automaticable

In this week’s Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter, there’s a link to an article on the Canonical Blog about their new offering of proprietary media codecs available for purchase.  Canonical has partnered with Fluendo and Cyberlink to give Ubuntu users a legal option for viewing and listening to their media.  This is similar to those who purchased a computer with Ubuntu preinstalled– generally there is a small premium factored in to have the media codecs pre-bundled.

This is a wise move by Canonical.  Giving their users a legal option for playing their media will encourage more software and companies to also invest in Ubuntu and all Linux media alike.  The announcement doesn’t quite make it clear, but it sounds like the Medibuntu repository will still be available with instructions for Ubuntu users to download similar codecs for free– illegally in many countries.  The adoption of the legal, non-free software will depend largely on how it is marketed inside Ubuntu.  That is, when you try to play an MP3 for the first time, will a dialog prompt you to purchase MP3 support, or offer an easier link to Medibuntu and the ubuntu-restricted-extras package?

One of the reasons that I moved to Ubuntu in the first place was so I could have software I wanted, free and legally.  It’s nice to finally have the option of legal media codecs as well.  What do you think of the announcement?  Will you pay the $40 for most non-free media codecs, or the additional $50 for DVD support?

If you're new here, you can subscribe to automaticable's RSS feed by clicking here. Or, you can get post updates through your email. Thanks for visiting!

To help me in my search for inspiration, Stacy recommended I write something on this story that talks about improved portable shelters for the homeless. It is hard to be against something that raises the standard of living of anyone, especially those at the bottom of the social and economic ladder.  I would like to take a fairly objective view on this subject, the well being of the homeless living in the streets, and look at the economic and social impacts of something like free, comfortably designed portable shelters.

Healthcare for the homeless

Probably one of the most positive aspects of having free, high quality shelter for the homeless are the health benefits of staying dry and warm.  Not only does staying well improve the standard of living for the homeless, but it also decreases a huge social and economic burden from cities who have to treat the uninsured homeless population.  With fewer uninsured people getting sick, this will not only decrease the cost of healthcare for those that can and do pay for it, but it will lighten the already overfilled load of patients that hospital emergency rooms have to take care of.  The healthcare aspect is a win-win for the homeless population and the surrounding society.

An increasing homeless population

This will be a hard point for many people to agree with, but as the lifestyle of the homeless becomes better, the homeless population will increase.  I am not saying more people will choose to be homeless.  Nobody really ever willingly makes that choice.  What will happen, though, as the standard of living increases, is that less people will make the choice to stop being homeless.  If the main motivation for people to look for work and get out of their rut is a terrible lifestyle, having comfortable, attractive, and portable shelter will not provide as much of this motivation. This is a hard concept to swallow, that certain homeless people will not move into a more productive lifestyle if they are given suitable shelter, but I believe it to be 100% true. My following points will rely on this fact, so if you cannot agree with this, then you probably will not agree with the rest of my post either.

An increase in the homeless population is an increase in crime

Because of the deprived lifestyle many homeless people lead, there is a natural increase in crime rates where there is high homeless population density.  This is not to say that all homeless people are criminals, just that there are enough that are desparate enough within the homeless communities to raise crime rates.  This increase in crime not only costs cities more for policing the crimes committed, but increased crime rates lower property values, decreases the social welfare of the surrounding population, and attracts additional negative externalities such as drugs and prostitution.

Unavoidable publicity

With an increase in the homeless population and larger, brighter portable shelters being used, the homeless will be impossible to ignore. This can have 2 different effects, and I haven’t yet decided whether this will have a net positive or negative. First the positive: the more the homeless population stands out, the more people will be aware of and want to fix the problem.  Philanthropy will increase out of pity, concern, and also out of selfishness.  The selfishness stems from the negativity surrounding the homeless population.  Nobody wants to see their streets filled with homeless people for many reasons, and this increased publicity from the homeless will make it that much worse.  With the homeless population standing out more, this could drive down housing prices and social welfare even further than the current homeless population does.

There are a number of other externalities that increase the social and economic costs associated with a well-kept homeless population, but I think these cover the main points I have been thinking about.  The positives related to improved portable shelters for the homeless are extremely positive: an increased standard of living, lower healthcare costs for society as a whole, and cleaner looking streets. At what cost do these come, though?  It is never easy to put a pricetag on happiness, but there will always be economic elements that are taken into consideration.  In the end, without hard numbers, it is a hard call to make. The well-being of the homeless increases substantially, but the economic costs of an increased homeless population are also significant.

What do you think? Does it matter that there will be more homeless if they are better taken care of? Will the benefits outweigh the costs? There is a lot to think about here, and I think we can have a good discussion about this in the comments.  I’m sure there is a ton I haven’t thought about, so leave your opinions below.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a favicon is the icon that rests on the left side of the tabs or navigation bar in your browser that is unique to different websites.  For example, the favicon for automaticable is a red wrench on a black background.  See it?

Earlier today I noticed that my iGoogle page had a new favicon. Instead of the capital G surrounded by Google’s primary (and green secondary) colors, now a blue, lowercase g stands on an opaque background.  For a second I thought my browser had loaded the wrong page, as such a drastic change really threw me off.  The favicon change actually applies to the google.com page as well, so if you do not use iGoogle you can check out the new favicon simply by going to Google search.  Also, if you don’t know or don’t remember what the old Google favicon looked like, Google Blogoscoped has a short story, including an image, of the favicon change.  You can find that story here.

So why do I bring this up?  Well, to me this is a huge branding play by Google.  Their capital G has long represented them as a clear, powerful symbol.  It looks like Google has decided they do not want to have as powerful of a symbol representing their brand, as consumers generally trust super-powerful corporations less than mom & pop shops.  Moving to a lowercase logo has been a trend in the past for companies that want to feel more personal.  The first that comes to mind is AT&T, the once megapowerful telecom provider for the United States, which has recently rebranded themselves with a lower case at&t.  Whether people actually change their feelings about a brand simply through upper case and lower case lettering is a mystery, though I can tell you personally that lower case lettering definitely looks inferior and weak to me.

Is this a good idea for Google, changing from their iconic G symbol to a plain, lower case g?  No, not in my opinion.  I’m sure this favicon change is just a single step in a long-term rebranding campaign for Google, but if they think they are going to be able to position themselves as one of the little guys, I think they are going to have to decentralize the entire company.  There is no way a company with 60%+ market share in their realm (search, here) will ever convince consumers that they are still a small personal company.

Then again, I am just a single consumer that spends a huge part of his day on Google doing SEO work.  Do you think this is a good idea? How do you think something as small as a favicon change will effect things vs. a full branding campaign?