Whatever's Interesting has a new home!
Find us at http://whateversinteresting.com/
We've enjoyed Blogger (easy and cheap - free!) but we've decided to take a little more control over our experiment here. Come join us at our new home.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Friday, October 13, 2006
Google and Corporate Protectionism
I've been struggling to make sense of the Google/YouTube merger that was announced earlier this week, mentioned here in this blog. I'm not seeing the point of it, and my concerns seem to be somewhat vindicated given how quickly legal action has been threatened against the newly acquired provider of loads of copyrighted and illegally shared media.
Then it occurred to me that perhaps this story isn't about any of the potential technology or synergy or cultural issues that people are talking about. This story is about a shift in Google's corporate culture.
Google has done quite a bit of innovative and interesting work. Their search is their bread and butter but they deserve to be respected for so much more. Gmail, Google Maps, Earth and News either redefined the playing field that they entered or opened up whole new arenas of competition.
And then there was Google Video. There's nothing to love about Google Video. It works, but since it was late to the game and brought nothing really new or exciting to suggest it, nobody really got enthused about it. Google themselves never really seemed all that excited about Video - though Google is known for their spartan design aesthetic, they did an even worse job than usual slapping together the Video interface. And their commercial section has been a laughable competitor in the face of iTunes dominance.
Now, I understand that you don't always hit the ball out of the park every time you come to the plate. But Google just gave up, didn't even try to compete - this is why they bought YouTube. Google wants to be #1 in every area they engage, and they weren't getting there with their homegrown Video. Rather than persist, build a better product, make innovations and compelling improvements, they went with the established player.
And payed $1.65 billion for it.
This is standard corporate behavior. Let somebody else take the risk and snap up whatever rises to the top. Google, in their ever so brief time on top, has already undergone the transformation from tech innovator to corporate leviathan.
That didn't take long.
Then it occurred to me that perhaps this story isn't about any of the potential technology or synergy or cultural issues that people are talking about. This story is about a shift in Google's corporate culture.
Google has done quite a bit of innovative and interesting work. Their search is their bread and butter but they deserve to be respected for so much more. Gmail, Google Maps, Earth and News either redefined the playing field that they entered or opened up whole new arenas of competition.
And then there was Google Video. There's nothing to love about Google Video. It works, but since it was late to the game and brought nothing really new or exciting to suggest it, nobody really got enthused about it. Google themselves never really seemed all that excited about Video - though Google is known for their spartan design aesthetic, they did an even worse job than usual slapping together the Video interface. And their commercial section has been a laughable competitor in the face of iTunes dominance.
Now, I understand that you don't always hit the ball out of the park every time you come to the plate. But Google just gave up, didn't even try to compete - this is why they bought YouTube. Google wants to be #1 in every area they engage, and they weren't getting there with their homegrown Video. Rather than persist, build a better product, make innovations and compelling improvements, they went with the established player.
And payed $1.65 billion for it.
This is standard corporate behavior. Let somebody else take the risk and snap up whatever rises to the top. Google, in their ever so brief time on top, has already undergone the transformation from tech innovator to corporate leviathan.
That didn't take long.
Migrating from Blogger Beta to Wordpress
We will shortly be upgrading our blogging to be a little more legit. So we will be migrating from Blogger (which has been great, but is a little limiting) to an installation of Wordpress on our own domain.
/* begin shameless plug */
After all, with unlimited domains and ridiculous bandwidth with Dreamhost, why shouldn't we, right?
/* end shameless plug */
Anyway, loe and behold I found that the handy import feature that can migrate your Blogger blog to Wordpress doesn't work on Blogger Beta. We're on Blogger Beta. Lame.
Wordpress does have the ability to populate a blog from an RSS 2.0 feed though. So I checked out the Blogger Beta default and it's Atom. Lame. Then I found a post that gave an idea of how to change the feed type to RSS. This is how:
yourblog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/full?alt=rss
Try it for yourself. The link above just points to this blog. There's one problem with this though, and that's the fact that the standard Blogger feed length is 25. Looking through the settings in the control panel didn't reveal a way to change the default. But it turns out that's not necessary - you can specify from the URL similar to above:
yourblog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/full?alt=rss&max-results=1000
If you've got more than 1000 posts just grow the number to whatever the size of your blog is. This worked for me, but didn't bring any comments along. Luckily that's not a big deal for us. I'm sure there's a way to fix this problem for those who care, but I've not found it yet. I'll update if I do.
/* begin shameless plug */
After all, with unlimited domains and ridiculous bandwidth with Dreamhost, why shouldn't we, right?
/* end shameless plug */
Anyway, loe and behold I found that the handy import feature that can migrate your Blogger blog to Wordpress doesn't work on Blogger Beta. We're on Blogger Beta. Lame.
Wordpress does have the ability to populate a blog from an RSS 2.0 feed though. So I checked out the Blogger Beta default and it's Atom. Lame. Then I found a post that gave an idea of how to change the feed type to RSS. This is how:
yourblog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/full?alt=rss
Try it for yourself. The link above just points to this blog. There's one problem with this though, and that's the fact that the standard Blogger feed length is 25. Looking through the settings in the control panel didn't reveal a way to change the default. But it turns out that's not necessary - you can specify from the URL similar to above:
yourblog.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/full?alt=rss&max-results=1000
If you've got more than 1000 posts just grow the number to whatever the size of your blog is. This worked for me, but didn't bring any comments along. Luckily that's not a big deal for us. I'm sure there's a way to fix this problem for those who care, but I've not found it yet. I'll update if I do.
My Latest Batch of Beer
My latest batch of beer is now carbonated. I really enjoy brewing so I thought I'd take and share some pictures of my achievement.
The first picture is of the beer right after the pour. I sent the beer right down the middle of the glass in order to get the fullest head possible. The glass is a 20oz glass, and you can see that the beer and head from the 12oz bottle nearly fill it up. Click the pictures for the full sized version.
The next picture shows the beer after it had set for a few minutes. The beer had spent the night in the refrigerator and while I had found the beer to have clarified well while aging in the basement, the beer turned cloudy when it reached the refrigerator. This is a common problem with home-brewed beers called chill haze. The simple explanation of the problem is that proteins in the beer that are clear at room temperature become cloudy at cold temperatures. Here is a more in depth explanation.
I fermented the beer for 6 days before bottling. I didn't do any secondary fermentation for clarification. The bottles have been aging for one week so the beer is very immature. Tasting the beer confirms this. My beer is not a true pilsner, but has the characteristics of one - in other words it has a very pronounced Saaz hops aroma and strong hoppy flavor. While I love hops in general, the raw-ness of the hops in this very young brew was a little too much for me to suggest to just any random beer drinker. The hops will become more moderate as the beer ages. I'm looking forward to enjoying this beer as it gets better and better.
The first picture is of the beer right after the pour. I sent the beer right down the middle of the glass in order to get the fullest head possible. The glass is a 20oz glass, and you can see that the beer and head from the 12oz bottle nearly fill it up. Click the pictures for the full sized version.
The next picture shows the beer after it had set for a few minutes. The beer had spent the night in the refrigerator and while I had found the beer to have clarified well while aging in the basement, the beer turned cloudy when it reached the refrigerator. This is a common problem with home-brewed beers called chill haze. The simple explanation of the problem is that proteins in the beer that are clear at room temperature become cloudy at cold temperatures. Here is a more in depth explanation.
I fermented the beer for 6 days before bottling. I didn't do any secondary fermentation for clarification. The bottles have been aging for one week so the beer is very immature. Tasting the beer confirms this. My beer is not a true pilsner, but has the characteristics of one - in other words it has a very pronounced Saaz hops aroma and strong hoppy flavor. While I love hops in general, the raw-ness of the hops in this very young brew was a little too much for me to suggest to just any random beer drinker. The hops will become more moderate as the beer ages. I'm looking forward to enjoying this beer as it gets better and better.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Interesting Inhterestings - 10-12-06 PM
Google Using Certified Teachers to Reach K-12 Students
School Official Sues Over MySpace Page
North Korea might now have The Bomb, but it doesn't have much electricity
Japan Takes Lead in Sanctioning N. Korea
Russia, China Oppose N. Korea Sanctions
Taking Heat for North Korea Errors, GOP Says: Probe Clinton Official!
Play Go!
This is a game I've always wanted to learn & well here's a link!
How to Fall in Love with Your iSight, Again
Apple’s new iTV universal remote control patent is revealed
School Official Sues Over MySpace Page
North Korea might now have The Bomb, but it doesn't have much electricity
Japan Takes Lead in Sanctioning N. Korea
Russia, China Oppose N. Korea Sanctions
Taking Heat for North Korea Errors, GOP Says: Probe Clinton Official!
Play Go!
This is a game I've always wanted to learn & well here's a link!
How to Fall in Love with Your iSight, Again
Apple’s new iTV universal remote control patent is revealed
Speak It, Brit Hume!
Terrorists, despots and other variously-branded thugs would like us to think that they are induced to do the evil that they do. For example, the Palestinians have no choice but to blow themselves up - after all, Israel is withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank. Wait...
Kim Jung Il, similarly, wants the world to believe that he had no choice but to blow up nuclear bombs - after all, America is trying to invade North Korea so they've got to put in place the means to defend themselves.
Brit Hume put it bluntly:
More people should be calling it like this - Juan Williams didn't do himself or his side any favors by springing to the defense of the terrorists this time.
So here's the question - even given oppression and hardship, how do the Palestinians justify their acts of violence and murder? The answer is simple, but not something that Westerners seem to want to get their brains to comprehend - Muslims don't think there is anything wrong with killing Jews, Americans or anybody else. Getting infidels to convert is fine, but killing them works too. The Koran backs this up:
When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
-- Qu'ran, Sura xlvii.4
Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
-- Qu'ran, Sura ix, 5-6
Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
-- Qu'ran, Sura viii, 39-42
There is more like this but there is no need to belabor the point. Nothing prohibits Muslims from killing anybody who is not Muslim - in fact, Muslims are commanded to kill anybody who refuses to convert. Anybody who says differently is hiding the truth.
Kim Jung Il, similarly, wants the world to believe that he had no choice but to blow up nuclear bombs - after all, America is trying to invade North Korea so they've got to put in place the means to defend themselves.
Brit Hume put it bluntly:
More people should be calling it like this - Juan Williams didn't do himself or his side any favors by springing to the defense of the terrorists this time.
So here's the question - even given oppression and hardship, how do the Palestinians justify their acts of violence and murder? The answer is simple, but not something that Westerners seem to want to get their brains to comprehend - Muslims don't think there is anything wrong with killing Jews, Americans or anybody else. Getting infidels to convert is fine, but killing them works too. The Koran backs this up:
When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
-- Qu'ran, Sura xlvii.4
Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
-- Qu'ran, Sura ix, 5-6
Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
-- Qu'ran, Sura viii, 39-42
There is more like this but there is no need to belabor the point. Nothing prohibits Muslims from killing anybody who is not Muslim - in fact, Muslims are commanded to kill anybody who refuses to convert. Anybody who says differently is hiding the truth.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Apple Antagonizes Muslims
Muslims are reported to be unhappy about the 5th Avenue Apple Store. Take a look for yourself and see if you can figure out why:
Apparently, the Apple Store's big offenses are 1) being a cube (as is the Ka'ba, the holiest shrine in Islam) and 2) being open 24 hours, also like the Ka'ba. Oh, and 3) alcoholic beverages are served at the Genius Bar.
It's clear to me, if to nobody else, that Steve Jobs obviously has it in for Muslims. What possible reason could he have for green-lighting a cubical building, other than to stick it in the nose of peace-loving Muslims? The problem with tolerance, as I'm sure many Muslims are realizing right now, is that people will abuse that tolerance. It's only because Steve Jobs was given too much play on his leash that this sort of nonsense is taking place.
Oh, and apparently Apple fans are calling this store the "Apple Mecca." Despicable! I'm sure Israel is behind that one, at the urging of George Bush and Co.
Isn't there an aphorism that says those looking for conspiracies at every turn will find them?
Apparently, the Apple Store's big offenses are 1) being a cube (as is the Ka'ba, the holiest shrine in Islam) and 2) being open 24 hours, also like the Ka'ba. Oh, and 3) alcoholic beverages are served at the Genius Bar.
It's clear to me, if to nobody else, that Steve Jobs obviously has it in for Muslims. What possible reason could he have for green-lighting a cubical building, other than to stick it in the nose of peace-loving Muslims? The problem with tolerance, as I'm sure many Muslims are realizing right now, is that people will abuse that tolerance. It's only because Steve Jobs was given too much play on his leash that this sort of nonsense is taking place.
Oh, and apparently Apple fans are calling this store the "Apple Mecca." Despicable! I'm sure Israel is behind that one, at the urging of George Bush and Co.
Isn't there an aphorism that says those looking for conspiracies at every turn will find them?
Interesting Interestings - 10-11-06 AM
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Interesting Developments
In an earlier post I revealed that my blogging activities had a sinister purpose.
Unlike many bloggers, I don't feel the need to bare dark personal secrets in this space. Anyway, I don't have too many juicy bits of gossip that anybody (other than my mother) would care to listen to. Rather, I simply want to talk about whatever interests me (gasp!). Well that, and to learn through practical experience what moves web traffic and how crowds respond.
So I wrote some content that wouldn't make Robert X. Cringely fear for his job but similarly wasn't shabby for a 30 minute morning hobby. At times I'd submit my work to news sites like digg and newsvine and reddit. Not much (nothing, actually) made it to the top of any of those lists. And in the three months I've been doing this I haven't developed a following of rabidly supportive followers, ready to raise the banner in whatever direction I tell them for my cause de jeur.
I wouldn't consider this a failure of the experiment, merely an indication that I haven't figured out the formula to this whole thing - and since this has been a very casual experiment, who knows if I will ever get the formula thing down. I understand there is time (and effort!) involved in being popular.
All that to say this - I did a Google search today on "whatever's interesting". This site is number one. What!? I don't know how many people search on that exact phrase - it seems rather unlikely that a huge amount of people would - but that's just cool. Check it out.
What's weird to me is that N and I now have something like 40 posts going. A search for this site (the syntax for this is "site:whateversinteresting.blogspot") on Google only shows seven entries. And it's not just the first seven that they grabbed, but rather a random smattering.
Unsure exactly what that means.
Anyway, my social experimentation has entered a new season of its life. I'm happy that at least I'm in Google now. If somebody's looking for a story about surly chain-smoking police monkeys, we're going to be getting hits galore.
Unlike many bloggers, I don't feel the need to bare dark personal secrets in this space. Anyway, I don't have too many juicy bits of gossip that anybody (other than my mother) would care to listen to. Rather, I simply want to talk about whatever interests me (gasp!). Well that, and to learn through practical experience what moves web traffic and how crowds respond.
So I wrote some content that wouldn't make Robert X. Cringely fear for his job but similarly wasn't shabby for a 30 minute morning hobby. At times I'd submit my work to news sites like digg and newsvine and reddit. Not much (nothing, actually) made it to the top of any of those lists. And in the three months I've been doing this I haven't developed a following of rabidly supportive followers, ready to raise the banner in whatever direction I tell them for my cause de jeur.
I wouldn't consider this a failure of the experiment, merely an indication that I haven't figured out the formula to this whole thing - and since this has been a very casual experiment, who knows if I will ever get the formula thing down. I understand there is time (and effort!) involved in being popular.
All that to say this - I did a Google search today on "whatever's interesting". This site is number one. What!? I don't know how many people search on that exact phrase - it seems rather unlikely that a huge amount of people would - but that's just cool. Check it out.
What's weird to me is that N and I now have something like 40 posts going. A search for this site (the syntax for this is "site:whateversinteresting.blogspot") on Google only shows seven entries. And it's not just the first seven that they grabbed, but rather a random smattering.
Unsure exactly what that means.
Anyway, my social experimentation has entered a new season of its life. I'm happy that at least I'm in Google now. If somebody's looking for a story about surly chain-smoking police monkeys, we're going to be getting hits galore.
Interesting Interestings - 10-10-06 PM
McCain Criticizes Clinton on N. Korea
Quake Raises Fears of 2nd N. Korea Test
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Pan's Labyrith Official Website.
I can't wait to see this movie. It's going to be good.
Teacher, school district at odds over performance
Dallas Museum of Art
Here's the school.
Mexico May Take Fence Dispute to U.N.
Nazty
Google - Not So Smart After All?
Edit: Here, as well, I'm duping what N already posted. I warned that I got all my material from N, but this is just silly.
Google buying YouTube makes no sense. Then again, they're the gazillionnaires and I'm not - it's quite possible that I'm missing something critical here. Still, I doubt it.
For those of you that missed it, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. That's a lot of money, but since YouTube has managed to remain on top of the video sharing pile even with some serious competition, the YouTube brand/feature set/whatever has become very valuable.
Exactly why YouTube is valuable, though, is a mystery to me. The RIAA, MPAA et al must be licking their chops right now, thinking of the huge amount of money they can sue Google for. YouTube didn't used to be an attractive target for litigation because, frankly, there was little confidence that legal action would result in a payout.
Then there's the fact that YouTube is a big time money pit. It is speculated that YouTube's monthly loses on bandwidth alone now exceed several million dollars. YouTube employs 67 employees in a company that doesn't have a clear business model. Advertisers are wary of signing with YouTube because they don't want their brand to be associated with the vast amount of the (tasteless) content that exists on YouTube.
So YouTube is a liability legally and financially. What's more, because of the reason stated above as well as by the nature of the content YouTube serves, there's no clear way that YouTube's acquisition will actually help Google in the only way that really matters - selling ads. Adwords is the big money-maker for Google - "Ads Everywhere" is just as appropriate a motto for the company as "Don't be Evil." How is acquiring YouTube going to help Google serve better, more targeted search results and ads to its users?
Could it possibly be that Google is simply buying YouTube in order to take a competitor to its own video service off the acquisition market, increasing the cost for any other potential buyers (Disney, News Corp., Yahoo) to develop rival services? If so, is video content on the Internet, in the manner delivered by YouTube, that intrinsically valuable?
Google buying YouTube makes no sense. Then again, they're the gazillionnaires and I'm not - it's quite possible that I'm missing something critical here. Still, I doubt it.
For those of you that missed it, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. That's a lot of money, but since YouTube has managed to remain on top of the video sharing pile even with some serious competition, the YouTube brand/feature set/whatever has become very valuable.
Exactly why YouTube is valuable, though, is a mystery to me. The RIAA, MPAA et al must be licking their chops right now, thinking of the huge amount of money they can sue Google for. YouTube didn't used to be an attractive target for litigation because, frankly, there was little confidence that legal action would result in a payout.
Then there's the fact that YouTube is a big time money pit. It is speculated that YouTube's monthly loses on bandwidth alone now exceed several million dollars. YouTube employs 67 employees in a company that doesn't have a clear business model. Advertisers are wary of signing with YouTube because they don't want their brand to be associated with the vast amount of the (tasteless) content that exists on YouTube.
So YouTube is a liability legally and financially. What's more, because of the reason stated above as well as by the nature of the content YouTube serves, there's no clear way that YouTube's acquisition will actually help Google in the only way that really matters - selling ads. Adwords is the big money-maker for Google - "Ads Everywhere" is just as appropriate a motto for the company as "Don't be Evil." How is acquiring YouTube going to help Google serve better, more targeted search results and ads to its users?
Could it possibly be that Google is simply buying YouTube in order to take a competitor to its own video service off the acquisition market, increasing the cost for any other potential buyers (Disney, News Corp., Yahoo) to develop rival services? If so, is video content on the Internet, in the manner delivered by YouTube, that intrinsically valuable?
Naughty Korea
Edit: Oops. I didn't read N's post below before posting this. That'll teach me.
The New York Times has an interesting article detailing the recent nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea. Interesting to note that the weapon they tested was disappointing, yielding a destructive force of only a few kilotons. Only.
In the timeline provided in the article, North Korea is shown to have been breaking its agreements and promises since 1993. There are some who would expect North Korea, now that it has officially achieved its nuclear ambition, to become a reasonable regime. Can we really take that chance with such an assumption?
The mechanisms that created balance during the cold war - mutually assured destruction, the SALT treaties, reciprocal inspections - won't work with North Korea. Agreements imply that there are responsible people on both sides ready and willing to adhere to the agreements. North Korea won't adhere to anything - it's shown this time and time again.
The New York Times has an interesting article detailing the recent nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea. Interesting to note that the weapon they tested was disappointing, yielding a destructive force of only a few kilotons. Only.
In the timeline provided in the article, North Korea is shown to have been breaking its agreements and promises since 1993. There are some who would expect North Korea, now that it has officially achieved its nuclear ambition, to become a reasonable regime. Can we really take that chance with such an assumption?
The mechanisms that created balance during the cold war - mutually assured destruction, the SALT treaties, reciprocal inspections - won't work with North Korea. Agreements imply that there are responsible people on both sides ready and willing to adhere to the agreements. North Korea won't adhere to anything - it's shown this time and time again.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Interesting Interestings - 10-10-06
Raw Carats Anyone?
Mexico May Take Fence Dispute to U.N.
Google Snaps Up YouTube for $1.65B
The Face of Beauty
The Masked Blogger (an Apple employees blog)
Rushdie: Veils Take Power From Women
Wii Remote: An in-depth analysis
Time capsule to be beamed from Mexican pyramid
Google Software Downloads for the Mac
Blast May Be Only a Partial Success, Experts Say (North Korea)
Battlestar Galactica is the Best Ever
I love scifi. When Joss Whedon did Firefly I nearly swooned. I'm now rewatching Star Trek: Deep Space 9 with the wife (thanks to Netflix) from front to back and I'm loving it. Best Star Trek ever.
But this post isn't about those other shows. They're fine in their own way, but the real king of scifi is Battlestar Galactica. I was watching some Battlestar featurettes on the SciFi website last night and this video (7m26s) stuck out as a perfect example of why I love Battlestar so much.
The basic point of the featurette is that there is a reason for everything that is done on the show and in the sets. Everything has been designed with and for a purpose from the very beginning, not as an after thought.
What this results in is a richness in the Battlestar "world" that adds to the drama, adds to the characters, makes things richer. It doesn't superscede or become a plot in itself (usually), but rather places the characters and their actions in a context that just works.
A good example of how all this works out is to contrast how Star Trek: The Next Generation dealt with the issue of the Holodeck versus how Battlestar dealt with the problems raised by the Cylons. There are innumerable episodes of Star Trek where the Holodeck runs ammock, threatening the ship and the crew.
Reasonable people, after this happens a dozen times, would turn the Holodeck off. The writers and producers of Star Trek wouldn't dream of that - after all, where would they get half of their plot devices from?
In the Battlestar universe the Cylons attach directly, with bullets and missiles, but they also use electronic warfare, trying to infect the computer systems of ships and fighters with paralyzing viruses. The Battlestar response to that is to regress technologically, take computers off the network, rely more on humans than on heavy automation. This makes sense - it's the logical and reasonable reaction to the circumstances raised by the Cylon threat.
So Battlestar has old looking telephones, but it's a practical consideration that led to this design choice, not merely an aesthetic choice. The fighters are oldschool, but that's for a reason. It works, and the level to which the writers and producers thought everything out provides a really rich framework in which to work.
I love it.
But this post isn't about those other shows. They're fine in their own way, but the real king of scifi is Battlestar Galactica. I was watching some Battlestar featurettes on the SciFi website last night and this video (7m26s) stuck out as a perfect example of why I love Battlestar so much.
The basic point of the featurette is that there is a reason for everything that is done on the show and in the sets. Everything has been designed with and for a purpose from the very beginning, not as an after thought.
What this results in is a richness in the Battlestar "world" that adds to the drama, adds to the characters, makes things richer. It doesn't superscede or become a plot in itself (usually), but rather places the characters and their actions in a context that just works.
A good example of how all this works out is to contrast how Star Trek: The Next Generation dealt with the issue of the Holodeck versus how Battlestar dealt with the problems raised by the Cylons. There are innumerable episodes of Star Trek where the Holodeck runs ammock, threatening the ship and the crew.
Reasonable people, after this happens a dozen times, would turn the Holodeck off. The writers and producers of Star Trek wouldn't dream of that - after all, where would they get half of their plot devices from?
In the Battlestar universe the Cylons attach directly, with bullets and missiles, but they also use electronic warfare, trying to infect the computer systems of ships and fighters with paralyzing viruses. The Battlestar response to that is to regress technologically, take computers off the network, rely more on humans than on heavy automation. This makes sense - it's the logical and reasonable reaction to the circumstances raised by the Cylon threat.
So Battlestar has old looking telephones, but it's a practical consideration that led to this design choice, not merely an aesthetic choice. The fighters are oldschool, but that's for a reason. It works, and the level to which the writers and producers thought everything out provides a really rich framework in which to work.
I love it.
Interesting Interestings - 10-09-06
For those of you with unusual shotgun rules:
SHOTGUN RULES
Of course I don't play by these rules. Oldest rules the roost.
North Korea says conducted nuclear test
Is it real? Did/Do talking & sanctions work? Who's Next? Iran? Japan?
What? Me worry?
Why open source is under-utilised in graphics
Michael Robertson calls out Zune as biggest flop of 2007
Animatronic fashion is here
Will the iPod ever die?
True Video iPod at MWSF?
SHOTGUN RULES
Of course I don't play by these rules. Oldest rules the roost.
North Korea says conducted nuclear test
Is it real? Did/Do talking & sanctions work? Who's Next? Iran? Japan?
What? Me worry?
Why open source is under-utilised in graphics
Michael Robertson calls out Zune as biggest flop of 2007
Animatronic fashion is here
Will the iPod ever die?
True Video iPod at MWSF?
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Interesting Interestings - 10-08-06
N Korea's bomb 'would kill 200,000'
What to do with a madman. UN doesn't seem to be able to negotiate.
Illegal Immigrants Sue Wendy's
I hate Adobe Acrobat (even more now!)
Exec: Oil is cheaper than Coca-Cola
Guess I better learn to like the taste of petrol in the evening.
Using Fewer Images
Halloween is coming:
What to do with a madman. UN doesn't seem to be able to negotiate.
Illegal Immigrants Sue Wendy's
I hate Adobe Acrobat (even more now!)
Exec: Oil is cheaper than Coca-Cola
Guess I better learn to like the taste of petrol in the evening.
Using Fewer Images
Halloween is coming:
Saturday, October 07, 2006
It's Audcast, Silly
I've been following Leo Laporte ever since he started audcasting. He's shown a pretty good nose for serving the new medium of Internet distributed media, and while he may not have been first out of the gate, he's certainly been one of the best. As a practiced hand in television and radio, Leo has brought a degree of professionalism to 'casting that was dearly lacking in the 'casting community at large.
So given his position I've been struck by certain things he's done. He lacks a certain amount of perspective of his own value and importance and when dealing with topics of interest to himself. An example of this is an infamous episode of TWiT wherein Leo fawned over Steve Wozniak for an hour - quite possibly the worst hour of media ever produced (Yellow Lasers - kudos to Leo for being sensitive to but not undermined by criticism). I nearly unsubscribed from TWiT after that but I'm glad I didn't.
Speaking of rushed judgements and ill-considered decisions, Leo also seems to make decisions far too spur of the moment. There's one particular instant that sticks out in my mind when he was congratulating Kevin Rose on being featured on the cover of Business Week. John C. Dvorak thought the BW article wasn't actually very flattering and Leo turned his opinion on a dime and was passionately angry.
(I think it's possible that Leo's willingness to consider others viewpoints before his own might be part of his appeal - he's very approachable, so what I've described above might be unavoidable.)
Leo's latest cause, dropping the word podcast in favor of netcast, is a good one but also ill considered. Audcast and vidcast are the way to go instead of netcast. Here's a few reasons:
I like Leo a lot and think he's doing a tremendous job. I do think, however, that he chose the wrong term to coin and has chosen a poor way to champion the cause. Instead of being shrill about Apple's legal tactics, I'd like to see alternatives with real benefits presented. And the only real alternatives, as I see it, are audcast and vidcast.
So given his position I've been struck by certain things he's done. He lacks a certain amount of perspective of his own value and importance and when dealing with topics of interest to himself. An example of this is an infamous episode of TWiT wherein Leo fawned over Steve Wozniak for an hour - quite possibly the worst hour of media ever produced (Yellow Lasers - kudos to Leo for being sensitive to but not undermined by criticism). I nearly unsubscribed from TWiT after that but I'm glad I didn't.
Speaking of rushed judgements and ill-considered decisions, Leo also seems to make decisions far too spur of the moment. There's one particular instant that sticks out in my mind when he was congratulating Kevin Rose on being featured on the cover of Business Week. John C. Dvorak thought the BW article wasn't actually very flattering and Leo turned his opinion on a dime and was passionately angry.
(I think it's possible that Leo's willingness to consider others viewpoints before his own might be part of his appeal - he's very approachable, so what I've described above might be unavoidable.)
Leo's latest cause, dropping the word podcast in favor of netcast, is a good one but also ill considered. Audcast and vidcast are the way to go instead of netcast. Here's a few reasons:
- Audcast sounds like broadcast (and like podcast) - not so much with netcast
- Audcast and vidcast aren't ambiguous like pod and netcast are - you know what kind of media you're getting. This avoids the problem of "get the audio podcast, not the video podcast," in the cases where there are alternatives
- Audcast and vidcast are great for noobs - it's obvious you're getting media, not so much with podcast and netcast (am I getting pod? Or am I getting net?)
- No threatening letters in the mail from Apple with audcast or vidcast
- No unwanted associations with the iPod with audcast or vidcast
- Audcast and vidcast can both contract to 'cast when you want to talk about all forms of 'casting. The terms 'caster, 'casted and 'casts also work when dealing with 'casts in general
I like Leo a lot and think he's doing a tremendous job. I do think, however, that he chose the wrong term to coin and has chosen a poor way to champion the cause. Instead of being shrill about Apple's legal tactics, I'd like to see alternatives with real benefits presented. And the only real alternatives, as I see it, are audcast and vidcast.
Super Ultra Best Ever Idea
Two words - fleece kilt.
My wife got some fleece fabric today and made blankets for the boys. That got me thinking on what other applications fleece might have. Old Navy has done some fine work in the field of fleece, but I feel a bit as if they've stagnated of late. Simultaneously, my mind wandered to kilts.
Then it occured to me - just imagine the comfort and freedom that could come from a marriage of fleece with kilt! I'm going to be rich and famous. You heard it here first.
My wife got some fleece fabric today and made blankets for the boys. That got me thinking on what other applications fleece might have. Old Navy has done some fine work in the field of fleece, but I feel a bit as if they've stagnated of late. Simultaneously, my mind wandered to kilts.
Then it occured to me - just imagine the comfort and freedom that could come from a marriage of fleece with kilt! I'm going to be rich and famous. You heard it here first.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Art Caving to Potential Muslim Reaction
UK gallery scraps art, fearing Muslim rage: curator:I first read about Mozart's "Idomeneo" Opera being cancelled in Germany last week. I found this appalling on many levels. The same is true for this recent pull back from the Art Community for "Hans Bellmer". I believe that the Art Community should not stand for this and more importantly individuals should not be so eager to sidestep anything that may offend the Muslim Community; especially the Muslim Community. This behavior only encourages the extreme movement. If people spent as much energy creating debate, talking about the problems of this movement and how to solve; we would be better off.
Though his works are not my taste, I find it baffling that this has been done. Especially coming from the Art Community. A community that prides itself on its unyielding positions.
Welcome Another Interested Blogger
I'm no longer posting alone. NBEHTM has joined me. Actually, this is a bit of a problem because many of my posts come from links sent to me by N or conversations we have together, so my production might slacken as N takes actual credit for his contributions.
Even still, it will be great to have another person to work with here. I'm looking forward to adding some more depth and variety to this site - not that a month spent in wandering contemplation of IPTV isn't awesome - just that N should add a little more flavor. Hurray for flavor!
Even still, it will be great to have another person to work with here. I'm looking forward to adding some more depth and variety to this site - not that a month spent in wandering contemplation of IPTV isn't awesome - just that N should add a little more flavor. Hurray for flavor!
Nintendo Wins
I've been dealing with IPTV and stuff for a while - time to take on something else.
So here we go. Nintendo is awesome.
Specifically, if the assertions about Wii production are true, Nintendo has just given a huge black eye to both Microsoft and Sony.
Here's why. Microsoft and Sony have found it difficult to encourage people to upgrade their machines for any other reason than increasing frame-rates and pixel count. While Microsoft was the first to introduce really robust online integration with their first console, the Xbox, the Xbox 360 basically only increases the pixel count. A similar story with Sony. Despite a whole new processor architecture and inclusion of a Blue Ray player, the Playstation 3 is basically about making more pixels hit the screen. Hurray.
Nintendo has willfully taken another approach. They've rejected the idea of technology for technology's sake and instead are pursuing technologies that are accessible for low cost while simultaneously making big strides towards making things more fun. Nintendo is the only one in the video game industry that's really innovating in big ways. Microsoft would counter with talk about how they are integrating Xbox Live with your cell phone, but I don't see that as a huge thing. Rather, getting people who don't consider themselves to be gamers to actually start playing games, as Nintendo is doing, is the achievement. Nintendo is doing this by making games fun again, something that Microsoft and Sony have apparently forgotten about. Now it appears that Nintendo is producing enough Wii consoles to get one in every house in America that wants one, and for significantly cheaper than the competition. Nintendo Wins.
So here we go. Nintendo is awesome.
Specifically, if the assertions about Wii production are true, Nintendo has just given a huge black eye to both Microsoft and Sony.
Here's why. Microsoft and Sony have found it difficult to encourage people to upgrade their machines for any other reason than increasing frame-rates and pixel count. While Microsoft was the first to introduce really robust online integration with their first console, the Xbox, the Xbox 360 basically only increases the pixel count. A similar story with Sony. Despite a whole new processor architecture and inclusion of a Blue Ray player, the Playstation 3 is basically about making more pixels hit the screen. Hurray.
Nintendo has willfully taken another approach. They've rejected the idea of technology for technology's sake and instead are pursuing technologies that are accessible for low cost while simultaneously making big strides towards making things more fun. Nintendo is the only one in the video game industry that's really innovating in big ways. Microsoft would counter with talk about how they are integrating Xbox Live with your cell phone, but I don't see that as a huge thing. Rather, getting people who don't consider themselves to be gamers to actually start playing games, as Nintendo is doing, is the achievement. Nintendo is doing this by making games fun again, something that Microsoft and Sony have apparently forgotten about. Now it appears that Nintendo is producing enough Wii consoles to get one in every house in America that wants one, and for significantly cheaper than the competition. Nintendo Wins.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Basic Brewing Is The Benchmark
I found Basic Brewing's vidcast yesterday and I think these guys set the standard for what I talked about in the previous post. They are distributing very nicely produced audcasts and vidcasts that are informative, entertaining, and interesting (though perhaps only to a narrow portion of the population). They use their 'casts to promote their DVDs and books. This is a perfect resource to be included in a broader network that has 'casts pertaining to all manner of do-it-yourself topics.
I Was Way Off
All those numbers that I quoted in the previous post were wrong, sadly. Dreamhost now gives 2 terabytes for less than $10. My bad.
This actually just goes to prove my point though, that distribution is the least of the concerns when developing media. Two terabytes is enough bandwidth to serve content to an extraordinarily large audience. A 100 megabyte file, for instance, can be delivered 20,000 times. All this for less than $10. Let's just imagine that whatever is being distributed encourages the audience to buy something that results in a $2 profit. If only one out of 4,000 people go for it, you've still managed at least to break even on the distribution cost.
Of course, that doesn't cover the cost of production, but I hope my point is being made. The cost to move bits is getting so low that some interesting trends will shortly be emerging as a direct result. I foresee a massive amount of less polished but still compelling or entertaining media hitting the Internet in a short time. I'm not talking about people filming themselves with their webcams, singing along to Ricky Martin and posting to YouTube - I'm talking about nature documentaries, how-to programs, dramas and more, all being distributed directly by the content creators themselves. I know that people are producing home-grown media to distribute online already, but many are stuck using proxy services like YouTube or Flickr. These services work for and against the content creators - while there's a possible increase in exposure for the content that is created, there's a loss of focus on the original content creator in favor of a focus on the service provider.
This is going to change, and soon. Ready-made publication software for content distributors will make it easier for the content producers to stand up sites that give Flickr- or YouTube-like functionality without relying on those service providers. Further, meta networks will also arise, organizing and further enabling independent publishing and control by the content creators.
The sites Metafilter and Kontraband, two of thousands, already do this to a degree - yet I see things getting much better than what is offered by these sites. They currently serve as aggregators of content already delivered on YouTube, Google Video and others - these meta channel sites will have to work a lot harder in the future and will become focused/specialized into certain content areas. They will serve specific markets for content, thus becoming much like channels on television.
These newly emergent "channels", providing consistent quality material serving interest groups, feeding content through RSS to the Internet community at large, will reshape the media landscape profoundly. I can hardly wait.
This actually just goes to prove my point though, that distribution is the least of the concerns when developing media. Two terabytes is enough bandwidth to serve content to an extraordinarily large audience. A 100 megabyte file, for instance, can be delivered 20,000 times. All this for less than $10. Let's just imagine that whatever is being distributed encourages the audience to buy something that results in a $2 profit. If only one out of 4,000 people go for it, you've still managed at least to break even on the distribution cost.
Of course, that doesn't cover the cost of production, but I hope my point is being made. The cost to move bits is getting so low that some interesting trends will shortly be emerging as a direct result. I foresee a massive amount of less polished but still compelling or entertaining media hitting the Internet in a short time. I'm not talking about people filming themselves with their webcams, singing along to Ricky Martin and posting to YouTube - I'm talking about nature documentaries, how-to programs, dramas and more, all being distributed directly by the content creators themselves. I know that people are producing home-grown media to distribute online already, but many are stuck using proxy services like YouTube or Flickr. These services work for and against the content creators - while there's a possible increase in exposure for the content that is created, there's a loss of focus on the original content creator in favor of a focus on the service provider.
This is going to change, and soon. Ready-made publication software for content distributors will make it easier for the content producers to stand up sites that give Flickr- or YouTube-like functionality without relying on those service providers. Further, meta networks will also arise, organizing and further enabling independent publishing and control by the content creators.
The sites Metafilter and Kontraband, two of thousands, already do this to a degree - yet I see things getting much better than what is offered by these sites. They currently serve as aggregators of content already delivered on YouTube, Google Video and others - these meta channel sites will have to work a lot harder in the future and will become focused/specialized into certain content areas. They will serve specific markets for content, thus becoming much like channels on television.
These newly emergent "channels", providing consistent quality material serving interest groups, feeding content through RSS to the Internet community at large, will reshape the media landscape profoundly. I can hardly wait.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Why IPTV Will Work
IPTV will work because the models embodied in YouTube and iTunes aren't the only models that will work. There is room for another model, which I'll get to in just a second, but first I want to provide some build up.
I did some quick research on Google about bandwidth costs and turned up some good work that somebody else has already done on the topic. I love that.
The above-linked blog goes some distance toward figuring out what the deal is with YouTube's money burn - the assessment concludes that YouTube is spending $1 million a month for around 6 petabytes of data transfer. That's 6 gigabytes for $1.
That's enough to serve quite a lot of videos.
It appears that traditional content provider networks are already trying to spread the fear, uncertainty and doubt about IPTV that always presages the death of a paradigm. Interesting, that.
I was doing a calculation (mind-blowingly complex) of how much it costs me, as a Dreamhost customer, to distribute data. I get a terabyte a month for something less than $10, but let's quote whole numbers to make it easy. That's
You might be yawning right now, but this is really amazing to me.
Side note: one thing that is exposed here is a key component of every hosting companies offerings - that being an assumption that most customers won't come near to utilizing the full amount of bandwidth they are allowed. I don't think that Dreamhost could afford to sell a terabyte for $10 unless they understood that most customers won't use their full allotment. My question, and one that I'm sure won't be answered easily, is how much does Dreamhost oversell itself?
Overselling is commonplace in other Internet-related industries. Internet providers oversell access, assuming that their networks won't need to support the full number of subscribers at any given time. Cable companies in particular appear to be prime offenders at this practice.
So Dreamhost is extremely cheap, presumably because they oversell themselves. So far, I've seen no ill effects from this practice, if indeed this is their practice, so good for them. But what happens if I need all that bandwidth and more? Why wouldn't I just set up a second Dreamhost account for $7.95 and get another terabyte for less than $10? This instead of paying per-gigabyte overage fees of $1?
Back to the main story - why IPTV will work when so many say that the economics are fundamentally broken.
Traditional methods of Internet data delivery involve a server handling the needs of a client all by itself. Once the client gets the data they are free to move on. The idea of server mirrors simply makes several servers available, but does nothing to change this fundamentally inefficient approach. Both YouTube and iTunes use this approach.
Bittorrent has come along and introduced a means by which to harness media seekers as adjunct distributors of media. The rules of bittorrent require somebody who wants to get some media to also share some media. All files that are distributed get broken down into chunks so that during the download of any given file, a downloader will have many opportunities to share with others.
This approach not only works, but it scales AND it costs the distributor relatively little. In fact, the more people who use bittorrent, the better it works.
So, out there on the Internet at this very moment is a protocol that actually gets better the more people use it, at a pitance of what traditional media distribution costs. Sounds great, right?
The thing that bittorrent doesn't provide is individually crafted downloads per user - in other words, everybody gets the same file, and that's bad for the DRM folks. This appears to almost be a non-starter.
Except consider what happens when the model is designed for the broadest possible distribution of media. That's basically the model of traditional TV, so we have a frame of reference. Anyway, sponsorship of media that is distributed to an incredibly broad audience could become an enticing target to advertisers, just in the manner that advertising is attractive on traditional television, despite time-skipping technology (TiVO) etc.
So IPTV will be the same old TV we've always had, just delivered online to our computers using mass distribution protocols like bittorrent. What it will not be is a new way to get your NFL programming, as torrents don't do live programming. IPTV will coexist with traditional broadcast, perhaps some exclusive up-label content on iTunes, Netflix here and there, but it will go a long way toward ruining the hundreds of cable operations that exist today, reducing them to live news, talk and sports channels exclusively.
I did some quick research on Google about bandwidth costs and turned up some good work that somebody else has already done on the topic. I love that.
The above-linked blog goes some distance toward figuring out what the deal is with YouTube's money burn - the assessment concludes that YouTube is spending $1 million a month for around 6 petabytes of data transfer. That's 6 gigabytes for $1.
That's enough to serve quite a lot of videos.
It appears that traditional content provider networks are already trying to spread the fear, uncertainty and doubt about IPTV that always presages the death of a paradigm. Interesting, that.
I was doing a calculation (mind-blowingly complex) of how much it costs me, as a Dreamhost customer, to distribute data. I get a terabyte a month for something less than $10, but let's quote whole numbers to make it easy. That's
- $10 for 1TB
- $1 for 100GB
- $.10 for 10GB
- $.01 for 1GB
- $.001 for 100MB (that's 1/10th of a penny)
- $.0001 for 10MB (that's 1/100th of a penny)
- $.00001 for 1MB (that's 1/1000th of a penny)
You might be yawning right now, but this is really amazing to me.
Side note: one thing that is exposed here is a key component of every hosting companies offerings - that being an assumption that most customers won't come near to utilizing the full amount of bandwidth they are allowed. I don't think that Dreamhost could afford to sell a terabyte for $10 unless they understood that most customers won't use their full allotment. My question, and one that I'm sure won't be answered easily, is how much does Dreamhost oversell itself?
Overselling is commonplace in other Internet-related industries. Internet providers oversell access, assuming that their networks won't need to support the full number of subscribers at any given time. Cable companies in particular appear to be prime offenders at this practice.
So Dreamhost is extremely cheap, presumably because they oversell themselves. So far, I've seen no ill effects from this practice, if indeed this is their practice, so good for them. But what happens if I need all that bandwidth and more? Why wouldn't I just set up a second Dreamhost account for $7.95 and get another terabyte for less than $10? This instead of paying per-gigabyte overage fees of $1?
Back to the main story - why IPTV will work when so many say that the economics are fundamentally broken.
Traditional methods of Internet data delivery involve a server handling the needs of a client all by itself. Once the client gets the data they are free to move on. The idea of server mirrors simply makes several servers available, but does nothing to change this fundamentally inefficient approach. Both YouTube and iTunes use this approach.
Bittorrent has come along and introduced a means by which to harness media seekers as adjunct distributors of media. The rules of bittorrent require somebody who wants to get some media to also share some media. All files that are distributed get broken down into chunks so that during the download of any given file, a downloader will have many opportunities to share with others.
This approach not only works, but it scales AND it costs the distributor relatively little. In fact, the more people who use bittorrent, the better it works.
So, out there on the Internet at this very moment is a protocol that actually gets better the more people use it, at a pitance of what traditional media distribution costs. Sounds great, right?
The thing that bittorrent doesn't provide is individually crafted downloads per user - in other words, everybody gets the same file, and that's bad for the DRM folks. This appears to almost be a non-starter.
Except consider what happens when the model is designed for the broadest possible distribution of media. That's basically the model of traditional TV, so we have a frame of reference. Anyway, sponsorship of media that is distributed to an incredibly broad audience could become an enticing target to advertisers, just in the manner that advertising is attractive on traditional television, despite time-skipping technology (TiVO) etc.
So IPTV will be the same old TV we've always had, just delivered online to our computers using mass distribution protocols like bittorrent. What it will not be is a new way to get your NFL programming, as torrents don't do live programming. IPTV will coexist with traditional broadcast, perhaps some exclusive up-label content on iTunes, Netflix here and there, but it will go a long way toward ruining the hundreds of cable operations that exist today, reducing them to live news, talk and sports channels exclusively.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Update: Netflix, iTunes and Everybody Else For the Win
My last post was a ramble about my recent experience moving from cable to a hybrid of Netflix, iTunes and broadcast television.
The thought is that, in the near future, this new hybrid is going to become increasingly popular as the primary means people use to get media. Traditional television networks, incidentally, are going to be huge beneficiaries of this movement.
Then I reflected on the emergence of new Internet-based media networks, specifically TWiT and Revision3.
Both of these networks were started by former employees of TechTV/G4 and so have media savvy individuals running things. Both networks produce primarily geek-culture oriented media, audiocasts in the case of the TWiT network and videocasts for Revision3.
Now, I grant that the material these networks produce is pretty narrowly focused. And I also grant that the production values can be a bit low on many of the shows. But the production values are sufficient for the medium and the content is generally pretty good for the target audience.
Let's be honest though - production values and content aren't necessarily a formula for success. Ever consider what's involved in making an episode of American Chopper?
Anyway, consider the example of Brawny Academy. Georgia Pacific basically paid to have its own private reality television show, distributed over the Internet, in exchange for some very subtle product placement. How many more companies would be willing to support this sort of production if it means reaching the consumer in an entirely new way? The current advertising market is crowded, saturated. Surely the production of quality programming could become another, more interesting means of trying to get a message across to the now jaded public. We could ourselves looking at a thousand little PBS knockoffs, small scale but conscientiously produced programs that keeps the content first and the sponsor list exclusive.
Except nobody wants to remember hundreds of Internet addresses in order to get the programming that's interesting. So I hereby predict the rise of new Internet content networks along the lines of the traditional broadcast networks, clearinghouses for content that marry sponsors with the content creators. It will be interesting to see if any of the traditional figures are up to the challenge of making the transition or if it will be an entirely different group who makes this move.
The thought is that, in the near future, this new hybrid is going to become increasingly popular as the primary means people use to get media. Traditional television networks, incidentally, are going to be huge beneficiaries of this movement.
Then I reflected on the emergence of new Internet-based media networks, specifically TWiT and Revision3.
Both of these networks were started by former employees of TechTV/G4 and so have media savvy individuals running things. Both networks produce primarily geek-culture oriented media, audiocasts in the case of the TWiT network and videocasts for Revision3.
Now, I grant that the material these networks produce is pretty narrowly focused. And I also grant that the production values can be a bit low on many of the shows. But the production values are sufficient for the medium and the content is generally pretty good for the target audience.
Let's be honest though - production values and content aren't necessarily a formula for success. Ever consider what's involved in making an episode of American Chopper?
Anyway, consider the example of Brawny Academy. Georgia Pacific basically paid to have its own private reality television show, distributed over the Internet, in exchange for some very subtle product placement. How many more companies would be willing to support this sort of production if it means reaching the consumer in an entirely new way? The current advertising market is crowded, saturated. Surely the production of quality programming could become another, more interesting means of trying to get a message across to the now jaded public. We could ourselves looking at a thousand little PBS knockoffs, small scale but conscientiously produced programs that keeps the content first and the sponsor list exclusive.
Except nobody wants to remember hundreds of Internet addresses in order to get the programming that's interesting. So I hereby predict the rise of new Internet content networks along the lines of the traditional broadcast networks, clearinghouses for content that marry sponsors with the content creators. It will be interesting to see if any of the traditional figures are up to the challenge of making the transition or if it will be an entirely different group who makes this move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)