Tag Archive for 2024

The Rising Value of IPv4 Addresses

The Rising Value of IPv4 AddressesAccording to an article at CircleID, the value of IPv4 addresses is set to increase. IPv4 is the traditional way to address devices that attach to the Internet. The world has been running out of these addresses, leading to the development of its successor, IPv6, Despite being available on the public internet since 2011, the new protocol has not been widely implemented. Only about a third of the top 1000 websites globally support it. Meanwhile, existing IPv4 networks have become more efficient in their use of IPv4, reducing the drive to implement IPv6.

Impact of COVID-19 on the IPv4 Market

The COVID-19 pandemic brought significant changes to the IPv4 market. Many firms sold off their IPv4 addresses to raise capital. The article says the IPv4 prices have risen over the past three years. Another factor driving up the price of IPv4 networks is the cloud computing giant, Amazon.

Pricing Changes by Cloud Providers

Cloud providersAWS has announced that starting February 1, 2024, they will begin charging at least $40 per IPv4 address per year. It is anticipated that other cloud giants such as Alibaba, Cloudflare, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle will follow AWS with similar pricing structures. Notably, AWS’s new cost per address is 300% higher than what Microsoft paid for Nortel’s IPv4 address range in 2011.

IPv4 Arbitrage Opportunities

Stack of moneyGiven AWS’s price exceeding $40 per address per year, the author expects businesses to purchase addresses on the open market at less than AWS’s $40 and migrate them to the cloud. This will save them some of the AWS costs. This strategy is likely to increase demand for IPv4, further contributing to their value increase.

rb-

Organizations holding even a small pool of IPv4 addresses could monetize this asset. By implementing Network Address Translation (NAT) or transitioning to IPV6 on their internal networks, they can free up IPv4 addresses. These addresses can then be sold to networks grappling with the cost increases imposed by the cloud providers.

 

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

What a Glorious Day

Today is a glorious day.

It is National Pizza day !

And

63 degrees in February in Michigan !!!

Today is a glorious day

Related article

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

HP Greedflation

GHP Greedflationreedflation prevails more among companies with near-monopolies. In such instances, customers have little choice but to pay the listed price for the good or service due to limited alternatives. Greedflation price hikes are not tied to a legitimate need for a rise in the cost of a good or service.

HP drives greedflation. HP drive greedflation by continuously releasing software updates for its Dynamic Security system. This system bricks HP printers when they’re used with third-party ink cartridges. Resulting in several lawsuits.

HP greedflation

HP CEO Enrique Lores told CNBC, why the company pushes the maligned software. Ars Technica says that the reason for persistently pushing the hated software, is HP’s aim to transform printing into a subscription-based service. Lores said, “Our long-term objective is to make printing a subscription … This is really what we have been driving.”

Lores states that HP locks users out of using HP printers when loaded with a non-HP ink cartridge to protect customers against potential viruses. Lores claims, “We have seen that you can embed viruses in the cartridges … Through the cartridge, [the virus can] go to the printer, [and then] from the printer, go to the network.”

BSFake claims

Security experts call BS on Lores. The plausibility of a virus in an ink cartridge being used to perpetrate an attack is low. even calling it “wildly implausible even in a lab setting, let alone in the wild.” Ars points out that HP released HP released Dynamic Security released back in 2016. However, the “research” justifying the cartridge threat didn’t come out till 2022. Additionally, HP established a bug bounty program in 2020. The bounty has largely been aimed at identifying third-party cartridges according to Digital Trends. HP claims third-party cartridges violate its intellectual property (IP) and is another argument for bricking consumers’ printers.

HP Cloud manGreedflation – the real reason

The security claim is weak at best. Their decision is to lock their customers HP’s ecosystem to boost profits. Lores told Ars… this customer doesn’t print enough or doesn’t use our supplies, it’s a bad investment.”

HP’s Instant Ink plan is an example of a subscription service. The Instant Ink plan charges $1.49 per month to print 10 pages, in addition to the cost of buying your printer. Additional pages are available in sets of 10-15 pages, for $1.00 more per set. The cost to the user rises to $27.99 per month on top of the $549.00 base price for a low-volume printer like the HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M283fdw, plus shipping.

rb-

So, after 3 years of service, you end up paying HP $1,367 for the purchase price for the rights to use your $549 printer. That is 2.5 times the cost subscription over the purchase price.

I know what this customer thinks of this HP greedflation.

Related article

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

PC Sales Post First Quarterly Gain In Two Years

PC Sales Post First Quarterly Gain In Two YearsPC sales increased for the first time in two years. Gartner is reporting that global PC shipments for the fourth quarter of 2023 totaled 63.3 million units in. This is a 0.3% increase from the fourth quarter of 2022. However, 2023 was the worst year in PC history. PC shipments declined 14.8% in 2023. Gartner notes this is the second year with a double-digit decline. Worldwide PC shipments totaled 241.8 million units in 2023, down from 284 million in 2022.

Company2023 Shipments2023 Market Share (%)2022 Shipments2022 Market Share (%)2023-2022 Growth (%)
Lenovo59,725.024.7%69,047.024.3%-13.5%
HP Inc.52,896.021.9%55,366.019.5%-4.5%
Dell40,238.016.6%50,008.017.6%-19.5%
Apple21,877.09.0%26,825.09.4%-18.4%
Asus17,061.07.1%20,651.07.3%-17.4%
Acer15,887.06.6%18,708.06.6%-15.1%
Others34,206.014.1%43,448.015.3%-21.3%
Total241,891.00284,052.00-14.8%
Source: Gartner (January 2024)

PC shipments for all of 202 3fell 14.8% decrease from 2022.Globally, PC shipments for all of 2023 totaled 241.8 million units, a 14.8% decrease from 2022. This marks the first time that shipment volume has dipped below 250 million since 2006, when 230 million units were shipped according to Gartner.

All the vendors shipped fewer units in 2023. According to the Gartner data date, Dell (DELL) (-19.5%) and Apple (AAPL) (-18.4%) saw the largest decreases. Mikako Kitagawa, Director Analyst at Gartner said, “…  all top six vendors maintained their position without notable share gains or losses … Gartner projects that the PC market will return to annual growth in 2024.”

U.S. PC sales

U.S. PC market increased 1.8%The U.S. PC market recorded its first year-over-year growth since the second quarter of 2021. U.S. PC sales increased 1.8% in the fourth quarter of 2023. HP (HPQ) maintained the top spot in the U.S. PC market share of 27.7%. Dell came in second with 22.6% of U.S. PC market share, despite a 5% decrease for last year. ASUS (2357) lost a spectacular 23.2% of their U.S. Market Share in 23Q4. Kitagawa commented, “The solid U.S. economy helped small and midsize business spending as the segment grew steadily. Large companies were still cautious about spending, postponing PC refreshes to 2024.”

U.S. PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 4Q23 (Thousands of Units)
Company4Q23 Shipments4Q23 Market Share (%)4Q23-4Q22 Growth (%)
HP Inc.4,66527.70%1.80%
Dell3,80522.60%-5.0%
Apple2,71616.10%14.50%
Lenovo2,65015.70%10.60%
Acer8264.90%13.20%
ASUS7334.40%-23.10%
Others1,4358.50%-12.00%
Total16,8311001.80%
Source: Gartner (January 2024)

Global PC Sales

Globally, year-over-year PC shipments were mixed.Globally, year-over-year PC shipments were mixed. The winner was Acer (TPE:2353) with an increase of 11.1% for the year. Apple, (7.2%) best, followed by HP (5.6%) and Lenovo (LNVGY) (3.2%)  were the winners for 2023.

ASUS was the big loser in 2023, with a -9.4% decrease year-over-year in PC shipments. Dell dropped -8.3% over 2023.

Worldwide PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 4Q23 (Thousands of Units)
Company4Q23 Shipments4Q23 Market Share (%)4Q23-4Q22 (%) Growth
Lenovo16,21325.60%3.2%
HP Inc.13,95422.00%5.6%
Dell9,98315.80%-8.3%
Apple6,34910.00%7.2%
ASUS4,4057.00%-9.4%
Acer3,9876.30%11.1%
Others8,47913.40%15.3%
Total63,371
Source: Gartner (January 2024)


Gartner notes that Lenovo marked its first year-over-year growth in worldwide PC shipments since the third quarter of 2021. HP Inc. had its second consecutive quarter of year-over-year growth and sequential growth in worldwide PC shipments. Meanwhile, Dell registered its seventh consecutive quarter of year-over-year shipment decline.

rb-

PC sales should pick up as many firms upgrade to Windows 11 ahead of the looming Windows 10 EOL. The scheduled end of support date for Window 10 is October 2025

Related article

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Return to Office: What is the Real Reason for RTO

Return to Office edicts are a hot topic. The Business Insider highlights a 2023 paper from the University of Pittsburgh that examined the benefits of Return to Office (RTO). RTO policies are requirements that employees must work in the office for at least several days in a week. In the paper, Return-to-Office MandatesMark Ma, a professor at the Katz Business School analyzed firms that had publicly announced their RTO policies. He wanted to understand if the Return to Office mandates actually affected financial performance.

Changing work

COVID-19 pandemic challenged traditional employee work arrangementsThe COVID-19 pandemic challenged traditional employee work arrangements. Because of government-mandated physical distancing to slow the virus’s spread, the percentage of the U.S. workforce working exclusively from home surged according to the article. Working from home (WFH) rose from 8.2% in February 2020 to over 35% in May 2020. Ma argues that COVID-19 accelerated an existing trend of digital transformation that was already a hot topic.

In the post-pandemic period, the proportion of the U.S. workforce exclusively working from home began to decline. The decline is driven by high profile CEOs like Amazon’s Andy Jassy, JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, Disney’s Bob Iger, Starbucks’ Howard Schultz, and Tesla’s Elon Musk. They have pushed for return to office mandates. According the Chief Executive Group, in 2023 there has was an increase in the number of firms requiring employees to be fully present on-site. The percentage of firms requiring employees to be on-site rose from 31% in May 2022 to nearly 50% in 2023. This resulted in a decrease in the number of companies embracing WFH. Firms embracing WFH declined from 61% in 2022 to 48% in 2023.

No financial incentive to return to the office

management believes that return to office mandates will improve the firms and the shareholder valueProfessor Ma told BI that many managers think that working from home reduces productivity. Additionally management believes that return to office mandates will improve the firms and the shareholder value. Ma’s research found that the results do not support these beliefs. Instead, they found that firms with mandatory RTO plans do not experience significant changes in profitability and market values relative to non-RTO firms.

Return to office mandates try to grab power back from employees

The Pitt team reviewed news articles about RTO policies. They found that managers are trying to use the return to office mandates to reassert their control over the employees even if it costs the firm money.

Agency problemProfessor Ma calls this an “agency problem.” The problem is that managers do not make decisions in the best interest of the shareholder or the firm. Instead, RTO decisions are based on their own best interest. By regaining control of the employees, he said, the managers feel a false sense of control. This makes them feel more secure about their job and their own careers. Ma told BIWe found RTO mandates are more common among male CEOs and more powerful CEOs. So that’s consistent with these managers using RTO mandates to reassert control.” He continued,

“… as prior research suggests, most CEOs are very narcissistic. That means they are used to being in the center of everything and issuing orders for employees to follow. But after the pandemic, they feel kind of like they’re losing power because employees became more and more aware of their rights during the great resignation. So, the managers feel that they are losing their power inside the firm, basically, and as a result, they want to grab their power back in this relationship. And that’s the reason we found such results.”

Employee performance as a scapegoat

They attempt to explain away poor performance by blaming employeesAnother reason for RTO mandates is poor financial performance. Ma points out that some firms performed exceptionally well financially during the pandemic, while others floundered. His research suggests RTO policies may offer managers a scapegoat. They attempt to explain away poor performance by blaming employees who underperformed while working from home. Managers try to explain away poor performance by blaming employees for being lazy at home. The research confirmed that RTO mandates have no positive impact on firm performance and may reflect managers’ self-interest.

Ma told BI, “We found that return-to-office mandates are more common among firms with poor stock performance and stock returns … Like, really bad stock returns during the pandemic.

BI noted that research from Harvard Business School, found that employees who worked from home 75% of the time were the most productive.

Return to office mandates hurt employee satisfaction and retention

employees' job satisfaction significantly dropsMa’s team also looked at the impact of mandated RTO on employee satisfaction and retention. He reported “… we found that after return to office mandates, employees’ job satisfaction significantly drops.” This impacts the productivity that RTO mandates sought to improve. “… there’s a significant drop in job satisfaction, and that decrease translates into lower productivity — even though maybe before the pandemic it was true that people were more productive in the office.”

According to BI, research out of Stanford says that workers increasingly value a flexible workplace. They view hybrid work accommodations as equal to an 8% pay increase. Stanford found that employers that insist upon bringing employees back to in-person work are seeing slower hiring rates. Companies that have full-time remote work see a 5% increase in their staffing levels over the last year, compared to just 2.6% for full-time in-person offices.

Professor Ma’s research show that Return to Work mandates do not work. RTO’s do not improve the bottom line. RTO mandates hurt employee satisfaction and retention. And at their worst are just and attempt to blame the employees for poor stock  performance.  He concluded, “… firms need to treat the employee more humanely and also give them more flexibility … I see no reason for these big firms to treat their employees more harshly because they’re working from home.”

rb-

Some managers believe that WFH is a treat and hold continued WFH as a lever to control their employees.

 

Related article

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.