TiVo Adds Features to Make Advertising More Interactive

http://www.tivo.com/0.0.asp
這是一家很有創意的公司，他生產的數位電視機上盒有很多有趣的功能，比方說利用cable或者衛星天線來搜尋你要的美國節目，然後download到機上盒的硬碟中，重點是他還可以幫你做節目的剪接讓惱人的廣告節目消失，但是另一面他們似乎也嘗試讓廣告更有效率。另外平時，也可以將機上盒的變成一台電視節目錄影機。

我在patent explorer中發現這家公司的硬碟技術是跟Maxtor一起合作，其他的遙控與設備技術似乎也算是完整，所以在技術上，這種設備的技術性應該可以說算成熟了。比較值得注意的是他未來的service端是不是能夠得到各大電視台的青睞。

某程度上，我覺得這項產品會瓜分掉Blockbuster的市場，同時會擠壓到Apple將i-pod影像化的利潤。

TiVo Adds Features to Make Advertising More Interactive

A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUP
July 18, 2005 10:09 a.m.

Digital video-recording company TiVo Inc., famous for helping customers skip commercials on their favorite television programs, is taking steps to encourage viewers to watch them.

TiVo, based in Alviso, Calif., announced plans to insert symbols that identify advertisers during commercial breaks, making them more visible even when a customer is fast forwarding through them. Advertisers who sponsor TiVo's "ad tags" can include additional graphics, such as their corporate logos, to the pop-ups. Moreover, the pop-up tags now will be able to lead viewers to additional content, such as infomercials, movie trailers and even mailings.

The company said General Motors Corp. and the WB Television Network will be the first to use the new features. Starting this week, TiVo users who see GM's commercials for OnStar, GMC, Chevrolet or Saturn will see a branded pop-up tag that leads them to special promotional footage or lets them request additional information directly from GM. Viewers who want to follow through won't need to press more than a few buttons or type in their addresses or phone numbers since TiVo already has them on file and can supply them to GM.

But encouraging TiVo customers to download ads could be a tough sell, analysts have predicted. People subscribe to TiVo's service, which allows customers to make video recordings of their favorite TV shows, precisely to avoid commercials.

The new commercial strategy is the latest attempt by TiVo to generate ad revenue for the company, which has yet to turn a profit since its founding in 1997. TiVo said it developed the new features in response to feedback from advertisers. "This is an important growth area for TiVo. These sorts of products are what will get us there," said Kimber Sterling, TiVo's director of advertising and research sales. TiVo's enhanced advertising functions will let it accommodate more advertisers, he added.

The company hasn't divulged how much it has made from advertising, but has emphasized its growing importance. TiVo's focus on advertising is in stark contrast with earlier fears that the company's technology -- which lets viewers skip over commercials -- would make traditional TV advertising irrelevant. TiVo has capitalized on its interactive abilities to create advertising that's more targeted. It also has highlighted its ability to track viewer response to commercials and programs in more detail than traditional TV ads. The company can combine user data as detailed as how often viewers rewind or fast-forward through a particular scene in a show or commercial. These functions make it easier for advertisers to see how their investment is paying off, TiVo says.

Despite the company's loyal following of 3.3 million subscribers, TiVo has labored to increase its subscriber base. In its first-quarter report in May, TiVo reported a loss of $857,000. The company has said it expects to reach profitability in the fourth quarter.

Microsoft beats Apple to punch on key iPod patent

By TODD BISHOP
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Apple Computer's iconic iPod still has the huge advantage in the market -- but rival Microsoft suddenly has some bragging rights in the patent office.

Creating a surprise twist in the portable music wars, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has denied Apple's application to patent its method of using hierarchical menus to navigate through the iPod's contents.

The basis for the denial: A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher's patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent.

"I'm sure there's a certain amount of glee among Microsoft executives," said analyst Michael Gartenberg, research director at Jupiter Research. The situation has to be "somewhat frustrating" for Apple executives, he said.

For now, the outcome is uncertain. Apple plans to appeal the ruling, and even if it's upheld, a Microsoft official pointed out that the two companies have a tradition of licensing patented technology to each other.

But analysts said the situation could prove troublesome to Apple. The company would no doubt prefer to avoid paying royalties to its rival, especially in a field Apple popularized.

"It's incredibly embarrassing," said industry analyst Rob Enderle. "That just makes it look like someone at Apple wasn't on the ball in terms of filing the patent at the right time."

But the practical implications may be less significant. Although the Apple patent application at issue focuses on the on-screen menu, many other factors -- including the device's distinctive click wheel and its general trendiness -- also have contributed to the iPod's success.

In a statement on the issue yesterday, Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris said the company "invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application" cited by the patent office in its ruling.

"Apple has received many patents for inventions related to iPod, and has many more patents pending," Kerris said. "The U.S. patent process is often a lengthy one, involving much back and forth with the U.S. patent office. Apple will continue to pursue this patent application, as well as the many others covering iPod innovations."

The initial rejection of Apple's patent, and the approval of Microsoft's patent, could make it possible for other device makers to more closely follow the on-screen design of the iPod in their own music players. Microsoft works with hardware companies, including Royal Philips Electronics, Samsung Electronics, iRiver and others who use its digital-music software.

Regardless of the outcome, Microsoft doesn't intend to try to block Apple from the market, said David Kaefer, business development director for Microsoft's intellectual property and licensing group.

"We have a long-standing practice of licensing things to Apple and licensing Apple's patents to use in our products," Kaefer said. "Our approach is to recognize that, frankly, we're both mutually dependent on the good ideas of one another."

Apple has ridden the popularity of the iPod to dominance in the digital music field, leaving Microsoft and its hardware partners struggling to catch up. And the stakes go beyond digital music. A Microsoft Windows executive, Will Poole, acknowledged last month that the popularity of the iPod is generating new interest among consumers in Apple's rival Macintosh computers.

The first iPod was introduced in 2001. Apple's patent application for the on-screen menu was filed a year later, in October 2002, according to patent records. The inventors listed on the application include Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs.

In the meantime, in May 2002, John Platt, a Microsoft researcher, had filed his own application for "auto playlist generation with multiple seed songs." That application has received preliminary approval, pending the completion of final paperwork.

The patent examiner on the Apple case cited Platt's pending patent repeatedly in last month's written decision, saying it precluded approval of the Apple application. Patent language can often be interpreted in multiple ways, and Apple had disputed the examiner's view of the similarities between the applications. But he wrote that he disagreed with the company's analysis.

News of the Apple patent rejection first surfaced in an online report by AppleInsider.com earlier this week.

While it's possible that Apple could ultimately be required to license rights to Microsoft's patent, the issue isn't as clear cut as seeing which company filed its patent application first, said Rob Merges, a UC-Berkeley law professor who specializes in patent issues. What matters instead in the U.S. system is determining who came up with the idea first.

But even if Microsoft prevails in the patent process, it probably wouldn't be in the company's interests to hold Apple's feet to the fire, Merges said.

"If Microsoft plays hardball with this one, Apple may play hardball with the next one, and that's not a good thing" for Microsoft, he said.

The iPod accounts for 75 percent of all MP3 players sold in the United States, according to the NPD Group Inc. Apple has shipped 21.8 million iPods since Jobs introduced the player in October 2001, with 18.1 million units sold in the last four quarters alone.

Ultimately, if Microsoft is to prevail over the iPod in the digital-music market, it will have to work with its hardware partners to come out with more compelling devices, and to give a clearer message to consumers, Jupiter Research's Gartenberg said.

"Microsoft can declare this as somewhat of a minor victory," Gartenberg said. But "at the end of the day, it's going to take an awful lot more than this to unseat Apple from their position."

1. 從Microsoft的發言來看，這似乎是個擦槍走火的事件，並非微軟刻意的佈局，但是這不單事關ipod的專利金支付與否的問題，而且也影響到Apple已經建立了ipod的品牌王國的根基。
2. Apple應該是違反了non-obvious，申請的過程中，examer可能將Microsoft的patent視為prior art，而 i pod上的 click wheel與新穎的設計不足以構成non-obvious的要項。 Apple patent的構成由於寫的太貼近在"menu"上的設計，這與Microsoft的patent相似，因此被退件。 如果apple的patent重新強調新穎的設計，恐怕還是會落在Microsoft的陰影底下，畢竟這樣的寫法只會保護到"設計"的部分，"曲目選擇系統"恐怕還是侵權的。
3. 所以我很期待看到Apple的法務人員將會怎麼寫法，讓patent的claim能夠涵蓋到曲目系統的部分但是又不涉及侵權。若Apple要在Novelty上對Microsoft的專利上做超越，恐怕ipod會有截然不同的設計出現，屆時可能ipod又會出現升級版了。

Apple ipod的專利
Title：Graphical user interface and methods of use thereof in a multimedia player
Assignee Name and Adress: Apple Computer, Inc.
Inventors: Robbin, Jeffrey L.; (Los Altos, CA) ; Jobs, Steve; (Palo Alto, CA) ; Wasko, Timothy; (High River, CA)
Abstract：
In a portable multimedia device, a method, apparatus, and system for providing user supplied configuration data are described. In one embodiment, a hierarchically ordered graphical user interface are provided. A first order, or home, interface provides a highest order of user selectable items each of which, when selected, results in an automatic transition to a lower order user interface associated with the selected item. In one of the described embodiments, the lower order interface includes other user selectable items associated with the previously selected item from the higher order user interface.
專利連結：http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22Jobs%2C+Steve%22.IN.&OS=IN/

Microsoft的patent
（奇怪的是，這篇patent居然以個人名義申請，沒有以Microsoft為assignee做為申請人？這令我百思不解？）
Title：Auto playlist generation with multiple seed songs
Inventors：Platt, John C.; (Bellevue, WA)
Abstract：
The present invention relates to systems and/or methods that generate playlist(s) for a library or collection of media items via selecting a plurality of seed items, at least one of which is an undesirable seed item. Some of the seed items are desirable indicating that a user prefers additional media items similar to the desirable seed items and others are undesirable indicating that the user prefers additional media items dissimilar to the undesirable seed items. Additionally, the seed items can be weighted to establish a relative importance of the seed items. The invention compares media items in the collection with the seed items and determines which media items are added into the playlist by computation of similarity metrics or values. The playlist can be regenerated by adding desirable seed items to the playlist and removing media items from the playlist (e.g., undesirable seed items).
專利連結：http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=%28%22Auto+playlist%22.TTL.%29&OS=TTL/"Auto+playlist"&RS=TTL/"Auto+playlist"

智慧機器人產值 三年後300億

智慧機器人產值 三年後300億

■ 記者黃玉珍／台北報導

行政院2005年產業科技策略會議（SRB會議）訂於8月15日起一連舉行四天，首度以「便利新科技，智慧好生活」為主題。行政院政務委員林逢慶表示， SRB會議強調科技與生活的結合，並帶動相關產業提高產值，其中，智慧型機器人產業的產值，2008年的目標是要達到300億元。

「便利新科技」方面，分別選定「軟性電子產品」、「 RFID產業應用」以及「奈米科技生活化」為三大子題。其中軟性電子的未來商機龐大，將朝向可繞式的電子元件發展，包括智慧卡、可撓式電子書、電子報紙、超薄手機、腕帶式數位錶等軟性電子先驅產品的設計，預期未來對全球資訊通信產業將有革命性變革。林逢慶強調，我國可利用兩個優勢產業半導體和平面顯示器為基礎，發展成為全球軟電技術與應用的研發及設計中心，儘早取得國際領先優勢。

RFID技術可應用於食衣住行育樂等各種生活層面，創造一種無所不在、快速又安全的優質生活。林逢慶表示，我國的發展願景是透過公領域RFID應用及民間RFID旗艦應用計畫，帶動台灣RFID整合性產品產業的發展。

林逢慶指出，奈米科技是21世紀科技產業發展最主要的核心技術，將是下一波改變我們生活的新科技。我國在2003年投入206億元，進行六年期的奈米國家型科技計畫。國內投入奈米科技的公司至少250家以上，預期台灣將因新一代奈米技術產品的導入研究，使我國傳統產業再造新契機。

「智慧好生活」議題將討論「智慧型機器人產業」、「智慧化車輛產業」，以及「智慧化居住空間」等三個子題。林逢慶說，智慧型機器人將分三階段發展，現階段至2008年，預估產值將達300億元，政府將以建置產業環境、創造市場以及擴展優勢產業為推動目標，發展的產品領域將以導覽服務、休閒娛樂、家庭服務以及生產製造為重點。

未來也將透過智慧車輛與汽車電子科技的研發，徹底顛覆一般人對汽車只是代步工具的傳統印象，會中將討論智慧化車輛產業發展策略，期以帶動人、車、環境資訊的便利，有效處理道路擁擠、停車及道路救援等問題，達到智慧好生活的目標。

【2005/08/13 經濟日報】

Fusion power - Wasting money on fusion

源自經濟學人的文章

這篇有些重點真的很不錯，比方說
1. "Like the International Space Station, therefore, ITER is at bottom a political animal."
這是在NIS系統觀滿常見的問題，joint research很容易有"留一手"的問題，如同Euro fighter的研發案，最後EU各國都留了一手，如何去解決technology diffusion與regimes的互動問題，可能會是以後擴張NIS的boundary到global perspective時，必須要面對的問題。
2. Fusion的研究費用是否有價值，這也是可以去重新評估的。不過與其以成本去估算這些研究價值，更值得的關心的是fusion power是否可以給我們更多的外部效益？


A step towards commercial fusion power. Perhaps

Get article background

THIS week, an international project to build a nuclear-fusion reactor came a step closer to reality when politicians agreed it should be constructed in France rather than in Japan, the other country lobbying to host it. The estimated cost is $12 billion, making it one of the most expensive scientific projects around—comparable financially with the International Space Station. It is scheduled to run for 30 years, which is handy since, for the past half century, fusion advocates have claimed that achieving commercial nuclear fusion is 30 years away.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), as the project is known, is intended to be the final proving step before a commercial fusion reactor is built. It would demonstrate that power can be generated using the energy released when two light atomic nuclei are brought together to make a heavier one—a process similar to the one that powers the sun and other stars.

Advocates of fusion point to its alleged advantages over other forms of power generation. It is efficient, so only small quantities of fuel are needed. Unlike existing nuclear reactors, which produce nasty long-lived radioactive waste, the radioactive processes involved with fusion are relatively short-lived and the waste products benign. Unlike fossil-fuel plants, there are no carbon-dioxide emissions. And the principal fuel, a heavy isotope of hydrogen called deuterium, is present in ordinary water, of which there is no shortage.

The challenges of achieving fusion should not be underestimated. A large volume of gas must be heated to a temperature above that found at the centre of the sun. At the same time, that gas must be prevented from touching the walls of the reactor by confining it in a powerful magnetic field known as a magnetic bottle. The energy released in fusion is carried mostly by neutrons, a type of subatomic particle that has no electric charge and hence cannot be confined by the magnetic bottle. Ensuring that the reactor wall can cope with being bombarded by these neutrons presents a further challenge.

The costs involved are immense. The budget for ITER involves spending $5 billion on construction, $5 billion on operating costs over 20 years and more than $1 billion on decommissioning. Yet the reason why taxpayers should spend such sums is unclear. The world is not short of energy. Climate change can be addressed without recourse to generating power from fusion since there are already many alternatives to fossil-fuel power plants. And $12 billion could buy an awful lot of research into those alternatives.

Part of the reason why commercial fusion reactors have always been 30 years away is that increasing the size of the reactors to something big enough to be a power plant proved harder than foreseen. But fusion aficionados also blame a lack of urgency for the slow progress, claiming that at least 15 years have been lost because of delays in decision-making and what they regard as inadequate funding.

There is some truth in this argument. ITER is a joint project between America, most of the European Union, Japan, China, Russia and South Korea. For the past 18 months, work was at a standstill while the member states wrangled over where to site the reactor in what was generally recognised as a proxy for the debate over the war in Iraq. America was thought to support the placing of ITER in Japan in return for Japan's support in that war. Meanwhile, the Russians and Chinese were supporting France which, like them, opposed the American-led invasion. That France was eventually chosen owes much to the fact that the European Union promised to support a suitable Japanese candidate as the next director general of ITER.

Like the International Space Station, ITER had its origins in the superpower politics of the 1980s that brought the cold war to its end as Russia and the West groped around for things they could collaborate on. Like the International Space Station, therefore, ITER is at bottom a political animal. And, like the International Space Station, the scientific reasons for developing it are almost non-existent. They cannot justify the price.

資訊業 搶進第4C產業

資訊業 搶進第4C產業

■ 記者 何佩儒

台灣硬體製造代工業者在主機板、筆記型電腦等領域，拿到超過八成的全球市占率後，亟思新的市場大餅。汽車零組件及汽車電子產業，已吸引資訊業者目光，成為資訊業者發展3C產業以外的新興第4C產業。

3C產業是多數資訊業者發展訂單的主軸，這3C包括電腦（Computer）、通訊（Communication）及消費性電子（Consumer Electronics）商品，現在有了第4C汽車（Car），而且是電子業的龍頭大哥鴻海及廣達帶頭投入。

包括鴻海透過旗下的鴻揚創投，收購大型汽車線束廠安泰電業100%股權，廣達也已成立汽車電子部門。

今年電電公會更首度成立汽車電子委員會，由理事長許勝雄親自率團，前往大陸參加中國汽車及零組件產業發展國際論壇，拜會中國第一汽車集團等，爭取龐大的汽車零組件及汽車電子商機。

儘管全球汽車產業已相當成熟，但因成本及獲利考量下，車廠的自製率降低，對外採購零組件的比率提升，零組件廠也從過去的代工角色，逐漸成為車廠的研發夥伴。

尤其是汽車內的電子產品日益多元，自然吸引資訊業者目光，從影音系統的螢幕、天線、音響揚聲器、DVD播放器、導航裝置、藍芽無線裝置，甚至車上遊戲機、行車電腦、照明系統、先進後視鏡、電動門窗車用半導體和感測器等，都是資訊業者可以切入的領域。

汽車電子產品將是汽車產業中成長最快速的項目，也是台灣資訊電子產業的下一個重要舞台。找到正確的敲門磚，進入汽車產業的供應鏈體系，是資訊業者最大的挑戰。

【2005/08/09 經濟日報】

台灣土地的病情應該講清楚

科學人特別報導】

專訪環保署長張國龍：「台灣土地的病情應該講清楚」
環保署長張國龍，長期投入台灣環保運動。如今，從社運團體到中央部會，如何在環保署施展所長，在部會間如何折衝協調，是他最大的挑戰。

採訪＼李家維、王榮文　整理＼鄭靜琪【更多精采內容在本期科學人雜誌】
科學人封面故事

以下是《科學人》雜誌發行人王榮文與總編輯李家維的訪談紀要：

李家維：您是一位物理學者，同時又長期關心台灣環境保護，現在被任命為環保署長，領導一個重要的中央部會。您有什麼樣的特質，會讓政府對您信任、讓民眾對您有信心？

張國龍：做為一個科學人，在背景的訓練，以及對問題的解決，要比其他不同行業的訓練要好得多。不只台灣的環保署長找科學人來做，美國也一樣找科學人來做，全世界很多重要的OECD（經濟合作暨發展組織）國家，很多環保的中央業務，也都找科學人來負責。

台灣面臨的問題，比世界上其他地方更棘手，而且困難度更高，迫切性更嚴重，原因是西方國家追求經濟的成長，從工業革命到今天，有200多年的時間讓他們調適，發現什麼地方有不妥，可透過自我約束的調整機制，穩穩的往前跨步。

台灣沒有這個機會。外國200多年的經驗，我們用二、三十年的時間就濃縮了，沒有空間，也沒有調適的機制，所以我們累積很多的錯誤，特別是一些政策的錯誤所造成環境的衝擊，是無法逆轉、挽回的。

最明顯的例子就是台灣地下水的污染。過去石化工業為了成本的考量，以為髒的東西只要不見了，眼不見為淨，就把最高污染的廢液，用高壓灌到地下。該地區的地下水就變成永久性的污染，即使現在可以把髒水抽出來，但是，抽不乾淨。

毒物已經被土壤吸附了，不可能用乾淨的水再洗出來。我們不能說外國完全沒有這些問題，但是外國的步調慢了我們10倍，所以他們第一次發現，就可以馬上調整腳步，不再犯第二次錯誤，因為第二次可能是三、五年以後。台灣犯第二次錯誤，可能就是一個星期或一個月以後，來不及調適，造成台灣今日的環境衝擊，到了一個非常困難收拾的地步。

要處理這些問題，不是只從工程面考量，也要各方面的分析，因為工程面的考量可以解決特定的問題，卻可能製造出更多傷害環境的問題。所以我常說，用工程或技術來解決問題，叫做以毒攻毒，所以必須思考如何全盤性的考量，才可以達成社會極大利益的目標。

例如中石化安順廠的戴奧辛污染，目前發現有60公頃遭到重金屬汞與戴奧辛的污染，但我們的調查還沒有結束，預估污染區域可能會增加一倍，大約100多公頃。

這些高污染的地區，如果單純以技術層次來處理，唯一的辦法是挖掉，戴奧辛不溶於水，而半衰期到現在都還測不出來，因為這些東西只在一、二十年前才開始被關心，如果半衰期是200年，初步估計，住在污染地區的人，比一般人容易受到癌症侵襲，但是如果要把污染地區清理乾淨，勢必付出相當高的社會代價。

所以我們要從科學的觀點，以社會利益極大化為目標，來設計如何清理這些地方。

王榮文：如果換算成經濟成本，可以知道必須付出多少錢的代價嗎？有個數字就可以對比經濟發展的關係。張國龍：這個成本會大得驚人。我們要算出來，是將來做為處理的參考。這是錯誤的代價，說不定過去經濟成長得到的好處，拿來重新整理我們的家園，都還不夠。

調查報告不該是機密

李家維：美國能源部在前幾年發起一個影響重大的人類基因組計畫，可能很少人可以清楚說出，美國能源部為什麼要去檢驗人類的基因、序列是如何。但是從這個案例看來，一件重要的事情、對的事情，各個政府單位應該是協調，而且是爭著要去做，而不是爭著去擺脫關係。

環保署與其他中央單位的關係，是緊密連結的，但長期民間對於環保署的印象，不是那麼積極任事。一個多月前，鴨蛋的戴奧辛污染曝光時，我曾打電話給環保署的人員問，住在焚化爐旁邊的居民，身體檢查情形和血液裡戴奧辛含量等問題，得到的答案是：這該是衛生署的業務。

請您說明今後環保署除了要解決本身棘手的困難外，在政府各機構之間將扮演什麼角色？

張國龍：受戴奧辛污染的鴨蛋，消息發佈之後，所有需要承擔責任的部會都相當緊張。

李家維：經濟部做了很長期的隱瞞，環保署之前知不知道詳情？

張國龍：我們一直到今年2月才知道鴨蛋受到污染，這件事與經濟部、農委會和衛生署都有關係，環保署也的確沒有盡到應當盡的責任。例如在設廠時，環境影響評估對戴奧辛的項目，並未注意到這一環。

李家維：這就很不可思議，因為戴奧辛的兩個主要來源，鋼廠相關產業是其中之一，但是竟然沒有列為檢驗標準。

張國龍：環保署在第一個把關上就沒有注意到，可能有很多原因。他們太相信經濟部在主導這樣的設廠時會把關，因為可行性研究報告必須送經濟部，他們對重金屬的檢驗是做了，反而是戴奧辛根本沒有做，環保署對這件事情也沒有做追蹤。如果環保署在一開始就了解到戴奧辛應該是檢驗項目，一定會去追蹤。業者隱瞞之後，我們沒有主動發覺，是我們的責任。

我到環保署之後，希望改變一個文化，就是：從此以後，我們不要把所有的調查報告都看成是機密，所有的報告都應當公諸於世。一個好的負責態度，以及將資訊完全公開，的確可以讓全民參與並監視。

環保署其實應該像一位醫生，我們在檢查大地，就如同一位醫生檢查一個人的身體健康，檢查出有症狀，不是醫生的責任。如同我們檢查到台灣污染的嚴重性，不是環保署的罪過，這是全民為了生活的方便，為了經濟的成長，大家共同造的孽。環保署應該清楚說明：再這樣生活下去，台灣土地生的病會更嚴重。要讓人民了解台灣的污染情況，只有全民共同努力，才有機會改善台灣的環境。

李家維：隨著科技發展，為保護環境，隨時都有新增的檢驗項目和標準，環保署內部如果沒有很堅實的研究人力，就會有困境。目前可能就是如此，您將如何加強資訊的蒐集與人員的在職訓練？

張國龍：台灣的工業設施，其實都是世界其他地方有的工業，我們把它移植過來。很多環境應當關心的項目，如果能蒐集外國的資料，就盡量採用，若沒有外國的資料，就必須自己設計，例如制度上的設計與偵測程序。明顯的例子像台南的安順廠，生產五氯酚鈉，排出很多戴奧辛。當然，世界上也有很多地方生產五氯酚鈉，如義大利，過去二、三十年也發生過很多事故，事件發生後也需要遷村，把該地列為管制區。台灣現在第一步也是把該地列為管制區，接下來比較不同的是，外國案中，他們的廠區背景本來就是開闊的原野，一遷村以後，他們有足夠的時間和空間去想更好的辦法來做處置。

但是台灣的情況完全不一樣，我們發現管制區裡面以及還待偵測的區域，都是漁塭，過去在這裡生產出來的農產品，已經銷售的時間有多長？市場在哪裡？使用者是誰？完全無法追蹤，這就反映出為何台灣癌症死亡率連續多年都是第一位，環境污染絕對是原因之一。

台灣狀況特殊，從國外得不到經驗，就必須自己著手，做善後的規劃，這案例8月會有初步結果，我也物色到了適當的人選，國家衛生研究院吳成文院長也願意與我們合作，做一些與健康有關的風險評估。我們還要再找一群比較技術層面的顧問，看看對漁塭的底泥應該如何處置，因為台灣的特殊狀況，底泥的戴奧辛含量，全球沒有一個安全標準，我們要自己制定。而不同的地域有不同的使用功能，不同的使用功能有不同的含量標準，最簡單的例子，養魚底泥的污染物含量，與種荷花用底泥的污染物含量，可以定不同的標準，這樣才能達到社會利益極大化，接下來就是透過風險評估，做為制定標準的參考。

李家維：剛才談的環境保護都是跟人相關的事情，環保團體還關切很多跟人沒有那麼直接關係的對象，但是它們是這塊土地很重要的成員，例如，台灣原生有4100種植物，其中有1100種是台灣特有的。有不少特有物種，現在處於瀕臨滅絕的狀態，農委會是生態保育的主管機構，但是現在投入的編制與經費，離理想有很大一段距離，況且農委會業務重點是農業生產，這和物種保育有邏輯上的衝突。環保署有沒有計畫，把這樣的業務轉移到署裡，當成核心業務？

台灣像嬰兒，要呵護不要欺凌

張國龍：今天在中央部會裡，的確很多施政項目，追求的目標是互相衝突的，例如交通部的交通建設和農委會對綠地的利用，與環保署的終極目標不同，環保署該做全盤的管控，而時間不能等太久。最近剛好政府要改組，希望把業務導向互相衝突的幾個部會，乾脆納入一個部會，省得協調上大家針鋒相對，以後相關業務就整併成「環境資源部」。目前初步架構都已經設計好了，等立法院氣氛比較好時，就可以公開討論，台灣的永續經營才能落實。

台灣生態這麼豐富的一個島嶼，也是一個非常新生的島嶼，台灣浮出海面只有200多萬年的時間，與地球的46億年比起來，就像嬰兒一樣，這樣的嬰兒應當是所有人都要照護她、珍惜她，而不是趁她不能反抗時去欺凌跟糟蹋。

今天，推動者以開發為導向的，我常稱他們是擴張主義的信徒，而有更多人站在保護的立場，我把他們稱為簡約主義的信仰者。如果更多人能夠投入經驗與心血，很多環保團體，包括想保護瀕臨滅絕物種的團體，很多計畫，包括湖山水庫、蘇花公路，以及又要在北宜公路旁蓋一條北宜鐵路等，環保署會非常嚴肅來看待這些開發單位的要求，我們認為台灣沒有任何本錢再繼續做大規模生態與環境衝擊的開發案。

我來自於民間的環保界，我為什麼會來到這個工作，我的解釋是：政府有決心做環保。因為他們明明曉得我過去的生活態度與我的個性，一輩子到現在我沒有妥協過任何一件事情，他們也曉得一旦環境保護與經濟發展衝突時，我一定會站在環境這一邊。

王榮文：他們不怕你變成麻煩製造者？

張國龍：我相信他們了解我的個性，我也從來沒有隱瞞，他們願意讓我來主持環保署，就表示：萬一衝突時，相信我的判斷。我相信環保團體裡面的朋友，對我來這裡，會比較放心。

所以就任後，我第一次與環保團體見面時，來的團體相當多，我日後會主動到地方表達我的誠懇，因為每個地方都有當地的需求，我會傾聽他們的意見。

垃圾減量，已見成效

李家維：您一定也聽到了對垃圾焚化爐的不同意見，我舉一個切身的經驗，六、七年前我以清華大學代表的身份，和新竹市政府談，清華大學很願意跟市政府合作，解決垃圾問題，例如市政府可以要求科學園區、清大、交大、新竹師院以及各主要公家團體，一起做垃圾減量、資源回收，例如校園產生的樹枝、樹葉都不要離開校園，新竹市的垃圾量會減少1/3，但是新竹市政府很清楚的告訴我：你千萬不要這樣想，也千萬不要這樣做，我們也不可能朝這方向配合，因為焚化爐現在要燒的垃圾還不夠，需要燒更多才能養住這個焚化爐。

這是許多地方都會發生的事情，您怎麼解決這個問題？

張國龍：環保署對垃圾政策已經有一個非常明確的方向，而且這個方向在這幾年來證明是對的。五年前，我們每人每天製造的垃圾有1.24公斤，今天已經可以減少到0.7公斤，在全亞洲，我們跟新加坡一樣好。目前參與的有10個縣市，我們現在還沒有全台灣性的要求垃圾分類，明年1月1日才開始。環保署非常感激人民的誠意與合作的態度，每一次看到阿公阿婆拿著垃圾袋追垃圾車，我真的非常感動，他們是這麼善良，願意幫助。

所以垃圾減量是我們的終極目標，並且我們要減量到Zero Waste。Zero Waste被翻譯錯了，不是零廢棄，應該是零浪費。為了不要造成人民的困擾，依照零浪費的精神，我們強制全部的垃圾要分成三類，一類是資源、一類是廚餘、一類是一般垃圾，前兩類都是可回收利用的。現在的廚餘已經有部份讓養豬業拿去餵豬，有部份做堆肥，將來有些企業會拿去做土石改良的肥料等。希望所有的企業都可以發揮創造力與技術，共同利用這些資源。


資源回收的結果，現在20多座新蓋的焚化爐可能可以關掉幾座，而目前還沒有蓋好的幾座，我們已經發現沒有垃圾了，例如竹南、竹北與南投，我們準備把這三座關掉，目前我們也積極希望行政院達成我們的要求，政府當然在行政與程序上有些困擾，包括賠償、仲裁等，也需要時間。但是從全民與社會整體利益來看，我們不願意繼續浪費，因為蓋好的焚化爐要有一定的處理量才划得來。

李家維：焚化爐的建設是很高額的投資，您有決心做這樣的事情，代表有很大的毅力與風險在其中。還有沒有其他正在做大幅度改變的檢討案例，例如幾年前有電動機車的推廣計畫，後來腰斬了，現在街頭的污染還是很嚴重。對於新燃料的引進與廢氣管制，您有什麼想法？

張國龍：10 ~15年前，台北市的空氣污染大部份來自產業界，大台北地區工廠林立，特別是小型工廠與地下工廠，後來我在台北縣政府時，唯一的辦法就是讓工廠外移到工業區。外移需要誘因，當時的決定就是讓違建的工廠區域做地目變更，有利基了之後，他們才願意遷廠。因為到工業區買土地，設備都需要成本，這些成本過去都是用人民的健康來支付，人民是無辜的。

接下來就是管制工業區的排放，我們很多空氣排放標準都是用外國的，但是外國地廣人稀，我們必須採取更嚴格的標準，雖然大台北空氣改善，但是不盡人意，有很大的原因是交通車輛的廢氣。

要降低廢氣排放量，目前有兩個策略，第一是用油氣混合車，這種車子在高速公路行駛時，就一邊開始充電，一旦進入市區就改用電力，排放量就可以減少，不只讓空氣乾淨，也可以節省很多能源，例如Lexus休旅車一加侖可跑9英里，油氣混合車一加侖可跑29英里，做為城市間的交通工具是適合的。

第二個策略是希望城市內的運輸系統改用不同的燃料，例如PLG（液化瓦斯），廢氣排放量比傳統的柴油汽油低很多，但是過去社會硬體的設計，例如加油站只有柴油與汽油，所以加氣站不足，必須讓每個加油站也是加氣站。

下一目標是希望公部門的汽車、小貨車，都改用PLG，因為PLG的壓力只有兩個大氣壓力，我們拍個手掌的壓力都不只了，所以工業安全是沒有問題的。

【更多精采內容在本期科學人雜誌】

聯合新聞網 | 資訊科技 | 數位生活 | 消費冷感 數位化後遺症

消費冷感 數位化後遺症

【黃偉正】

「數位化」為民眾生活帶來了不同的新便利，尤其是有關視聽娛樂的個人或家用產品，近年間無不大肆流行「數位化」趨勢，因而造就了許多功能豐富，款式多樣的新電子產品。但市場上最近也出現許多「另類」的數位化後遺症，值得注意。

功能複雜化 花樣太多眼花撩亂

以家用視聽數位裝置為例，現在已變成單看外觀搞不清楚它擁有什麼功能的情景，即便是業界專家還是市場玩家，遇到一盒AV裝置，在沒有開殼、沒有閱讀規格或沒有人說明情況下，單看裝置外貌、或加看I/O接孔，都不易猜出盒中到底提供那些功能，更遑論一般消費者的理解。

其次，目前數位裝置很流行將外觀「化繁為簡」，主機上只留下最基本的少許按鍵，如電源開關、播放鍵等，期能免除消費者的應用焦慮，主機所有的功能全部佈建在一支遙控器身上，如果失去遙控器，也等於喪失產品大半功能。

此外，也出現遙控器按鍵不夠用的情況，需以單次按與長按來區分不同的命令；或者，藉由韌體設計，將各功能包裹在層層的目錄選單中，再利用遙控器上下左右鍵，配合螢幕資訊顯示來操作；另也觀察到有Set Top Box產品，提供二支不同顏色遙控器來控制內建2個選台器等設計，這些現象顯示，數位影音裝置的複雜使用與整合功能問題愈益嚴重。

過去類比家電產品，較常有各別廠商獨到的工藝表現，但在數位化後功能差異性縮小，廠商只能以不同功能整合、組合，或利用外觀、造型的變化，來進行產品區隔化。導致數位產品不只是功能複雜，是連機種也五花八門，令人眼花撩亂。

未來所謂的「新產品」，也預期將是多了功能、換了應用組合的產品，甚至改了造型、改了按鍵，只要能造就出另種時尚或風格的設計，也叫做是「新產品」。為了營造新產品的流行風潮或改朝換代，添加服務或強塞功能於新產品，成為許多產品線的開發目標，例如：消費者可能還來不及知道是否需要手機相機，也搞不清楚多少萬像素符合使用時，市場上已經「全線」佈滿相機手機了，這不知是對消費者體貼用心，還是營造市場大餅的吸金用心？

買前做功課 須先搞懂品牌功用

而且由於數位產品功能組合十分多樣化，消費者欲了解產品功能規格之間的差異，以及與本身的需求是否合宜，就要十分用功；加上許多個人裝置更帶有鮮明的個人時尚品味，消費者要面對多品牌、多造型機種，要收歛選出自己的產品，也具有相當難度；尤其目前的數位產品，價格其實不比傳統或前一代產品便宜（例如：MP3隨身聽＞CD隨身聽；照相手機＞一般手機），消費者必須要先做些功課，才能出門選購。

消費者收集產品資訊、比較功能規格、聽取別人的使用口碑的事前準備之消費趨勢，未來還會愈來愈明顯且普及，這可由網路漸多的產品交流討論區，以及二手交易網站中的討論聲浪中窺見端倪。因此在網路普及，資訊豐富又易查詢的今天，產品廠商絕對要正視這些坊間的意見流動情形，將會影響到產品的成敗與機會。

數位化消費性產品其實競爭非常激烈，廠商經常以多式樣且快速推陳出新的方式，吸引消費者的注目與購買。但也由於頻度過高，式樣多但功能好像又差不多或根本很難理解比較，消費者已漸出現消費冷感且慣用觀望與等待來對應市場。

例如：手機，多數人已備擁一支堪用手機，在沒有絕對的立即需求下，市場上新機頻出，式樣眾多，加上還沒上市的新產品消息總是捷足先「登」（且留下伏筆：預計xx月上市），如此，想要享受時尚換支手機的消費者，採買的過程將從數天延展至數個月都還可能在觀望等待將屢見不鮮。

回歸基本面 應遵循消費者需求

過去科技的確來自人性，但現在與未來的科技產品，似乎反過來在開發人性以引發消費，而且蔚為風潮。事實上，以行銷的角度來觀察，回歸基本面，以消費者實際需求為依歸才是維持消費忠誠的不二法門，iPOD的暢銷就是最好的見證。

（作者為資策會MIC資深產業分析師）

【2005/08/08 經濟日報】

The Value of Inventive Services

這篇文章很有趣, 某程度上他解釋了Hannspree在business model的缺陷, 同時也解釋了製造業跟服務業的分野, 越來越模糊的關係, even 可以回過頭想想我們自己的研究案....

It's the biggest part of the economy these days, but many companies' innovation remain focused on products. Here's why that needs to change

Ask most executives how innovation can spur their growth, and they'll immediately think about changes in their product lineup. Wrong. They should be thinking "services."

As a percentage of GDP today, services comprise 82% of our economic output. The number has been increasing for years. The crossover point from products to services actually happened in 1987. Yet when we think of innovation, most of us are still thinking products -- iPods, Mini Coopers, Treo's, and the like still dominate our mindshare about what's cool.

And yes, they are cool, but cool isn't what's making the most money or growing at the fastest rate these days. Look at General Motors (GM). In 2004, the carmaker lost $95 million on revenues of $193.5 billion. However, this loss was significantly underwritten by GM's financial-services arm, which made $2.9 billion, according to its annual report.

Yes, without financial services, GM's loss would have totaled $3 billion. The company's stock and bonds took a big hit in the aftermath of its earnings report, but I wonder what further damage would have been wrought had financial services not been there to buoy the company.

BIGGEST PROMISE. In terms of growth, GM's On-Star service has grown to 3.3 million subscribers that pay an average of $300 per year for it. Although On-Star had a slow start, it's now in ramp-up mode due to the decision to make it standard equipment on all GM vehicles -- that would be over 8 million per year. If just half of these drivers decide to keep the service, On-Star's revenue moves into the range of $2 billion, with profit margins that most certainly beat the industry average for automobiles.

And so it goes. For almost every leading big corporation -- and, paradoxically, especially those that make products -- growth in services holds the most promise for successful differentiation and sustained profitability for the future.

With this palpable shift to services in our economy, one would think that service providers would be looking to every tool available to drive better, faster, and cheaper innovation. Yet after studying over 150 services businesses over the last 18 months, my colleagues and I at Peer Insight have determined that service innovation as a discipline is still in its infancy. Here's why:

Dearth of Information

First of all, there just isn't a lot of information or rigor around the topic. While reams of books and articles abound on the topic of product innovation and product development, very few focus specifically on services and the distinctions therein.

And you would be hard pressed to find a course on service development or innovation on any B-school campus, reflecting the dearth of academic concentration in the area. Today, few universities even teach service management, and if they do, the emphasis falls to quality management and the operational excellence associated with existing service environments, never the invention and nurture of new service concepts. Further, there are few public forums where professionals involved in service innovation can learn from exemplars.

Second, although we have found that the best service innovators draw on the conventional wisdom associated with product development, most aren't using the latest tools, such as ethnographic research and rapid development techniques, to drive innovation. Just as important, they don't understand the basic distinctions between product- and service-innovation environments. Before rushing off to innovate in services, managers would do well to understand their uniqueness.

Climate Change

By far the biggest distinction between products and services is that services are intangible, and therefore much more complex when it comes to buying decisions.

Because you can't touch them and feel them ahead of consuming them, conveying the brand promise is paramount for service providers. This requires more brand savvy and investment than that for products. This is how you know the difference between a Ritz-Carlton, a Sheraton, and a Holiday Inn Express by just hearing their names. Largely business-to-consumer companies are further along the learning curve on this than business-to-business companies, who often think of brand management as just having a recognizable logo.

Things that make the offering tangible help facilitate the diffusion of intangible services. My business partner's favorite example of a service made tangible is the toothbrush he receives from his dentist after each visit that has the month he needs to return imprinted on it. The implicit message? "We care about you and your teeth -- let us serve you."

DISCREET EVENTS. Another difference from products is that with services, ownership isn't conveyed. Customers merely "rent" capacity for periods of time. Since people are so vastly different, service innovation requires extraordinary skill in anticipating customer needs, especially because of the wide range of situations confronted in the field. There are empathic design research methods that help discover which latent needs could be put to good use here. But they have yet to be deployed widely in the service sector.

A third difference is that with products, consumption is a discreet event that happens after the purchase is made. With services, supply and consumption happen simultaneously. This has enormous organizational consequences. It requires massive, 24/7 command, control, and logistical capabilities. Think of Hertz, Marriott International, or Citigroup. These are far different systems to build out than your average production line and require an even higher degree of cross-functional integration than found in manufacturing.

In service environments, the proverbial "customer journey" happens over multiple touch points. It's very complex. It often involves a large number of interactions between people and machines and among people. Therefore, services are much more dependent on big investments in information-technology development, as well as good old fashion employee training.

THINKING BIG. Finally, research and development groups don't tend to exist in most service companies. This makes it more difficult for innovation expertise to find a home. By comparison, product-based companies regularly invest billions to understand where their future revenue streams will come from.

Conversations I have had with managers of service innovation at many big companies suggest that the tendency is to support Six Sigma-type quality improvements. This approach can spawn incremental ideas, but never bold, game-changing concepts, or paradigm-breaking moves.

Just look how long it took for banks to get their ATMs to "speak" Spanish. It shows how difficult it is to implement rather easy improvements if there's little appetite and budget for innovation.

A View to the Future

So what should companies do to innovate, given the clear differences between products and services? There are a number of innovation tools, both old and new, that can be applied to service environments. My advice to anyone trying to innovate in a service environment would be to:

• Get your senior leadership team's attention around the issue. Bold moves are impossible without their support.

• Constrain the problem around where to play. Focus in terms of solving customer needs. What are the issues and opportunities? How do these relate to your current set of offerings? What's the competitive environment like?

• Lay out the end-to-end customer journey you envision for the new service. Where will you be able to provide a compelling value proposition that can provide a more convenient solution or save customers time or money? How does this influence your potential business model? Zip Car reinvented the urban auto rental business with this type of approach.

• Once you have a solid concept around the value you would like to provide, seek feedback from important stakeholders. Start with the end customer, of course, but also include other important players in the service environment's ecosystem. If FedEx hadn't acknowledged the critical role administrative assistants play in getting packages out, they never would have invented one of its critical management tools, FedEx Ship Manager.

There are a growing number of tools and metrics for service innovation. At Peer Insight, we're gathering evidence from dozens of companies that reveal many of the key principles of successful service innovation. We have organized them into 17 disciplines that allow companies to benchmark themselves. My next column will deal with how service managers can use this framework.