In Defense of John Fanning

Napster is back, but in name only. Back in April I linked to an excerpt from Joseph Menn's All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster, which includes a not terribly flattering portrait of Shawn Fanning's uncle John Fanning. John Chamberlain objects to the characterization in an email:

Hi Mr. Olsen, I noticed that in April you excerpted from the book "All the
Rave" that details John Fanning's role in the rise of Napster.

When I was a young man I was a close friend who worked for John at some of
his business ventures before he got involved with his nephew Shawn and in
some ways was the prototype for his later relationship with Shawn.

John Fanning was not only one of the best bosses I ever had, but the best
friend as well. He was uniformly and unconditionally supportive of me and
believed in me when noone else would have. He was incredibly generous not
only to me, but to everyone I ever saw him come into contact with. He gave
the shirt off his back to me and the others who worked for him at Cambridge
Automation and Multimedia Engineering. I got my first real job at Fidelity
because of John and my first hard core programming experience all on John's
nickel.

I had a lot of advantages John did not. I came from a well-off family and
graduated from Princeton, yet I happily enjoyed working for John, cast as a
bankrupt drop-out from the ghettoes of Brockton by the book. Why? Because
he is one of the nicest, most honest and supportive persons I ever met.

I think the way Joseph Menn twisted the Napster story and blackened John to
sensationalize his work comes from the worst traditions of yellow journalism.

I think the way he quotes New York VCs calling John a "putz" and looking
down on him because he doesn't wear their $800 suits is particularly
despicable. Menn presents John as some kind of financial rapist and the all
the various VCs that came later as would-be saviours. What a travesty!
Where were all those VCs when Shawn was trying to pay his board and tuition
at Northeastern? Did they believe in Shawn and pay to feed him? Did they
drive him around and support him when he just a kid? Did they nurture his
ideas and show how to make those ideas work? No, John did. John has a heart
of gold and sense of honor. None of those VCs even hold a candle to him as
a man and I am deeply insulted by the way Joseph Menn puts snakes like them
above him.

To me John is a hero who exemplifies the entrepreneurial spirit that
built this country and whose devotion to his family and friends deserves
the highest admiration.

- John S. Chamberlain, Natick, Massachusetts

Fair and balanced we are.

Buying experiences, not possessions, leads to greater happiness

Can money make us happy if we spend it on the right purchases? A new psychology study suggests that buying life experiences rather than material possessions leads to greater happiness for both the consumer and those around them. The findings will be presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology annual meeting on Feb. 7.

The study demonstrates that experiential purchases, such as a meal out or theater tickets, result in increased well-being because they satisfy higher order needs, specifically the need for social connectedness and vitality -- a feeling of being alive.

"These findings support an extension of basic need theory, where purchases that increase psychological need satisfaction will produce the greatest well-being," said Ryan Howell, assistant professor of psychology at San Francisco State University.

Participants in the study were asked to write reflections and answer questions about their recent purchases. Participants indicated that experiential purchases represented money better spent and greater happiness for both themselves and others. The results also indicate that experiences produce more happiness regardless of the amount spent or the income of the consumer.

Experiences also lead to longer-term satisfaction. "Purchased experiences provide memory capital," Howell said. "We don't tend to get bored of happy memories like we do with a material object.

"People still believe that more money will make them happy, even though 35 years of research has suggested the opposite," Howell said. "Maybe this belief has held because money is making some people happy some of the time, at least when they spend it on life experiences."

"The mediators of experiential purchases: Determining the impact of psychological need satisfaction" was conducted by Ryan Howell, assistant professor of psychology at San Francisco State University and SF State graduate Graham Hill.  

microsoft joke

If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25 cars that got 1000 MPG.

Bill Gates

GM response.

 If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash……..Twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single “This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation” warning light.

7. The airbag system would ask “Are you sure?” before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You’d have to press the “Start” button to turn the engine off.

 

John