There is no doubt that 2017 will be remembered as the year cryptocurrency went mainstream. Bitcoin, and its siblings like Ethereum, have been around for a number of years, but this year made their names household names, especially in the last 60 days. The value of Bitcoin has skyrocketed over the past 60 days, starting at just under $5,000 per coin on October 11, and having a peak price of just short of $20,000 on exchange GDAX just this week.
With the growing popularity of Bitcoin, as well as the surging price, it was only a matter of time before a heist was run on one of the middle-tier exchanges. Going after a top-tier, like Coinbase, would be incredibly risky, as security is high, as is the chances of getting caught. A mid-tier, however, would have lesser security, and therefore a greater chance of success. That heist happened this week, as NiceHash lost an estimated 4,700 coin, valued at over $92 million at the peak price.
This is not the first heist of its kind, where a site has lost bitcoin thanks to the use of its own tools. It's important to note, however, that the timing is anything but coincidental. No data stored on the internet is ever truly secure, especially when the data involves money. As the value of that data increases, so does the chance of theft.
After the heist, the company shut down its service, leaving only a notice on its homepage. The notice apologizes for the service interruption, and that they "are stopping all operations for the next 24 hours." This message has been up, and therefore the service down, for several days, suggesting that whatever happened was large enough that they cannot get past it.
Following the hijack, other exchanges, including Coinbase, were unavailable, and the value of Bitcoin tumbled. For many who lost bitcoin as part of this heist, the loss could have been lessened if they had not maintained their inventory of Bitcoin on an exchange, but instead kept the coins in their offline wallet.
Just a few weeks ago, EA launched Star Wars: Battlefront II to much criticism over loot boxes and microtransactions. The internet revolted against the game, threatening to success of the title. This wouldn't be the first time a game had failed, but it would have been a very public failure for EA and Disney on a Star Wars game. To head this off, EA announced that loot boxes and microtransactions would be unavailable in the game.
We hear you loud and clear, so we're turning off all in-game purchases. We will now spend more time listening, adjusting, balancing and tuning. This means that the option to purchase crystals in the game is now offline, and all progression will be earned through gameplay. The ability to purchase crystals in-game will become available at a later date, only after we've made changes to the game. We'll share more details as we work through this.
While removing crates from the game boosted sales for any, the last part, about returning the concept to the game, retained concern within the gaming community. In messages to and petitions for EA, the company has given no indication that they had any intention other than to return the controversial aspect of the game in the future.
In addition to the internet backlash, there is also potential legal issues with loot boxes in games. Several states, as well as Congress itself, have begun to look into the concept as a form o digital gambling. If it is determined that loot boxes, like the ones intended for Star Wars: Battlefront II, are considered to be gambling, it would likely end the concept as a whole.
Following these changes in public perspective, EA CFO Blake Jorgensen spoke on an investor call, saying,
Over time we'll address how we will want to bring the (microtransactions) either into the game or not and what form we will decide to bring it into.
Clearly we are very focused on listening to the consumer and understanding what the consumer wants and that's evolving constantly. But we're working on improving the progression system. We turned the (microtransactions) off as an opportunity to work on the progression system inside the game. We're continuing to update that.
It would appear that EA is quickly responding to the potential of unhappy players, as well as pending legal complications from the business model. At this point, it would be a surprise to see this controversial business model return to the game, for the sake of the reputation with gamers and lawmakers.
It wasn't long ago that Intel faced almost no competition in the PC space. AMD had all but given up on creating competitive processors for desktops and seemingly had given up on laptops, and Windows RT turned out to be a failure for ARM processors and Microsoft. Today, however, the tables have turned, and Intel faces competition everywhere they exist. AMD introduced their Ryzen processors for desktop and laptop, finally bringing some competition to the processor space.
A year ago, another challenger appeared in the space, and it was Qualcomm, with their ARM processors. Microsoft announced the Windows 10 on ARM initiative, which would bring a full-featured version of Windows 10 to ARM processors, specifically the Qualcomm Snapdragon 835. Since then, Microsoft and Qualcomm have continued to assure us that the product was still in the works, but announcements about availability have been missing.
This week, at their Snapdragon Technology Forum, Qualcomm not only announced availability of the hardware, they showed it off on manufacturer hardware. The initial hardware will include the HP Envy x2 tablet, Asus NovaGo ultrabook and a Lenovo, which will make its first appearance at CES 2018. The first two were shown in action, and full specs were available. The third will be fully revealed in a month.
Qualcomm is showing that they are looking for a strong showing in this new market by announcing three major manufacturers as launch partners. The company has an uphill battle in gaining traction, so these partners are a good start. They will need to overcome Windows RT, which soured people who didn't know what it was towards Windows on ARM, and they also have to deal with the performance of the computers.
While running UWP applications will likely perform similarly on Intel and ARM, running applications designed specifically for traditional processors will have a performance drop. This is because these applications will run through a processor emulator, which takes the commands intended for Intel and convert them to commands for ARM, and then take the ARM return and convert them to Intel returns. We currently do not know exactly how much of a hit processes will take, but it could potentially be significant.
The big gains for ARM owners will be in battery life and connectivity. The aim for this new generation of hardware is always on connectivity, similar to how you interact with your phone. Hitting the power button should result in an immediate power-on, and you should still receive notifications even when the laptop or tablet is "off." Even with the always on status, the battery life should be greatly increased. The manufacturers are talking about 20+ hours of HD video playback on a single battery.
The availability date for these computers has not yet been announced, but with model numbers and working hardware on display, hopefully we will see these computers in the wild shortly after CES.
The DVD rental business is certainly not what it used to be. 10 years ago, there was Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video, plus local shops all over the country. That concept is long gone, put out of business by the original idea of Netflix - DVDs by mail for one low price.
Since then, a bizarre hybrid has emerged, and somehow maintained their existence: Redbox. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, they are vending machines in locations like CVS where you can rent a DVD without interacting with a person. Most of their business process is identical to that of Blockbuster: they purchase special versions of the DVD in bulk from the distributor for a special price, especially for rental.
The only distributor that doesn't offer this option to Redbox is Disney, which means that Redbox purchases retail packaging for their Disney DVDs. We are all intimately familiar with the digital download code that comes with Disney DVDs, which allows you to download a copy to your phone, computer or tablet as part of the purchase price. This is intended to prevent people from trying to break the encryption on the DVD to watch the movie on the go, which they were going to do anyway.
Redbox has decided that it would make good business sense to take the digital code and sell it through their kiosks. The problem, of course, is that this is completely against the law. The code is licensed to stay with the DVD, not to be sold or transferred separately. Because of this, Disney has filed suit against Redbox, claiming copyright infringement. This is a case that will be very easy for the company to make, as the licensing information is included with every DVD sold.
Disney is asking for all revenue generated from illegally selling digital copies of Disney films that it does not own the rights to, often undercutting Disney's own digital distribution prices on platforms like iTunes or Amazon. If the company refuses to turn over the ill-gotten revenue, Disney will ask the court for $150,000 for every instance of copyright infringement. That number, assuming they have sold even a dozen codes, could potentially cripple Redbox, who must already be seeing revenue issues if they took this desperate path.
We have seen companies in the past try creative licensing avoidance. There was Zediva, which streamed DVDs for $2, but their business model of individual DVD players per user was ultimately defeated. Then there was Aereo, which tried to stream local over-the-air programming, but their business model of renting individual antennas and streaming their tuner was ultimately defeated. These companies were startups, though, and flew under the radar for a while before paying the ultimate price. Redbox has money, employees, customers, distribution and notoriety, not to mention a legal team, all of which should have clued off the company that this was a VERY bad idea.
2017 has been quite the year for Bitcoin, and this week has been especially significant. The day after Bitcoin hit its highest trading value of $10,000 per coin, it was trading at $11,000 per coin. Quickly following the massive gains, the judge in a court case involving Bitcoin and the IRS released her ruling, and it was not the result many people were expecting.
At the beginning of the Bitcoin craze, some people discovered that it was a way to potentially hide money from the IRS. People would translate their cash into Bitcoin and then not report the revenue to the IRS. As time went on, and Bitcoin's value got stronger, it turns out that some Bitcoin owners were having some massive capitol gains, and also not reporting them to the IRS.
Obviously, after discovering the trick, the IRS requested from Coinbase, the largest Bitcoin trading platform in the US, information on its users transaction history. Coinbase refused, and the request inevitably ended up in court. This week, US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ruled that Coinbase must turn over some of the requested records, but not all.
If you have ever had a year in which you have traded at least $20,000 worth of Bitcoin on the platform, the IRS is about to know. Hopefully, if you fall into this category, you are one of the three known tax filers who reported this information. If not, expect an IRS audit and possibly a tax evasion charge in your future.
Since Nintendo announced their intention to enter the mobile market with their games, the company has launched 3 Nintendo-branded and 1 partner title. The most recent mobile game to come out of Nintendo is Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp, a game that, theoretically, follows the path set before it by other games in its family.
The big difference, of course, is in the game's revenue model. While other Animal Crossing games are a particular price for the game and you play it to your heart's content, this game is free to download. And download people have. In the first 6 days the game was available, it received over 15 million downloads worldwide, placing it right behind Super Mario Run.
But downloads don't always translate into revenue, as Nintendo is finding out the hard way. While a lot of people seem to be playing, few seem to be paying. In fact, of the 3 Nintendo-proper titles, it has generated the least amount of revenue in the first 9 days - by A LOT. Fire Emblem Heroes, the lowest downloaded of the 3, had generated the most revenue at this point, with $33 million. Second was Super Mario Run with $24 million. Lastly, we have Pocket Camp with only $10 million. In addition, the global distribution of spending is definitely not even, with Japan representing over 40% of all revenue, and the United States representing just over 1%, at about $120,000 total.
The problem for Nintendo comes from the fact that there is just no real urgency present in the game. The in-game purchases are Leaf Tickets, a resource present in other games as well. These tickets are used to speed up processes or compensate for missing resources for crafting items. There is no real benefit in this type of game to spending money to speed up the process, though. You're not trying to defend territory, you're not trying to amass armies, you're not even trying to fight Pokémon - you simply don't have any reason to purchase Tickets.
The company seems to have recognized this issue, either before launching the game or immediately following launch. A timed event was launched shortly after the game, with a Christmas theme, which includes limited-time items. This generates an urgency for new items, which could potentially generate revenue, as people rush to get the items that can only be crafted before Christmas itself.