Author: Serkadis

My car’s steering wheel has taken a beating because of the all the lousy drum fills I’ve banged out on it over the years, and at least one entrepreneur thinks that experience could use a little bit of improvement.

Gregor Hanuschak (who, in a previous life, worked for NASA) has put together a Kickstarter project for the Smack Attack, an in-car gadget that lets users make those steering wheel drum solos a bit more substantial.

Here’s the project in a nutshell: the Smack Attack system consists of two separate parts, a steering wheel cover and an app for the iOS device of your choosing. Once that wheel cover is connected to your iDevice via Bluetooth, wannabe Ringo Starrs out there can trigger preloaded drum samples in the app thanks to eight pressure sensors that are nestled snugly inside the fabric of the cover. Naturally, you’ll also be able to customize the samples that get triggered so you can swap out that snare drum for a Wookiee bellow (because, you know, why not?). Oh, and in the event you’re not traveling alone, the app allows for other would-be drummers to jam at the same time… which could spell disaster for your trip depending on how talented your companions are.

As downright silly as the project seems (just take a look at this early Smack Attack promo, for heaven’s sake), Hanuschak is actually trying to tackle a real problem — that tendency for drivers to space out during long stretches at the wheel. By giving drivers something right in their hands to focus on, Hanuschak hopes that the Smack Attack will keep them from making some potentially deadly errors. Of course, one could argue that sticking a musical toy on a steering wheel presents some safety concerns of its own, so it goes without saying that the Smack Attack isn’t the right gadget for everyone. Hanuschak is looking to raise a whopping $200,000 to bring the steering wheel cover/app combo to market by the end of the year, and (assuming you’re a responsible driver) you’ll be able to claim your own in-car music maker for $149.

Last night, I rushed off to the local mall intent on seeing movie “Oblivion”, but the 6:45 p.m. show was sold out. So I walked around and spent time inside Apple and Microsoft retail shops. At Apple Store, I had two objectives: finding out the cost of replacing a shattered iPhone 5 screen (not available, refurb phone is $229 option) and observing how the company sells T-Mobile models alongside those from AT&T, Sprint and Verizon. Pink’s unlocked phone costs less upfront compared to Blue, Red and Yellow and is financed for 24 months. Apple presents T-Mobile iPhone 5 as costing considerably more.

Apple Store provides product information on iPads, which is a subtle way of promoting the devices. The marketing page presents 16GB iPhone 5 as selling “from $199” for AT&T, Sprint and Verizon and “from $649” for T-Mobile, which is technically true but also misleading. The $199 represents the big three’s upfront price. T-Mobile asks about half as much, $99.99, upfront. But Apple lists T-Mobile’s price as $450 more. Who wants to pay $649 when the others charge $199?

By not showing consumers the real upfront price, Apple presents T-Mobile pricing unfairly by the metric most consumers care about — what does the thing cost me now. The big three’s pricing requires 2-year contract, T-Mobile’s 24 $20 monthly payments.

The time period of consumer commitment, whether contract or monthly payments, is effectively the same to the consumer. For example, AT&T charges a $325 early termination fee, which amount goes down monthly (ETF divided by 24). T-Mobile interest-free financing is similar, in that the amount owed on the phone decreases every month of payment.

By the way, Apple’s no-contract price is more than what T-Mobile charges ($579.99, whether all at once or over 24 months). Apple offers financing, too, through Barclaycard with approved credit. So purchasing option for “from $99.99” is available from Apple, but there’s no distinction made in the in-store marketing material most buyers casually see.

The question to ask: Why doesn’t Apple present T-Mobile’s upfront price in the same manner as the other carriers? It’s easy to put: “iPhone from $99.99”, which is as accurate as “iPhone from $649”. Today, an Apple Store employee told me that the presentation is what T-Mobile wants because of financing and that Pink prefers to sell the phones directly, something I can’t independently confirm on a Sunday. Apple’s financing option isn’t interest-free, unlike T-Mobile’s, which could explain why the carrier might prefer to sell direct.

Certainly, T-Mobile’s no-contract approach is mitigating factor. Last month, the carrier adopted new plan pricing that is considerably less than Blue, Red and Yellow. Additionally, T-Mobile started selling phones without subsidies, which is where the lower upfront pricing with monthly payments comes in.

Subsidies are hugely lucrative for Apple and hide devices’ real cost to buyers. That $199 Jane Consumer pays for 16GB iPhone 5 isn’t the phone’s real cost, which is $649 to the carriers. They recover the subsidy by locking buyers into 2-year contracts and making data plans required. For example, 20 bucks a month on AT&T for puny 300MB. How funny. Apple marketing uses the unsubsidized pricing to whack-a-mole T-Mobile.

Apple has no obligation to help T-Mobile sell phones, and no incentive either if Pink pays for inventory up front (which is logical presumption). If the one store clerk is correct, then Apple merely follows T-Mobile’s wishes.

Bottom line: Regardless of why the presentation, there is direct benefit to the big three carriers, which are more important customers to Apple than T-Mobile. They move more volume and surely wouldn’t want Pink “from $99.99” alongside their “from $199” pricing. Upfront does matter to many potential buyers. If T-Mobile holds on to more customers and churns more from competitors, other carriers lose money. “From $649” puts Pink in the negative, rather than the positive.

Perhaps T-Mobile really wants Apple to sell iPhone 5 this way in its stores. I can’t yet say. But I know this: As a buyer comparing prices inside Apple Store, T-Mobile’s iPhone 5 appears to cost considerably more than what Blue, Red or Yellow charge.

Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

Connected Nation has developed a national broadband asset map. Here’s a description from an email received from them…

CNX is aggregating the nation’s assets to create an exchange, or marketplace, to bring together asset owners with those companies that need access to towers, rooftops, utility poles, and other real estate to expand broadband networks. CNX is streamlining site identification, acquisition, and transactions critical to the expansion of fiber, fixed wireless, and mobile broadband services.

Similar to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) in the real estate market, the CNX exchange allows public and private owners of assets (rooftops, steeples, real estate, towers, utility poles, dark fiber, Rights of Way) to represent those assets on an interactive and searchable national map.

And according to the website, the CNX Map includes:

• Network data from more than 2,500 broadband providers;
• Publicly-owned assets at nearly 300,000 locations;
• FCC  registered tower sites inclusive of 125,000 + assets;
• 124,000 + schools;
• 21,000 + libraries;
• 38,000 + medial facilities
• 52,000 + public safety locations
• 33,000 + local government operations

This sounds like a tool that would be helpful to communities, providers and the Broadband Development Office if that bill should pass in Minnesota. Although it also seems like information a State entity might want to gather themselves to provide to Minnesota residents, businesses and communities. One of the advantages touted on the website is public-private partnership and to that end, maybe it makes more sense to have the private sector expend resources to maintain this information.

When I first read the information I was reminded of the fiber database, which would track (among other things) future construction plans so that broadband providers/builders could plan to deploy fiber around existing plans to minimize cost, construction and inconvenience – but it doesn’t sound as if that is a part of this database. This sounds more like an inventory of real estate assets, as they explain.

In case you missed them, here are the GigaOM Podcasts from last week.

More media, more problems and more music on Twitter

(Download the Weekly Wrap Up)

The internet of things may make parents less worried but more neurotic

(Download the Internet of Things show)

Introducing the GigaOM Chrome Show

(Download the GigaOM Chrome Show)

How Joey Coleman crowdfunded his work as a hyper-local reporter

(Download the paidContent podcast)

The pros and cons of using Hadoop

(Download the GigaOM Research podcast)

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• GigaOM Research highs and lows from CES 2013
• How HR can make the case for workforce analytics
• The 2013 task management tools market