking community, or is simply a more skilled group of hackers seeking headlines at the expense of another, the implications within the cyber security community as well as the black hat underground are potentially far reaching.  Of greatest concern is the potential for this event to become a cyber “civil war” between factions, with millions of Internet-connected systems staged as the battlefield.

Cyber security professionals need to monitor this situation closely, taking all reasonable precautions including the audit, verification and enhancement of system and application security postures.  Up to now the targets of LulzSec and other groups have been those of trophy stature, but a war between groups within the black hat underground could mean all targets are “fair game”, resulting in attacks on systems that were up to now considered to be of little or no value.

While surfing through my usual news and technology sites I ran across a great article on CircleID by Steve Atkins.  Steve explained how the use of URL shortening services such as Bit.ly and Su.pr can result in your emails being flagged and blocked by spam filters.

Following through on Steve’s article I found that he is the founder of an anti-spam consultancy, Word to the Wise, focusing primarily on the technologies employed to filter spam/UCE content.  From their web site, “At Word to the Wise, I advise clients on how to manage mailing risks, to respond to spam complaints, interact with ISPs, and navigate the ever changing and challenging world of email delivery. I also act as a neutral arbitrator during discussions with ISPs and blocklists.“

If you are having issues with spam or find your email servers blacklisted, consider giving Steve a call.  With the amount of spam still circulating the web–as shown by services such as the Honey Pot Project–we need more “Steves”.