I killed my cable several years ago now and I don't miss it. Netflix and iTunes have filled the void quite well.
There was a time, many years ago (before my wife and I had children), when paying more than $60 a month in cable fees seemed like nothing. I know of some who pay over $100. One day it occured to she and I to ask ourselves whether we thought that the product we were paying for was worth it. We thought about it and came to the not-too-shocking conclusion that we felt we were getting ripped off. After all, together we watched SCIFI channel and Turner Classic Movies, I watched Wings on Discovery and she watched cable news.
So we canceled our cable, not down to the basic package (because those wouldn't have left us with the channels we watched anyway), but all the way. Simultaneously, we started a Netflix subscription.
Many people are unaware that Netflix offers TV series on DVD. We began to get shows that we enjoyed, like Stargate, and movies of all sorts. What news we wanted we could get from the Internet.
But there was a slight hitch that has now been fixed by iTunes. If a show came out that we wanted to see, we'd have to wait for a really long time until its release on DVD. A perfect example of this is Battlestar Galactica. Friends had suggested it to us, but there was no way we would get a babysitter to watch the children while we went to a friends house to watch episodes.
iTunes offers Battlestar and hundreds of other shows 24 hours after they air on network television (cable). We can satisfy our fix for the one or two shows we want to watch that we can't get on regular broadcast by buying them on iTunes. Later, if we'd like to see the show again or watch back episodes, there's Netflix to fill that gap.
I have a feeling that this formula will work especially well for many who are like my wife and I. I'd say that most people only really even have time for a limited amount of media consumption, so hundreds of channels with thousands of programs just doesn't make sense. A la carte media consumption is the wave of the future, but it's already here in the form of a Netflix/iTunes hybrid.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Is Rich People in Space the Best We've Got?
This post is not a rant against rich people - after all (I think I've said this before), I want to be one some day. But reading about SpaceShip Two got me thinking about why it is that $200,000 a trip tickets are being sold for 4.5 minutes of weightlessness. What happened to the grand visions of the 1950s and 1960s, when man was supposed to have been half way around the galaxy by now?
I was tempted initially to blame NASA. They are the ones charged with getting us "there", after all, and since we aren't there it naturally follows that it's their fault. Not so fast. The more I thought about it, I realized that our stagnation has little to do with NASA and everything to do with competition. Or rather the subtext of competition.
History lesson - in the late 50s and early 60s the United States faced an actual menace in the form of the Soviet Union. Our respective national space programs were the public fronts for propaganda and diplomacy. In effect we were able to communicate key strategic capabilities to our enemies through the proxy of our space programs - in other words, putting a satellite in orbit was an indication of the ability to deliver nuclear weaponry from space.
This doesn't paint the whole picture, but it's a large part of it.
The competition of the space race created the subtext within which NASA was able to make wondrous and very rapid advances. It's amazing to see how many barriers fall, as well as how many resources emerge, when government wants something done badly enough. Our success in delivering men to the moon was a self-defeating success, however, as in the end we found that the subtext that drove our efforts vanished when we succeeded in outpacing the Soviets.
So complete was our victory, in fact, that for the last 30 years we've been the victims of our own success. The subtext of competition doesn't work as a motivator to public sentiment when all the other competitors have quit the field. We have since been unable to come up with any other subtext compelling enough to justify our return to space en mass, and this is a failure of our society as a whole, not just NASA. Scientific research alone isn't ever going to be enough to justify a continuance of our space efforts when we've got cancer, AIDS, crime, poverty and any of another hundred issues to worry about at home. What worked in the 60s worked because people had a tangible fear of the Soviets that was soothed when we launched bigger, better rockets than they did. Bigger rockets have simply come to be seen as wasteful in our modern era.
What's to be done? A new subtext needs to emerge towards which the space program can strive. Competition in strategic weaponry is passe, but I'd suggest that striving to provide for strategic energy independence might be the trick - specifically, fusion powered by Helium-3 mined from the Moon.
This might be a little far fetched, so I'm not totally endorsing this plan yet. But seen in light of our current national crises of energy dependence and pollution, we have to start thinking big again. We have to start thinking about what things will free us from rogue nations who happen to sit on top of oil reserves and the effects of the use of those resources. Exploitation of natural resources outside our own planet seems to me to be the ultimate solution, and it will all be led by the newly refocused NASA.
Edit - More information about Helium-3 (this last article is very interesting).
I was tempted initially to blame NASA. They are the ones charged with getting us "there", after all, and since we aren't there it naturally follows that it's their fault. Not so fast. The more I thought about it, I realized that our stagnation has little to do with NASA and everything to do with competition. Or rather the subtext of competition.
History lesson - in the late 50s and early 60s the United States faced an actual menace in the form of the Soviet Union. Our respective national space programs were the public fronts for propaganda and diplomacy. In effect we were able to communicate key strategic capabilities to our enemies through the proxy of our space programs - in other words, putting a satellite in orbit was an indication of the ability to deliver nuclear weaponry from space.
This doesn't paint the whole picture, but it's a large part of it.
The competition of the space race created the subtext within which NASA was able to make wondrous and very rapid advances. It's amazing to see how many barriers fall, as well as how many resources emerge, when government wants something done badly enough. Our success in delivering men to the moon was a self-defeating success, however, as in the end we found that the subtext that drove our efforts vanished when we succeeded in outpacing the Soviets.
So complete was our victory, in fact, that for the last 30 years we've been the victims of our own success. The subtext of competition doesn't work as a motivator to public sentiment when all the other competitors have quit the field. We have since been unable to come up with any other subtext compelling enough to justify our return to space en mass, and this is a failure of our society as a whole, not just NASA. Scientific research alone isn't ever going to be enough to justify a continuance of our space efforts when we've got cancer, AIDS, crime, poverty and any of another hundred issues to worry about at home. What worked in the 60s worked because people had a tangible fear of the Soviets that was soothed when we launched bigger, better rockets than they did. Bigger rockets have simply come to be seen as wasteful in our modern era.
What's to be done? A new subtext needs to emerge towards which the space program can strive. Competition in strategic weaponry is passe, but I'd suggest that striving to provide for strategic energy independence might be the trick - specifically, fusion powered by Helium-3 mined from the Moon.
This might be a little far fetched, so I'm not totally endorsing this plan yet. But seen in light of our current national crises of energy dependence and pollution, we have to start thinking big again. We have to start thinking about what things will free us from rogue nations who happen to sit on top of oil reserves and the effects of the use of those resources. Exploitation of natural resources outside our own planet seems to me to be the ultimate solution, and it will all be led by the newly refocused NASA.
Edit - More information about Helium-3 (this last article is very interesting).
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Why a Sexy PC Doesn't Matter
Intel is running a competition for the sexiest PC. Moderately good loot is involved for the winner.
Intel must realize though that encouraging sexy design won't result in viable products for any manufacturer. Apple has shown that sexiness must be combined with attractive applications on a modern OS to create a "platform" - that platform then builds an image that has sexiness only as one of many features. Sony has shown how sexiness alone can fail - I consider Sony computers, especially the Vaio W, to be extremely attractively designed. Yet Sony, without any differentiator but sexiness, found that few were willing to pay a premium for sexiness alone. It's all about the platform.
Surely Intel knows all this and is simply running this contest as a form of marketing. Still, it seems to me that even if Intel is so enlightened, the rest of the PC industry hasn't yet woken up to the fact that simply running Microsoft on Intel or AMD won't allow any single company to trump the competition - even given sexy design. Rather, the only formula in the PC industry that works (lacking platform and brand) is cost. The big manufacturers seem to be content trying to undercut the other and when that cycle begins everything suffers - innovation especially.
Intel must realize though that encouraging sexy design won't result in viable products for any manufacturer. Apple has shown that sexiness must be combined with attractive applications on a modern OS to create a "platform" - that platform then builds an image that has sexiness only as one of many features. Sony has shown how sexiness alone can fail - I consider Sony computers, especially the Vaio W, to be extremely attractively designed. Yet Sony, without any differentiator but sexiness, found that few were willing to pay a premium for sexiness alone. It's all about the platform.
Surely Intel knows all this and is simply running this contest as a form of marketing. Still, it seems to me that even if Intel is so enlightened, the rest of the PC industry hasn't yet woken up to the fact that simply running Microsoft on Intel or AMD won't allow any single company to trump the competition - even given sexy design. Rather, the only formula in the PC industry that works (lacking platform and brand) is cost. The big manufacturers seem to be content trying to undercut the other and when that cycle begins everything suffers - innovation especially.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Dreamhost
I got broadband way back in the 90's, back when the earth was still inhabited by strange beasts and when magic could be felt in the primordial air. I got broadband and began to host small sites for friends and myself. It was convenient to have a server in my house and liberating - I could offer what I wanted, when I wanted, without restriction.
Speakeasy only made it that much better.
But over time I became annoyed with having to do manual setup of applications and sub-domains, ensuring that I was throttling bandwidth between computers to keep things responsive. I began to think to myself that maybe it wasn't so great trying to run the Internet out of my bedroom. Then I read that it costs about $10 a month in electricity alone to run a normal computer.
That sealed it for me, especially since Dreamhost only costs $10 a month, and it comes with a ton of great stuff. Setting up websites and services through Dreamhost is trivially easy - so easy that I feel a little like I've been spinning my wheels for a couple years, doing an excess of work that I've not needed to. At least I'm better now.
Speakeasy only made it that much better.
But over time I became annoyed with having to do manual setup of applications and sub-domains, ensuring that I was throttling bandwidth between computers to keep things responsive. I began to think to myself that maybe it wasn't so great trying to run the Internet out of my bedroom. Then I read that it costs about $10 a month in electricity alone to run a normal computer.
That sealed it for me, especially since Dreamhost only costs $10 a month, and it comes with a ton of great stuff. Setting up websites and services through Dreamhost is trivially easy - so easy that I feel a little like I've been spinning my wheels for a couple years, doing an excess of work that I've not needed to. At least I'm better now.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Social Experiment
My visit to the Apple Store grand opening was part interest and part social experiment. Given the interest in the event that I had seen on sites like digg and Ars Technica's Infinite Loop, I figured maybe I could get some eyes on my blog here if I delivered the goods. No go.
In fact, spectacularly so. I think I got a couple of people through the site here, but my attempt at doing anything more, in this instance, was pretty much a flop. Oh well.
The trip wasn't a total waste, however. I did, after all, get to enjoy the whole "experience" that is Apple. The crowd was enormous, the store was really well done and I think that I determined a few other bits of information.
For example, I now believe that Apple brings in store opening "ringers". That is, there were some very attractive and nice people running the show, and I find it hard to believe that Columbia itself could have produced that many beautiful nerds. That's something that's hard to do even on a national level.
There were a bunch of really professional photographers there, but I didn't see many of them taking any pictures. In fact, I don't think I saw any of them take any pictures. That's not to say that there weren't pictures being taken, because there were - just not so many by the pros.
All in all, though, it was a cool experience.
In fact, spectacularly so. I think I got a couple of people through the site here, but my attempt at doing anything more, in this instance, was pretty much a flop. Oh well.
The trip wasn't a total waste, however. I did, after all, get to enjoy the whole "experience" that is Apple. The crowd was enormous, the store was really well done and I think that I determined a few other bits of information.
For example, I now believe that Apple brings in store opening "ringers". That is, there were some very attractive and nice people running the show, and I find it hard to believe that Columbia itself could have produced that many beautiful nerds. That's something that's hard to do even on a national level.
There were a bunch of really professional photographers there, but I didn't see many of them taking any pictures. In fact, I don't think I saw any of them take any pictures. That's not to say that there weren't pictures being taken, because there were - just not so many by the pros.
All in all, though, it was a cool experience.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Columbia Apple Store Grand Opening
The Columbia Apple Store sports a new look so, seeing as how I live less than a mile from The Mall in Columbia, the wife and kids and I headed over. Here are some photos that I put on flickr.
* I took some videos and posted them, along with the hi-res versions of the pictures above, in a torrent. I've taken the torrent server down now, so if there is interest place a comment and I'll post an archive link *
* I took some videos and posted them, along with the hi-res versions of the pictures above, in a torrent. I've taken the torrent server down now, so if there is interest place a comment and I'll post an archive link *
Friday, September 22, 2006
Japan at the Crossroads (Where We've Been Before)
Japan is an interesting economy. It defies description as a manufacturing or knowledge economy because it spans these two descriptions and more.
This NY Times article points out something that I think is an inconsistency with modern Japanese attitudes. Specifically, the Japanese still see themselves as masters of manufacturing, with that being a valuable industry even beyond their knowledge and service assets.
I think that Japan needs to wake up to the reality that manufacturing excellence is not quite the thing it used to be. It used to be that the quality of goods could be determined, prior to having experience with those goods, simply by knowing what the country of origin was. Something from Western Europe was good, Eastern Europe bad. Japan good, China bad. North America good, South America bad.
Times have changed. When a modern company moves manufacturing, they move manufacturing know-how as well. China, South America, India and Eastern Europe are all becoming skilled at manufacturing high quality goods. The one time manufacturers are switching wholesale to enterprises based on knowledge and service.
The debacle with the batteries shows how much of a liability manufacturing can become to an economy that makes such high demands of quality simply in order to differentiate itself from the competition. When the perception of high quality is threatened, the basis for any price premium disappears. Japan is facing that threat because the quality margin between China and South Korea has been quickly shrinking in the last few years.
But Japan's real asset is something other than manufacturing entirely - its asset is design and engineering and perhaps this latest crisis of quality will force Japan to realize and focus on this. Japan is in for some rocky times ahead as they are forced to shift entirely to a knowledge and services economy, but this is the inevitable and proper direction to take.
This NY Times article points out something that I think is an inconsistency with modern Japanese attitudes. Specifically, the Japanese still see themselves as masters of manufacturing, with that being a valuable industry even beyond their knowledge and service assets.
I think that Japan needs to wake up to the reality that manufacturing excellence is not quite the thing it used to be. It used to be that the quality of goods could be determined, prior to having experience with those goods, simply by knowing what the country of origin was. Something from Western Europe was good, Eastern Europe bad. Japan good, China bad. North America good, South America bad.
Times have changed. When a modern company moves manufacturing, they move manufacturing know-how as well. China, South America, India and Eastern Europe are all becoming skilled at manufacturing high quality goods. The one time manufacturers are switching wholesale to enterprises based on knowledge and service.
The debacle with the batteries shows how much of a liability manufacturing can become to an economy that makes such high demands of quality simply in order to differentiate itself from the competition. When the perception of high quality is threatened, the basis for any price premium disappears. Japan is facing that threat because the quality margin between China and South Korea has been quickly shrinking in the last few years.
But Japan's real asset is something other than manufacturing entirely - its asset is design and engineering and perhaps this latest crisis of quality will force Japan to realize and focus on this. Japan is in for some rocky times ahead as they are forced to shift entirely to a knowledge and services economy, but this is the inevitable and proper direction to take.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
iTunes is the Key
Apple isn't going to come to rule the world through the iPod or the Mac mini and they're fine with that. I think that the iPod is simply a device to drive activity to the iTunes music store, as far as Apple is concerned, despite the fact that it currently offers a higher profit margin for Apple. Similarly, the mini is intended to drive user interest and participation in the offerings of iTunes, particularly how the Mac platform can enhance the iTunes experience.
Why do I think this? After all, the numbers would seem to point out that the iPod is making Apple more money than song sales. Apple has sold, to date, 60 million iPods. Take this Forbes article for a dose of reality. Margins on the iPod, while good, are lower than in their other product lines. Apple is making, on average somewhere around $35 per iPod if the sales of all models are averaged together.
$35 profit on 60 million units is pretty good. That's over $2 billion that can be attributed straight to the iPod. So why do I assert that iTunes is ultimately more important, and the real wedge for Apple dominence? Simple - just as you buy a car once in a great while, but fill it with gas quite often, Apple will be rolling in long term dough thanks to iTunes.
Apple has sold over 1.5 billion songs through its store. This, despite easy access to free (albeit illegal) media on the Internet. Apple is now the #5 music retailer in the entire United States and it's gotten there in less than five years. Apple predicts it will be the #4 retailer by the holiday season.
Various analysts have been quoted as saying that Apple makes $0.04 per song downloaded, which would result in an astoundingly low $60 million in profit from the running of the iTunes store. That's 33 times less profit than the iPod. But here's the thing - iTunes is going to keep on accelerating in its' growth, even while iPod sales slow down. Apple has added TV shows to iTunes and just added movies as well. The more that iTunes comes to dominate the music retail space, the better deals they will be able to cut with music distributors, leading to higher margins. Owners of iPods who feel no need to buy the latest model will still be returning to the store to get new tunes, TV shows and movies.
And with more content to sell every day - new studios and distributors - iTunes is becoming something far more than a simple retailer. It's becoming a distribution channel and that puts it in competition with the likes of the cable companies. Unlike cable companies, iTunes is providing a significantly greater amount of consumer choice and that should help to endear, and even further accelerate, Apple's rise through iTunes.
Why do I think this? After all, the numbers would seem to point out that the iPod is making Apple more money than song sales. Apple has sold, to date, 60 million iPods. Take this Forbes article for a dose of reality. Margins on the iPod, while good, are lower than in their other product lines. Apple is making, on average somewhere around $35 per iPod if the sales of all models are averaged together.
$35 profit on 60 million units is pretty good. That's over $2 billion that can be attributed straight to the iPod. So why do I assert that iTunes is ultimately more important, and the real wedge for Apple dominence? Simple - just as you buy a car once in a great while, but fill it with gas quite often, Apple will be rolling in long term dough thanks to iTunes.
Apple has sold over 1.5 billion songs through its store. This, despite easy access to free (albeit illegal) media on the Internet. Apple is now the #5 music retailer in the entire United States and it's gotten there in less than five years. Apple predicts it will be the #4 retailer by the holiday season.
Various analysts have been quoted as saying that Apple makes $0.04 per song downloaded, which would result in an astoundingly low $60 million in profit from the running of the iTunes store. That's 33 times less profit than the iPod. But here's the thing - iTunes is going to keep on accelerating in its' growth, even while iPod sales slow down. Apple has added TV shows to iTunes and just added movies as well. The more that iTunes comes to dominate the music retail space, the better deals they will be able to cut with music distributors, leading to higher margins. Owners of iPods who feel no need to buy the latest model will still be returning to the store to get new tunes, TV shows and movies.
And with more content to sell every day - new studios and distributors - iTunes is becoming something far more than a simple retailer. It's becoming a distribution channel and that puts it in competition with the likes of the cable companies. Unlike cable companies, iTunes is providing a significantly greater amount of consumer choice and that should help to endear, and even further accelerate, Apple's rise through iTunes.
Monday, September 18, 2006
My New Project
When I've got nothing better to do with my time I'm going to start a project to document all the stuff that our modern generations (me included) are forgetting about how to live without technology.
While down in North Carolina I spent a fair amount of time talking to a really interesting older man who is ridiculously smart in practical matters, like how to stay alive matters. I could do pretty well (certainly far better than most I'd wager) if I was dropped in the middle of the wilderness, or if robots destroyed civilization, but I'd have some issues. This guy would have no issue whatsoever because he can do or make whatever it is he wants to use from scratch anyway, so modern conveniences simply save him time rather than make available things he'd have had no idea how to get or make.
It struck me as interesting that, in the span of two generations, our society has mostly forgotten how to survive outside of itself. If people had to build their own homes most would get crushed by their creations. If people couldn't get pickles or sauerkraut at the grocery store they would just stop eating them rather than making them themselves. If people couldn't get their tanks filled at the gas station they have no way of moving around.
Not this guy. He pretty much can, and has, made anything and everything necessary to support a high quality of life with or without civilization to back him up.
Let me make clear that I'm not a survivalist nut job who thinks that I need to learn basic skills in order to be able to escape to the hills when the UN takes over America and puts Iran "peacekeepers" in downtown NY city. Rather, I think it's an interesting juxtaposition that our society, while becoming more comfortable and prosperous has simultaneously become more fragile and ignorant in certain matters.
How many of you could even differentiate an oak from a maple from a birch? How about how to make something edible from acorns (careful, they're poisonous without special preparation)?
While down in North Carolina I spent a fair amount of time talking to a really interesting older man who is ridiculously smart in practical matters, like how to stay alive matters. I could do pretty well (certainly far better than most I'd wager) if I was dropped in the middle of the wilderness, or if robots destroyed civilization, but I'd have some issues. This guy would have no issue whatsoever because he can do or make whatever it is he wants to use from scratch anyway, so modern conveniences simply save him time rather than make available things he'd have had no idea how to get or make.
It struck me as interesting that, in the span of two generations, our society has mostly forgotten how to survive outside of itself. If people had to build their own homes most would get crushed by their creations. If people couldn't get pickles or sauerkraut at the grocery store they would just stop eating them rather than making them themselves. If people couldn't get their tanks filled at the gas station they have no way of moving around.
Not this guy. He pretty much can, and has, made anything and everything necessary to support a high quality of life with or without civilization to back him up.
Let me make clear that I'm not a survivalist nut job who thinks that I need to learn basic skills in order to be able to escape to the hills when the UN takes over America and puts Iran "peacekeepers" in downtown NY city. Rather, I think it's an interesting juxtaposition that our society, while becoming more comfortable and prosperous has simultaneously become more fragile and ignorant in certain matters.
How many of you could even differentiate an oak from a maple from a birch? How about how to make something edible from acorns (careful, they're poisonous without special preparation)?
Friday, September 08, 2006
On Second Thought (Xerox Just Found El Dorado)
If Xerox is targeting government, then this technology could have some interesting potential. Freedom of Information Act requests just got a whole lot easier to comply with while being simultaneously less helpful.
Not quite, really, as electronic records and the means to reveal hidden data are also subject to FOIA requests. But still, the government produces a lot of material that doesn't necessarily have to be kept "for record" and this might be just the thing to make all non-record publication that much more confidential. Not that I approve of the government having more ways on hand to deceive the citizenry, but...
Not quite, really, as electronic records and the means to reveal hidden data are also subject to FOIA requests. But still, the government produces a lot of material that doesn't necessarily have to be kept "for record" and this might be just the thing to make all non-record publication that much more confidential. Not that I approve of the government having more ways on hand to deceive the citizenry, but...
Xerox and the Old Way
Xerox announced some pretty interesting new technology yesterday, and it makes me sad to know that this will go nowhere.
Basically what they've got is an ink that disappears after a certain amount of time, giving paper the ability to be re-used. "How cool," I thought to myself, having long been a double-printer of documents (email on one side and fax coversheet on the other, for example).
But then it occurred to me that in order to realize any benefit from this technology people will have to 1) change the way they use paper and 2) adopt and purchase a new infrastructure. Getting companies to change their infrastructure and work practices is difficult at best - high-priced consultants get called in to do this all the time and fail as often as not.
So, without any evidence or statistics or anything to back myself up I hereby declare that Xerox, in pursuing this technology, has created something cool that nobody will ever use, ever.
Basically what they've got is an ink that disappears after a certain amount of time, giving paper the ability to be re-used. "How cool," I thought to myself, having long been a double-printer of documents (email on one side and fax coversheet on the other, for example).
But then it occurred to me that in order to realize any benefit from this technology people will have to 1) change the way they use paper and 2) adopt and purchase a new infrastructure. Getting companies to change their infrastructure and work practices is difficult at best - high-priced consultants get called in to do this all the time and fail as often as not.
So, without any evidence or statistics or anything to back myself up I hereby declare that Xerox, in pursuing this technology, has created something cool that nobody will ever use, ever.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The Digg Effect
Users of Digg may or may not recall the phenomenon of "Karma Whoring" that threatened Slashdot years ago. In brief, a certain subset of Slashdot users were essentially spamming the site to get "karma", a (limited) form of social recognition on Slashdot. Slashdot responded, eventually, by introducing arbitrary limits to the amount of karma any user could receive, both in total and for a single comment or other contribution. In changing Slashdot's community dynamic, the site angered and alienated many of the users who had spent lots of time building up legitimate karma, arguing that they were being lumped in with others whose contributions were of a low general quality. I had forgotten all about that piece of history until the current top-user behavior "crisis" hit Digg recently. Techcrunch has a good wrap-up of the issue that you should read if you're unaware of what's going on with Digg these days.
I have three thoughts regarding all this.
1. Social web sites, gasp, resemble society!
The main complaint of those who are crying foul over this latest issue cite a "top-30 cabal" as being destructively influential to the site. Who is shocked by this? Why are so many people amazed to find out that certain elite users would (whether by malice or not) associate with other elite users? That these users' contributions and "diggs" would count for more than those of the unwashed masses is a feature uf Digg and isn't their fault.
Cliques form, online and in life. People who are upset by this are out of touch with reality. Digg made a choice in making their weighting algorithm, and the results speak for themselves - it's not the concern of the top users to moderate themselves to meet the desires of others whose feelings are hurt because their stories didn't make the front page.
Anyway, if cabals are so powerful in Digg, why aren't we seeing "top 31-60" cabals and "top 61-90" cabals? It would be interesting to see if these partitions start to form as a response to the influence of the top diggers.
2. Digg needs to learn lessons from those who have been there before.
Kevin Rose was inspired by Slashdot and was doubtlessly aware of many of the emergent social phenomena that have been featured on Slashdot over the years. It therefore makes me wonder why certain of the lessons that Slashdot learned very publicly many years ago are being re-learned by Rose and Co. today. Users have suggested fixes to address many of the Digg issues, and unsurprisingly many of them reflect the current state of Slashdot. I understand that learning from personal experience can be very rewarding, but the Digg crew needs to be sharper than this if they really expect to stay ahead of the competition.
Speaking of staying ahead of the competition, it is interesting to look back in hindsight now and see the actions of Netscape's Calacanis in the present light. Calacanis sought to draw top submitters from Digg to Netscape's clone site by actually paying them (Revolting! How dare he try to compensate people for doing work!). However, given what is now known about how some of the submitters may have gained their top perch, it might seem that Calacanis could have been better off going in another direction, because...
3. Influential top users aren't a good thing.
The Techcrunch article makes an excellent point that is this - if site content is generated by a few rather than by the many, what's to differentiate Digg from the New York Times? Users in effect are simply trading one group of editors (professional) for another (amateur).
Digg is/was differentiated because of the range and volume of content submitted. Anecdotally, I've witnessed Digg being transformed into another form of RSS aggregator as top diggers simply post forwards to top blogs and sites like Techcrunch and Wired. This prevents lots of content that is interesting or more difficult to uncover from rising out of the noise, as the weight of the cabal overwhelms the lesser contributors.
So, despite all the huge volume of work being done by many of the top diggers, in reality their efforts are counter to the public interest. By carrying "weight" in their efforts, they have become a force to skew Digg, and that's not Digg.
So what's the thing for Digg to do? Digg doesn't need to topple the top users, but they definately should make it so that the voice of the top users don't carry any more weight than any body else. Digg has grown enough, has a large enough base now, that there is no longer any benefit in that practice.
The top contributors will still remain the top contributors due simply to the fact that they submit whole raft-loads of content. Their "promoted" ratios will fall, though, and this will be good for everybody.
I have three thoughts regarding all this.
1. Social web sites, gasp, resemble society!
The main complaint of those who are crying foul over this latest issue cite a "top-30 cabal" as being destructively influential to the site. Who is shocked by this? Why are so many people amazed to find out that certain elite users would (whether by malice or not) associate with other elite users? That these users' contributions and "diggs" would count for more than those of the unwashed masses is a feature uf Digg and isn't their fault.
Cliques form, online and in life. People who are upset by this are out of touch with reality. Digg made a choice in making their weighting algorithm, and the results speak for themselves - it's not the concern of the top users to moderate themselves to meet the desires of others whose feelings are hurt because their stories didn't make the front page.
Anyway, if cabals are so powerful in Digg, why aren't we seeing "top 31-60" cabals and "top 61-90" cabals? It would be interesting to see if these partitions start to form as a response to the influence of the top diggers.
2. Digg needs to learn lessons from those who have been there before.
Kevin Rose was inspired by Slashdot and was doubtlessly aware of many of the emergent social phenomena that have been featured on Slashdot over the years. It therefore makes me wonder why certain of the lessons that Slashdot learned very publicly many years ago are being re-learned by Rose and Co. today. Users have suggested fixes to address many of the Digg issues, and unsurprisingly many of them reflect the current state of Slashdot. I understand that learning from personal experience can be very rewarding, but the Digg crew needs to be sharper than this if they really expect to stay ahead of the competition.
Speaking of staying ahead of the competition, it is interesting to look back in hindsight now and see the actions of Netscape's Calacanis in the present light. Calacanis sought to draw top submitters from Digg to Netscape's clone site by actually paying them (Revolting! How dare he try to compensate people for doing work!). However, given what is now known about how some of the submitters may have gained their top perch, it might seem that Calacanis could have been better off going in another direction, because...
3. Influential top users aren't a good thing.
The Techcrunch article makes an excellent point that is this - if site content is generated by a few rather than by the many, what's to differentiate Digg from the New York Times? Users in effect are simply trading one group of editors (professional) for another (amateur).
Digg is/was differentiated because of the range and volume of content submitted. Anecdotally, I've witnessed Digg being transformed into another form of RSS aggregator as top diggers simply post forwards to top blogs and sites like Techcrunch and Wired. This prevents lots of content that is interesting or more difficult to uncover from rising out of the noise, as the weight of the cabal overwhelms the lesser contributors.
So, despite all the huge volume of work being done by many of the top diggers, in reality their efforts are counter to the public interest. By carrying "weight" in their efforts, they have become a force to skew Digg, and that's not Digg.
So what's the thing for Digg to do? Digg doesn't need to topple the top users, but they definately should make it so that the voice of the top users don't carry any more weight than any body else. Digg has grown enough, has a large enough base now, that there is no longer any benefit in that practice.
The top contributors will still remain the top contributors due simply to the fact that they submit whole raft-loads of content. Their "promoted" ratios will fall, though, and this will be good for everybody.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
My Philosophy
I do a fair amount of random poking around on Wikipedia. I forget how I came to this, but I ended up on Valerie Solanas, Situationism and most interestingly, Alternative Society.
I'm conservative. I think radical feminists like Valerie Solanas are destructive to society, and not in a good way (meaning they seek only to destroy and have little to offer, rather than destroying with the aim of rebuilding something superior in its place). I think counter-culture movements like Situationism, Anarcho-communism, Leftism and the associated bits are similarly non-productive/-effective/-reasonable/-helpful.
So I found it interesting that I identified with some of the ideas of Alernative Society. Specifically, rather than trying to destroy something to build something else in its place, AS seeks to provide viable, working alternative to a system that draws people to it. Think about it as the new idea wins the popularity contest.
I grant that AS is a bit unworkable in certain situations, but America is an open and free enough society that, rather than seeking revolutionary progress, anybody should be able to communicate and further their ideas and goals through AS (if they're good ideas). I'd like to pursue this topic further, to see what's been done, and to explore what might be the natural limitations of this form of activism.
I'm conservative. I think radical feminists like Valerie Solanas are destructive to society, and not in a good way (meaning they seek only to destroy and have little to offer, rather than destroying with the aim of rebuilding something superior in its place). I think counter-culture movements like Situationism, Anarcho-communism, Leftism and the associated bits are similarly non-productive/-effective/-reasonable/-helpful.
So I found it interesting that I identified with some of the ideas of Alernative Society. Specifically, rather than trying to destroy something to build something else in its place, AS seeks to provide viable, working alternative to a system that draws people to it. Think about it as the new idea wins the popularity contest.
I grant that AS is a bit unworkable in certain situations, but America is an open and free enough society that, rather than seeking revolutionary progress, anybody should be able to communicate and further their ideas and goals through AS (if they're good ideas). I'd like to pursue this topic further, to see what's been done, and to explore what might be the natural limitations of this form of activism.
New From Apple and Other Musings
Today saw the release of an updated line of iMacs from Apple. This update expands the iMac line in both directions, going both toward the low end as well as the high end.
In releasing the new 24" iMac Apple has filled the space between the iMac line and the Mac Pro line. What puzzles me, however, is what the expansion toward the low end (in the form of the $1000 17" iMac) does for Apple, as the new iMac encroaches on the Mac mini line. Specifically, only $200 separate the high-end mini from the low-end iMac, and while it's true that the iMac actually has weaker stats in some areas than the mini (specifically in the optical drive), you get a nice wide-screen 17" display, faster and larger HDD, keyboard and mouse, iSight camera and significantly more powerful Inter Core 2 Duo (as opposed to Core Duo in the mini) processor in the iMac.
So what this is resulting in, for me, is a little confusion about what Apple is intending to do with their mini. It seems that the current price of the computer makes it unattractive in relation to the iMac. If Apple doesn't come out with a significant price reduction or feature increase for the mini, Apple will have itself to blame for turning the mini into a dog.
This confusion about product specs and led me to reflect back on my thoughts on creating a new hardware paradigm/platform (ref. Utopian View (of Hardware)). I'd like to think that, under a sufficiently elevated model, products could be intelligently designed and promoted in such a way as to make understanding them simple and free of drama. Maybe that's naive.
In releasing the new 24" iMac Apple has filled the space between the iMac line and the Mac Pro line. What puzzles me, however, is what the expansion toward the low end (in the form of the $1000 17" iMac) does for Apple, as the new iMac encroaches on the Mac mini line. Specifically, only $200 separate the high-end mini from the low-end iMac, and while it's true that the iMac actually has weaker stats in some areas than the mini (specifically in the optical drive), you get a nice wide-screen 17" display, faster and larger HDD, keyboard and mouse, iSight camera and significantly more powerful Inter Core 2 Duo (as opposed to Core Duo in the mini) processor in the iMac.
So what this is resulting in, for me, is a little confusion about what Apple is intending to do with their mini. It seems that the current price of the computer makes it unattractive in relation to the iMac. If Apple doesn't come out with a significant price reduction or feature increase for the mini, Apple will have itself to blame for turning the mini into a dog.
This confusion about product specs and led me to reflect back on my thoughts on creating a new hardware paradigm/platform (ref. Utopian View (of Hardware)). I'd like to think that, under a sufficiently elevated model, products could be intelligently designed and promoted in such a way as to make understanding them simple and free of drama. Maybe that's naive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)