There are *so many* authors that publish their stuff online for free (99.99% of the web is text, after all), I actually wonder if there's going to be a continued market for authors in the long run. When it comes to novels, the costs of production is essentially zero (just your time, and many do it "for fun). If you have a computer already, you have the tools to do it. Distribution is practically free.
I've read stories on the web which are every bit as good as some of my favorite books on my physical bookshelf. If ebook readers ever replace dead tree books - its hard to imagine that authors who charge for their work will be able to compete against the deluge of free material out there.
Web 1.0 was the static web. HTML pages that rarely changed and you couldn't interact with, and "walled gardens" for content. It was old paradigms applied to a new medium, that fell flat on their face. It was a vision that the web was nothing more than one giant shopping mall - dominated by e-commerce sites that no one had asked for or ever had a reason to buy from.
Web 2.0 is the dynamic web, a web that you can interact with and change. It's typified by blogs, wikis, network effects, RSS, social networking, tagging and search. It's the idea that the web is a software platform, a new way of delivering applications to users - email, maps, etc.
Now, there's a lot of cynicism in this this thread because "Web 2.0" is a buzzword. Personally I think it's a worthwhile one though, if only because there is a sharp distinction betweem the two things above.
The misleading part of it is the notion that it's a new thing - it's not. AJAX isn't much different from DHTML. Ebay, Google, Napster and Amazon were all "web 2.0" from their inception in the 90's. "web 1.0" companies persist to this day - AOL, Yahoo (which started out as 2.0, moved backwards to 1.0, but now it looks like they're figuring out how to be 2.0 again), Microsoft (seeking to transform itself), oodles of unremarkable ecommerce sites - but they're dying, because the "1.0" paradigms don't work on the web, at least not nearly as well as the "2.0" paradigms.
Now, for my lame attempt to predict the future...
Nor will it be the last iteration of the web (although I doubt the term "Web 3.0" will ever become popular - not that the slashdot crowd will like whatever term gets settled on any better). Minimally, the next move is going to be utilizing client side resources, which are currently being left out of the picture of web software. Everything is about to become an internet device - mobile phones, televisions, game consoles. I think applications like Google Earth are probably typical of the future - programs that seamlessly integrate client and server resources. Things like "Windows Live" and ".Mac" are primitve examples of this. We'll probably never see a real "AJAX Office", I don't think it can be done with current web browsers - but I think OpenOffice and MS Word will take on a lot more of the attributes of a web browser - document data that's dynamically updated, an ability for multiple people to work on a document that sits on a server at the same time - they'll become "Document Browsers" rather than "Word Processors" - the integration between offline/online will be so seamless no one will even notice.
I still wonder when/if Google will get into advertising in videos. It seems to me that if you're watching a TV show on the internet, there's no reason to ditch the ad-driven model that already finances the industry. Google can just make it that much better, because it's really no different than AdSense: dynamically insert one or two targeted ads in the middle of any video I'm watching, choosing the ads based on content and my own preferences. It's gotta be more lucrative than the way it works now, with advertisements tied to a specific show targetted at a "demographic". Then give consumers the option to either watch it free (with ads) or purchase it (without ads).
Why would anyone pay for shows when you can just torrent them? For the same reason 95% of us still pay for music when we could easily download it for free: because 95% of us aren't thieving little college shits who think they 'deserve' free music and free TV and free movies just because they're wasting good oxygen.
Some of us just use bittorrent in lieu of our VCR - since there's nothing you can do with the former that you can't do with the latter. As long as I'm subscribing to cable, I'm paying for that content, and last I checked at least, format shifting and time shifting are still fair use rights.
Of course then marketing shows to the public becomes an issue:
If only there was some hugely popular web site that a million geeks read every day. Perhaps one that talks about a second-rate cable channel picking up the re-runs of a four year old failed television show as if it were news.
Alas though, I guess marketers are going to be screwed....
Hah! I'll show you... I'll make a copy of it in my head, and listen to it there whenever I want to. The RIAA can't tax me there!
Seriously though - the reality is that if it can be played, it can be copied. Further, if it can be played, it WILL be copied, and released in an open format.
It's truly mind boggling when you think about how much money they've pissed away by failing to simply throw up a web site and sell mp3's. Do they not realize that they're competing with a black market?
I haven't used a p2p app in ages... but when I did, I would have gladly paid a dollar a track if it was easy to find, consistent quality, and devoid of the viruses and spoof files so common on the p2p networks. I'm not about to pay a dollar for a crippled track that doesn't let me play it on all my devices.
The whole logic behind DRM is completely irrational. "If we sell Britney Spears's latest album on the internet in an unencumbered format, then there's a chance that the album will get shared on peer to peer networks!" Um, hello?
The pirates are gonna do their thing whether you're selling tracks with DRM in place or not. The DRM is just managing to piss off honest consumers and make the pirated content look that much more appealing by contrast.
Ugh, I really don't understand this impetus to combine calendars and email under one roof... I just don't see the relationship. What the heck does one have to do with the other? I guess there must be a reason for it; Outlook puts it all under one roof, and they want to combine Sunbird and Thunderbird into one application for some reason, and Yahoo has them all together... but I just don't see why that is.
I actually *might* be using the Yahoo Calendar right now if it was separate from the email application - I don't see why I should have to go through a Yahoo email account that I don't use just to mark an event in my calendar.
I'd love a Google calendar. I'd love one that fully supports sharing and subscribing via iCal. But when Google finally does release their calendar (and that calendar.google.com domain has been live for well over a month now, I have to imagine it'll be soon), I hope they don't cripple it the same way Yahoo has by integrating it with Gmail. What's so wrong with a nice stand alone calendar & to-do list that doesn't come saddled with an email application?
I couldn't agree more. The more DRM schemes are out there, the more it comes across as an unworkable solution. Maybe some of these companies will even get it through their heads that it's hindering sales.
Especially when you look at what Google has done in total - they created an open *marketplace* for video. This is the first time, to my knowledge, where DRM has really had to stand the test of the free market. What happens when un-DRMed amateur/independent content starts to outsell Big Media's locked down stuff? On the internet, all content is equal - you can't use timeslots and leadins. The primary factors that will lead to people purchasing a video will be 1) Is it any good (and worth the price they're asking) and 2) can I put it on my iPod, TV, or other media device?
DRM dieing in a free marketplace is the best thing that can happen if you want to get rid of it.
As for the store itself... everyone missteps now and again. They've gotten a *huge* amount of negative feedback regarding the store interface - the real test is going to be if they roll out a new version based on that feedback in a reasonable timeframe.
I don't recall exactly offhand when the iPod came out in comparison to other players, but I know that Creative never lagged *that* far behind. They had the first hard drive based player on the market (the nomad, 6gb, albeit not pocket-sized by a long shot) - the iPod came before the Zen but there sure as hell wasn't a three year gap, and iRiver had HD based players in a similar timeframe. iPods were (are) slightly smaller than the competition, but always at the expense of storage space and a higher price, and their battery life always left something to be desired in comparison. "Ease of use" is in the eyes of the beholder, but they all seem about equal to me. All that Apple managed to do was make them stylish, friendly to non-geeks, and brilliantly marketed them - it had very little to do with the technical merits of the device.
That doesn't mean that I have a valid opinion as to what features she wants or what brands are best. I buy what she tells me; it's her they have to sell to, not me.
Assuming you don't have your own dark room and that you have the requisite computer equipment already - you very quickly make up the difference in film development costs.
It used to cost me about ~$10 per roll of film to have it developped, maybe a little less.
Now I have a Nikon D70 - it's safe to say I take *a lot* more pictures than I used to, with zero development costs.
I probably made up for the cost of the camera inside of the first year, I'm certain that I have now that I've had it for closer to two.
It sounds like Google is offering maximum flexibility to content providers - charge what you want, put what restrictions on it you want. I don't think we have enough information yet, but my guess is content providers will be able to decide on the nitty gritty details like number of copies and number of plays.
Personally, I think this is *great*. Because the trojan horse in this scheme is that *anyone* can upload and sell content, and use (or not use) Google DRM. I don't have much doubt that the service will quickly populate with un-DRMed content for me to enjoy, dwarfing CBS in both quantity and quality. Maybe eventually CBS will get the hint, and figure out why I'm not buying their stuff.
The best analogy is the pay-wall for certain content from the New York Times. As soon as they implemented it, links to the columns they blocked dropped like a rock - most people stopped reading it rather than pay, because the NYT isn't anything special compared to the ocean of other information sources on the web.
We haven't seen this yet with video content - iTunes only hosts stuff from "big media". But Google has the potential to host independent films next to the blockbusters, amateur content alongside the pro stuff. Google is offering a platform that content creators can sell their stuff directly, without a network or studio. If Big Media wants to incorporate DRM, be my guest. They'll only hasten their downfall by doing so.
I find that a lot of the problem is that kids are learning the search engine in school, and not the library. They are learning the word processor instead of the pen. They are learning the instant messenger instead of the postal service.
No doubt Plato made similar remarks. God forbid technology should progress and old tools fall by the wayside as better ones become available.
In my day, we walked to school barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways. Kids today, with their music and clothes and their newfangled technokonfabulations that frighten and confuse me, they just have no respect for the old, slow, and inefficient ways of doing things that I'm used to.
This really is a case of Internet laziness rather than good old-fashioned people getting smarter. The Internet is probably stifling productivity and innovation becase people are spending too long looking to it for answers to even simple questions.
The solution lies in taking the Internet out of schools and encouraging students to go to the library and use resources like... $DIETY help us... books, teachers, peers, used car salesmen, etc. There are a lot of places people could look instead of the Internet.
I'm sorry... but you can't be serious. You're trying to tell me that you think that going to a library and looking in a book is faster than using Google, Wikipedia?
You think that a used car *SALES*man is a better source of information than researching the purchase on the internet first? From your other reply you describe yourself as a "seasoned net user", but then you also claim that the internet can only get you a "rough idea of price and features" and complain about "advertising, porn" and other stuff which I find a minor nuisance and hardle a hinderance to finding the information I'm looking for in the time it would take you to walk to the card catalog in a library.
The reality is that most product manuals are online, as well as all manner or reviews, ratings, and anything you could want to know. Yes, you should go take it for a test drive - but you can't possibly compare the quantity and quality of information on the internet to what a salesman will offer you.
but it also allows my already bad short term memory to not get the exercise it needs
You make some good points, and I'm not sure if you meant the above figuratively or literally... but assuming the latter, that's really not how memory works. You can't improve it by "exercising", by and large, the cognitive abilities we have when we're a teenager remain relatively unchanged until we develop senility/alzheimer's later in life.
I think we need to take a step back and look at how the *brain* prioritizes and filters information. Emotional state is one important factor, but I think the relevant factor here is repitition. The brain sort of evolved to remember any information we're repeatedly exposed to as "important", which is why repitition is key to memorization.
This world of "information overload" that we find ourselves in has two effects: it undermines the need for memorization, and due to the sheer volume volume of information, we're rarely exposed to the same bit repeatedly, so it doesn't occur naturally.
I'm of the opinion that it doesn't really matter though. Sure, I can't name my congressman off the top of my head, but it'd take me all of a few seconds to look it up. I remember the stuff vital for my day to day life that I'm repeatedly exposed to (I'll lay odds you do too), and I use the web as my "external memory", a sort of extension of my brain. I don't see it as any sort of a crutch - the web remembers more than I could ever hope to, and when information is so readily accessible, the impetus for storing it in my brain is negligible.
Yep - the Amazon reccomendation system is pretty whacked.
I can't tell you how many times it's done the same thing to me, or reccomended me an alternate edition of a book or movie I already own.
It's also stupid in that it's based at least partially on the items you *browse*. If I look at an item - don't rate it, don't comment on it, don't add it to my wish list, don't buy it... am I really interested in it? Amazon thinks so.
Well I think you're off on some of the particulars (the move from Bart-centric to Homer-centric happened much earlier than you suggest, about season 4). The show peaked somewhere in season 5-6, was still quite good through season 8 or 9, and then just goes through a downward spiral. Other than that I think your analysis is spot on.
The Simpsons used to be wonderful and clever satire/social commentary, unequalled on TV. It was sometimes subtle but it was always there; a lot of the jokes and gags were directly drawn from the inherent absurdities of what they were covering.
But just for contrast - look at some of the early political satire episodes. Some particularly brilliant ones that I can recall offhand was when Sideshow Bob runs for mayor, the Halloween episode covering the 96 election ("Don't blame me, I voted for Kudos"), and the anti-immigration episode (on the season DVD), when illegal immigrants are scapegoated as the cause for new taxes after the town demands "bear control".
Now contrast that against, say, how they covered gay marriage, where basically they said "This episode is about gay marriage", trotted out a bunch of gay jokes, and had a superficial lesson where Marge comes to grips with having a gay sister. No depth, no subtlety, no hidden wisdom. Contrast it against the episode of South Park dealing with the same issue and there's absolutely no comparison.
Now it seems that all The Simpsons can muster is "Obvious jokes about something in the news", "The Simpsons go to (London, Toronto, Rio Dijianaro) where we can use cultural stereotypes for gags", "Celebrity of the week", "Clip episode" and "Haven't I seen this before?". They're not even original, let alone clever and satirical. I don't know if it's just writer fatigue, something behind the scenes that changed, or what - but The Simpsons today just isn't The Simpsons of yesteryear.
Again, contrast it to South Park... it hasn't been running for quite as long (9 or 10 years), but they still manage to keep the show relevant and switch it up enough (adding, dropping, or changing characters) to keep it fresh. South Park can be hit or miss, but I honestly can't say I've seen a drop in quality between seasons 2-3 and the newest episodes. Is there any reason the Simspons couldn't have figured out how to do the same?
This problem is endemic in the media, period. Some are worse than others - I don't have any experience with motorcycle magazines, but I know the automotive press is just terrible. I went looking through some of those magazines a while back when I was looking to buy a car, and I was amazed that I couldn't find a single bad review. Instead the articles were overloaded with emotional terminology similar to a car commercial. Driving this car was an adventure. I had a sense of freedom when I drove that car. It's atrocious and renders the publications absolutely useless.
I think that this is one area in which blogs really shine - if I want some honest reviews of a game or a car, I can go fire up technorati and pretty quickly get an idea of what the buzz is, the good and the bad associated with any given product. That's much harder to get from "professional" journalism.
I agree with you, this whole thing does seem reminiscent of laserdiscs.
However, I think there's two key differences:
1 - Backwards compatibility 2 - Trojan Horse players, in the form of the PS3 and Xbox 360
There's really no impetus to re-purchase all your old movies on the new format... however, there's nothing to stop you from getting a player that plays the new formats, and getting your new movies in that format. I think eventually one of these will become the standard (maybe both, if players can be made to read both?) - but it'll be a very, very gradual shift, much slower than these companies are predicting.
Personally I think there's a good chance this will all get beaten by the preeminence of digital downloads in one form or another. Convenience trumps quality, and eventually one of these guys (Google, Yahoo, Apple, MS, Comcast - there's enough people trying) will hit on that sweet spot with price and device interoperability to attract consumers and keep the studio wolves at bay. Probably in 5-10 years the technology will be in place to deliver HD content that way anyway, with the storage to match - so why would I want to buy content on physical media anymore?
I gotta admit I've been scratching my head at the software choices. Putting aside my personal opinions and looking at it from a pure business standpoint.
- Norton Antivirus is not free, it seems terribly un-google-like to include not free software in the thing. - Trillian. I love Trillian, mind you, I have it myself. But it seems like a very odd choice when you're developing your own IM client and have a working relationship with the lead GAIM developer. - RealPlayer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they just cut a deal with AOL, who own Winamp? - Where's OpenOffice? It's not even an optional component?
Strategy-wise, I think it makes perfect sense. They can cut a deal with Dell or whoever to put "Updater" on systems, and it gives them an in to combat the default settings that Microsoft is going to try to use as leverage against them. I'd even say it has the potential to be a great thing: Windows desperately needs a simple software package manager so that the "average joe" user can install/uninstall software with merely a checkbox. But the software choices for inclusion are just mind-bogglingly odd.
Ironically, the original Xbox remains perhaps the best Media Center in existence... once you mod it.
It lacks DVR functions, but other than that, it does everything I could ask of a media center - it'll play any kind of file I can throw at it and output them to my TV or stereo. It's self contained - I can copy a file to it from a CD if I don't want to do it over my home network.
Microsoft could have a *killer* product as is if they would just bloody unlock it - but sadly the 360 doesn't even come close to matching what a modded Xbox could do. They'd rather make it proprietary and go for the lock in, crippling its usefulness.
I'm convinced that Microsoft (and the media companies) just don't get what makes watching movies on your computer so appealing in the first place. Sure, the ability to get it for free plays a role, but I think the much larger factor is the *convenience*. Assuming I don't care about the legality of it (and face it, few people do) I can look up any movie I want and have it in a few hours via Bittorrent. I can then watch it on my computer, transfer it to my iPod or PSP, or move it to my modded Xbox to watch on my TV - because the file is in an open, un-DRMed format all those devices can understand.
Right now, simply no one is offering a (legal) solution which comes close to matching the sheer convenience of pirated content. A Mac Mini might replace my modded Xbox - but I still have no incentive to buy video through iTunes, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, or any of these guys, because I still can't do everything with it that I expect to be able to do with the content I buy.
There's no need for baby steps, the demand for a full featured solution is there already. I'd prefer to do it legally rather than illegally, I'm just waiting for someone to offer it legally on my (IMHO quite reasonable) terms.
Slashdot Mirror
There are *so many* authors that publish their stuff online for free (99.99% of the web is text, after all), I actually wonder if there's going to be a continued market for authors in the long run. When it comes to novels, the costs of production is essentially zero (just your time, and many do it "for fun). If you have a computer already, you have the tools to do it. Distribution is practically free.
I've read stories on the web which are every bit as good as some of my favorite books on my physical bookshelf. If ebook readers ever replace dead tree books - its hard to imagine that authors who charge for their work will be able to compete against the deluge of free material out there.
I'll bite.
Web 1.0 was the static web. HTML pages that rarely changed and you couldn't interact with, and "walled gardens" for content. It was old paradigms applied to a new medium, that fell flat on their face. It was a vision that the web was nothing more than one giant shopping mall - dominated by e-commerce sites that no one had asked for or ever had a reason to buy from.
Web 2.0 is the dynamic web, a web that you can interact with and change. It's typified by blogs, wikis, network effects, RSS, social networking, tagging and search. It's the idea that the web is a software platform, a new way of delivering applications to users - email, maps, etc.
Now, there's a lot of cynicism in this this thread because "Web 2.0" is a buzzword. Personally I think it's a worthwhile one though, if only because there is a sharp distinction betweem the two things above.
The misleading part of it is the notion that it's a new thing - it's not. AJAX isn't much different from DHTML. Ebay, Google, Napster and Amazon were all "web 2.0" from their inception in the 90's. "web 1.0" companies persist to this day - AOL, Yahoo (which started out as 2.0, moved backwards to 1.0, but now it looks like they're figuring out how to be 2.0 again), Microsoft (seeking to transform itself), oodles of unremarkable ecommerce sites - but they're dying, because the "1.0" paradigms don't work on the web, at least not nearly as well as the "2.0" paradigms.
Now, for my lame attempt to predict the future...
Nor will it be the last iteration of the web (although I doubt the term "Web 3.0" will ever become popular - not that the slashdot crowd will like whatever term gets settled on any better). Minimally, the next move is going to be utilizing client side resources, which are currently being left out of the picture of web software. Everything is about to become an internet device - mobile phones, televisions, game consoles. I think applications like Google Earth are probably typical of the future - programs that seamlessly integrate client and server resources. Things like "Windows Live" and ".Mac" are primitve examples of this. We'll probably never see a real "AJAX Office", I don't think it can be done with current web browsers - but I think OpenOffice and MS Word will take on a lot more of the attributes of a web browser - document data that's dynamically updated, an ability for multiple people to work on a document that sits on a server at the same time - they'll become "Document Browsers" rather than "Word Processors" - the integration between offline/online will be so seamless no one will even notice.
I still wonder when/if Google will get into advertising in videos. It seems to me that if you're watching a TV show on the internet, there's no reason to ditch the ad-driven model that already finances the industry. Google can just make it that much better, because it's really no different than AdSense: dynamically insert one or two targeted ads in the middle of any video I'm watching, choosing the ads based on content and my own preferences. It's gotta be more lucrative than the way it works now, with advertisements tied to a specific show targetted at a "demographic". Then give consumers the option to either watch it free (with ads) or purchase it (without ads).
Why would anyone pay for shows when you can just torrent them? For the same reason 95% of us still pay for music when we could easily download it for free: because 95% of us aren't thieving little college shits who think they 'deserve' free music and free TV and free movies just because they're wasting good oxygen.
Some of us just use bittorrent in lieu of our VCR - since there's nothing you can do with the former that you can't do with the latter. As long as I'm subscribing to cable, I'm paying for that content, and last I checked at least, format shifting and time shifting are still fair use rights.
Of course then marketing shows to the public becomes an issue:
If only there was some hugely popular web site that a million geeks read every day. Perhaps one that talks about a second-rate cable channel picking up the re-runs of a four year old failed television show as if it were news.
Alas though, I guess marketers are going to be screwed....
Stan: "Oh my god, they killed Brannon!"
Kyle: "You rock!"
Hah! I'll show you... I'll make a copy of it in my head, and listen to it there whenever I want to. The RIAA can't tax me there!
Seriously though - the reality is that if it can be played, it can be copied. Further, if it can be played, it WILL be copied, and released in an open format.
It's truly mind boggling when you think about how much money they've pissed away by failing to simply throw up a web site and sell mp3's. Do they not realize that they're competing with a black market?
I haven't used a p2p app in ages... but when I did, I would have gladly paid a dollar a track if it was easy to find, consistent quality, and devoid of the viruses and spoof files so common on the p2p networks. I'm not about to pay a dollar for a crippled track that doesn't let me play it on all my devices.
The whole logic behind DRM is completely irrational. "If we sell Britney Spears's latest album on the internet in an unencumbered format, then there's a chance that the album will get shared on peer to peer networks!" Um, hello?
The pirates are gonna do their thing whether you're selling tracks with DRM in place or not. The DRM is just managing to piss off honest consumers and make the pirated content look that much more appealing by contrast.
Ugh, I really don't understand this impetus to combine calendars and email under one roof... I just don't see the relationship. What the heck does one have to do with the other? I guess there must be a reason for it; Outlook puts it all under one roof, and they want to combine Sunbird and Thunderbird into one application for some reason, and Yahoo has them all together... but I just don't see why that is.
I actually *might* be using the Yahoo Calendar right now if it was separate from the email application - I don't see why I should have to go through a Yahoo email account that I don't use just to mark an event in my calendar.
I'd love a Google calendar. I'd love one that fully supports sharing and subscribing via iCal. But when Google finally does release their calendar (and that calendar.google.com domain has been live for well over a month now, I have to imagine it'll be soon), I hope they don't cripple it the same way Yahoo has by integrating it with Gmail. What's so wrong with a nice stand alone calendar & to-do list that doesn't come saddled with an email application?
I couldn't agree more. The more DRM schemes are out there, the more it comes across as an unworkable solution. Maybe some of these companies will even get it through their heads that it's hindering sales.
Especially when you look at what Google has done in total - they created an open *marketplace* for video. This is the first time, to my knowledge, where DRM has really had to stand the test of the free market. What happens when un-DRMed amateur/independent content starts to outsell Big Media's locked down stuff? On the internet, all content is equal - you can't use timeslots and leadins. The primary factors that will lead to people purchasing a video will be 1) Is it any good (and worth the price they're asking) and 2) can I put it on my iPod, TV, or other media device?
DRM dieing in a free marketplace is the best thing that can happen if you want to get rid of it.
As for the store itself... everyone missteps now and again. They've gotten a *huge* amount of negative feedback regarding the store interface - the real test is going to be if they roll out a new version based on that feedback in a reasonable timeframe.
haha yeah, makes me wonder, although it's a bit off topic, why do you see Mac OS in movies, but never ever ever ever Windows?
Marketing. Apple pays for product placement.
I don't recall exactly offhand when the iPod came out in comparison to other players, but I know that Creative never lagged *that* far behind. They had the first hard drive based player on the market (the nomad, 6gb, albeit not pocket-sized by a long shot) - the iPod came before the Zen but there sure as hell wasn't a three year gap, and iRiver had HD based players in a similar timeframe. iPods were (are) slightly smaller than the competition, but always at the expense of storage space and a higher price, and their battery life always left something to be desired in comparison. "Ease of use" is in the eyes of the beholder, but they all seem about equal to me. All that Apple managed to do was make them stylish, friendly to non-geeks, and brilliantly marketed them - it had very little to do with the technical merits of the device.
That doesn't mean that I have a valid opinion as to what features she wants or what brands are best. I buy what she tells me; it's her they have to sell to, not me.
Assuming you don't have your own dark room and that you have the requisite computer equipment already - you very quickly make up the difference in film development costs.
It used to cost me about ~$10 per roll of film to have it developped, maybe a little less.
Now I have a Nikon D70 - it's safe to say I take *a lot* more pictures than I used to, with zero development costs.
I probably made up for the cost of the camera inside of the first year, I'm certain that I have now that I've had it for closer to two.
It sounds like Google is offering maximum flexibility to content providers - charge what you want, put what restrictions on it you want. I don't think we have enough information yet, but my guess is content providers will be able to decide on the nitty gritty details like number of copies and number of plays.
Personally, I think this is *great*. Because the trojan horse in this scheme is that *anyone* can upload and sell content, and use (or not use) Google DRM. I don't have much doubt that the service will quickly populate with un-DRMed content for me to enjoy, dwarfing CBS in both quantity and quality. Maybe eventually CBS will get the hint, and figure out why I'm not buying their stuff.
The best analogy is the pay-wall for certain content from the New York Times. As soon as they implemented it, links to the columns they blocked dropped like a rock - most people stopped reading it rather than pay, because the NYT isn't anything special compared to the ocean of other information sources on the web.
We haven't seen this yet with video content - iTunes only hosts stuff from "big media". But Google has the potential to host independent films next to the blockbusters, amateur content alongside the pro stuff. Google is offering a platform that content creators can sell their stuff directly, without a network or studio. If Big Media wants to incorporate DRM, be my guest. They'll only hasten their downfall by doing so.
I find that a lot of the problem is that kids are learning the search engine in school, and not the library. They are learning the word processor instead of the pen. They are learning the instant messenger instead of the postal service.
No doubt Plato made similar remarks. God forbid technology should progress and old tools fall by the wayside as better ones become available.
In my day, we walked to school barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways. Kids today, with their music and clothes and their newfangled technokonfabulations that frighten and confuse me, they just have no respect for the old, slow, and inefficient ways of doing things that I'm used to.
This really is a case of Internet laziness rather than good old-fashioned people getting smarter. The Internet is probably stifling productivity and innovation becase people are spending too long looking to it for answers to even simple questions.The solution lies in taking the Internet out of schools and encouraging students to go to the library and use resources like... $DIETY help us... books, teachers, peers, used car salesmen, etc. There are a lot of places people could look instead of the Internet.
I'm sorry... but you can't be serious. You're trying to tell me that you think that going to a library and looking in a book is faster than using Google, Wikipedia?
You think that a used car *SALES*man is a better source of information than researching the purchase on the internet first? From your other reply you describe yourself as a "seasoned net user", but then you also claim that the internet can only get you a "rough idea of price and features" and complain about "advertising, porn" and other stuff which I find a minor nuisance and hardle a hinderance to finding the information I'm looking for in the time it would take you to walk to the card catalog in a library.
The reality is that most product manuals are online, as well as all manner or reviews, ratings, and anything you could want to know. Yes, you should go take it for a test drive - but you can't possibly compare the quantity and quality of information on the internet to what a salesman will offer you.
but it also allows my already bad short term memory to not get the exercise it needs
You make some good points, and I'm not sure if you meant the above figuratively or literally... but assuming the latter, that's really not how memory works. You can't improve it by "exercising", by and large, the cognitive abilities we have when we're a teenager remain relatively unchanged until we develop senility/alzheimer's later in life.
I think we need to take a step back and look at how the *brain* prioritizes and filters information. Emotional state is one important factor, but I think the relevant factor here is repitition. The brain sort of evolved to remember any information we're repeatedly exposed to as "important", which is why repitition is key to memorization.
This world of "information overload" that we find ourselves in has two effects: it undermines the need for memorization, and due to the sheer volume volume of information, we're rarely exposed to the same bit repeatedly, so it doesn't occur naturally.
I'm of the opinion that it doesn't really matter though. Sure, I can't name my congressman off the top of my head, but it'd take me all of a few seconds to look it up. I remember the stuff vital for my day to day life that I'm repeatedly exposed to (I'll lay odds you do too), and I use the web as my "external memory", a sort of extension of my brain. I don't see it as any sort of a crutch - the web remembers more than I could ever hope to, and when information is so readily accessible, the impetus for storing it in my brain is negligible.
Yep - the Amazon reccomendation system is pretty whacked.
I can't tell you how many times it's done the same thing to me, or reccomended me an alternate edition of a book or movie I already own.
It's also stupid in that it's based at least partially on the items you *browse*. If I look at an item - don't rate it, don't comment on it, don't add it to my wish list, don't buy it... am I really interested in it? Amazon thinks so.
Is there another instance in history where a show so presciently predicted its own decline?
Well I think you're off on some of the particulars (the move from Bart-centric to Homer-centric happened much earlier than you suggest, about season 4). The show peaked somewhere in season 5-6, was still quite good through season 8 or 9, and then just goes through a downward spiral. Other than that I think your analysis is spot on.
The Simpsons used to be wonderful and clever satire/social commentary, unequalled on TV. It was sometimes subtle but it was always there; a lot of the jokes and gags were directly drawn from the inherent absurdities of what they were covering.
But just for contrast - look at some of the early political satire episodes. Some particularly brilliant ones that I can recall offhand was when Sideshow Bob runs for mayor, the Halloween episode covering the 96 election ("Don't blame me, I voted for Kudos"), and the anti-immigration episode (on the season DVD), when illegal immigrants are scapegoated as the cause for new taxes after the town demands "bear control".
Now contrast that against, say, how they covered gay marriage, where basically they said "This episode is about gay marriage", trotted out a bunch of gay jokes, and had a superficial lesson where Marge comes to grips with having a gay sister. No depth, no subtlety, no hidden wisdom. Contrast it against the episode of South Park dealing with the same issue and there's absolutely no comparison.
Now it seems that all The Simpsons can muster is "Obvious jokes about something in the news", "The Simpsons go to (London, Toronto, Rio Dijianaro) where we can use cultural stereotypes for gags", "Celebrity of the week", "Clip episode" and "Haven't I seen this before?". They're not even original, let alone clever and satirical. I don't know if it's just writer fatigue, something behind the scenes that changed, or what - but The Simpsons today just isn't The Simpsons of yesteryear.
Again, contrast it to South Park... it hasn't been running for quite as long (9 or 10 years), but they still manage to keep the show relevant and switch it up enough (adding, dropping, or changing characters) to keep it fresh. South Park can be hit or miss, but I honestly can't say I've seen a drop in quality between seasons 2-3 and the newest episodes. Is there any reason the Simspons couldn't have figured out how to do the same?
This problem is endemic in the media, period. Some are worse than others - I don't have any experience with motorcycle magazines, but I know the automotive press is just terrible. I went looking through some of those magazines a while back when I was looking to buy a car, and I was amazed that I couldn't find a single bad review. Instead the articles were overloaded with emotional terminology similar to a car commercial. Driving this car was an adventure. I had a sense of freedom when I drove that car. It's atrocious and renders the publications absolutely useless.
I think that this is one area in which blogs really shine - if I want some honest reviews of a game or a car, I can go fire up technorati and pretty quickly get an idea of what the buzz is, the good and the bad associated with any given product. That's much harder to get from "professional" journalism.
I agree with you, this whole thing does seem reminiscent of laserdiscs.
However, I think there's two key differences:
1 - Backwards compatibility
2 - Trojan Horse players, in the form of the PS3 and Xbox 360
There's really no impetus to re-purchase all your old movies on the new format... however, there's nothing to stop you from getting a player that plays the new formats, and getting your new movies in that format. I think eventually one of these will become the standard (maybe both, if players can be made to read both?) - but it'll be a very, very gradual shift, much slower than these companies are predicting.
Personally I think there's a good chance this will all get beaten by the preeminence of digital downloads in one form or another. Convenience trumps quality, and eventually one of these guys (Google, Yahoo, Apple, MS, Comcast - there's enough people trying) will hit on that sweet spot with price and device interoperability to attract consumers and keep the studio wolves at bay. Probably in 5-10 years the technology will be in place to deliver HD content that way anyway, with the storage to match - so why would I want to buy content on physical media anymore?
I gotta admit I've been scratching my head at the software choices. Putting aside my personal opinions and looking at it from a pure business standpoint.
- Norton Antivirus is not free, it seems terribly un-google-like to include not free software in the thing.
- Trillian. I love Trillian, mind you, I have it myself. But it seems like a very odd choice when you're developing your own IM client and have a working relationship with the lead GAIM developer.
- RealPlayer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they just cut a deal with AOL, who own Winamp?
- Where's OpenOffice? It's not even an optional component?
Strategy-wise, I think it makes perfect sense. They can cut a deal with Dell or whoever to put "Updater" on systems, and it gives them an in to combat the default settings that Microsoft is going to try to use as leverage against them. I'd even say it has the potential to be a great thing: Windows desperately needs a simple software package manager so that the "average joe" user can install/uninstall software with merely a checkbox. But the software choices for inclusion are just mind-bogglingly odd.
Right, because Age of Empires III will run on Linux no problem.
Why would they talk about a server product at a consumer electronics show?
Ironically, the original Xbox remains perhaps the best Media Center in existence... once you mod it.
It lacks DVR functions, but other than that, it does everything I could ask of a media center - it'll play any kind of file I can throw at it and output them to my TV or stereo. It's self contained - I can copy a file to it from a CD if I don't want to do it over my home network.
Microsoft could have a *killer* product as is if they would just bloody unlock it - but sadly the 360 doesn't even come close to matching what a modded Xbox could do. They'd rather make it proprietary and go for the lock in, crippling its usefulness.
I'm convinced that Microsoft (and the media companies) just don't get what makes watching movies on your computer so appealing in the first place. Sure, the ability to get it for free plays a role, but I think the much larger factor is the *convenience*. Assuming I don't care about the legality of it (and face it, few people do) I can look up any movie I want and have it in a few hours via Bittorrent. I can then watch it on my computer, transfer it to my iPod or PSP, or move it to my modded Xbox to watch on my TV - because the file is in an open, un-DRMed format all those devices can understand.
Right now, simply no one is offering a (legal) solution which comes close to matching the sheer convenience of pirated content. A Mac Mini might replace my modded Xbox - but I still have no incentive to buy video through iTunes, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, or any of these guys, because I still can't do everything with it that I expect to be able to do with the content I buy.
There's no need for baby steps, the demand for a full featured solution is there already. I'd prefer to do it legally rather than illegally, I'm just waiting for someone to offer it legally on my (IMHO quite reasonable) terms.