Tuesday, June 26, 2007
iPhone and Convergence
AdAge's Al Ries explains "Why the iPhone Will Fail"
Okay, I'll admit it. I've been an Apple fan for some time, living through at least on of their most heinous failures (coughNewton!cough). I never bought a "Classic" Mac, mainly because they were underpowered for what I needed to do at the time (I'm a Computer Science nerd; compilers ran slow back in those days when you had to run all those fancy graphics). As everyone could find out, Apple really turned a corner with the convergent actions of placing Steve Jobs back at the helm and integrating NextStep, the operating system that Steve Jobs thought Macs should have but had to go off an lose a bunch of his own (and other peoples') money to create, into the new Mac.
But what does any of this stuff have to do with being conscious about media?
Well, a few things. One is that I couldn't talk directly back to the article, even after registering, because I never got my confirmation email. Stuff happens. Email delivery isn't guaranteed. So be it. More importantly, I think Al overlooks a key component of Apple's "special sauce". This component is present in the new Mac, the iPod, and the new iPhone. I don't know about anyone else, but I got chills when I saw the 20-minute walk-through of how to use the iPhone. It was the same sensation that I got when I first booted up my PowerBook 3 years ago (still in service with decent battery life; thank you Apple!). It was the sensation I had when I first opened my iPod and used iTMS to download music to it. It is the sensation of seeing a product that closes the loops that are typically left open by other companies in both the computer and consumer electronics industry.
What does it mean to "close the loops" for the iPhone, and what does that have to do with convergence? It's simple, and Al, I hope you're reading. Some convergent devices have been terrible hybrids resembling genetic mutants. On this, I agree. I really don't need a toilet paper dispenser/clock radio. However, convergent devices do work when they revolve around a central theme. I used to work for a large printer company (you do the math). Well, that company invested heavily in convergent print/scan/fax devices. And it paid off, because people who print stuff naturally want to take printed stuff in, too. These multi-purpose, print-oriented devices are still pretty popular. If you take Al's premise that divergence and not convergence drives new products, then I should expect people to buy a 4x6 photo printer, a scanner, a FAX machine, a laser printer, and a color document printer. But that formula doesn't add up, because you have to spend time and money maintaining all of these things, when you can get good (or even great) performance across all these paper-y functions with a single device for which you can buy a single set of ink cartridges. Me, I don't use a scanner very often, but man, when I need it, I love that it's attached to my printer. I almost never FAX. But when I need to, it's great that I can. And I really didn't pay anything for these features, maybe a small premium. These printer companies provide me a closed loop system for paper handling. And the world is good.
Now, let's talk about another kind of media --- audio. The iPhone converges my need for instant voice communication (phone), delayed voice communication (voice mail), entertainment (iPod), and "yellow pages" (Google Maps). When you watch the video, really think about how Apple has closed all these loops. You can go from a need (Calamari, a famous example) to the yellow pages, directly to calling, all while managing the "ambient" audio experience of the iPod track playing in the background. That's a loop. Now consider when you hook up your iPhone to your car. You can walk through the same steps, but throw in playing your favorite music or audio book. Today, I can use my phone, iPod, and Bluetooth connection in my car, but it's a mess. With the iPhone, when someone calls me, my iPhone will fade out my music and let me take a call! I can't tell you how much this improves my own experience. I hate searching for the pause button and missing the "reveal" in a good mystery or thriller. Or missing my favorite guitar riff because I need to stop for milk. Car manufacturers have figured out this loop, but not one of them has closed it as well as the iPhone does.
I haven't done a full analysis of these loops, but Apple has impressed me, as usual, with its attention to these details. I first learned to look at the world this way when working on a web site for a large consumer pharmaceutical company. An "Information Architect" started drawing these things out on a set of those 2' x 3' Post-It notes. By the time he was done drawing the "List my Work" function, we had about 8 of these huge drawings, all connected. It was beautiful in its completeness and its simplicity. Just like the iPhone, convergence and all.
Okay, I'll admit it. I've been an Apple fan for some time, living through at least on of their most heinous failures (coughNewton!cough). I never bought a "Classic" Mac, mainly because they were underpowered for what I needed to do at the time (I'm a Computer Science nerd; compilers ran slow back in those days when you had to run all those fancy graphics). As everyone could find out, Apple really turned a corner with the convergent actions of placing Steve Jobs back at the helm and integrating NextStep, the operating system that Steve Jobs thought Macs should have but had to go off an lose a bunch of his own (and other peoples') money to create, into the new Mac.
But what does any of this stuff have to do with being conscious about media?
Well, a few things. One is that I couldn't talk directly back to the article, even after registering, because I never got my confirmation email. Stuff happens. Email delivery isn't guaranteed. So be it. More importantly, I think Al overlooks a key component of Apple's "special sauce". This component is present in the new Mac, the iPod, and the new iPhone. I don't know about anyone else, but I got chills when I saw the 20-minute walk-through of how to use the iPhone. It was the same sensation that I got when I first booted up my PowerBook 3 years ago (still in service with decent battery life; thank you Apple!). It was the sensation I had when I first opened my iPod and used iTMS to download music to it. It is the sensation of seeing a product that closes the loops that are typically left open by other companies in both the computer and consumer electronics industry.
What does it mean to "close the loops" for the iPhone, and what does that have to do with convergence? It's simple, and Al, I hope you're reading. Some convergent devices have been terrible hybrids resembling genetic mutants. On this, I agree. I really don't need a toilet paper dispenser/clock radio. However, convergent devices do work when they revolve around a central theme. I used to work for a large printer company (you do the math). Well, that company invested heavily in convergent print/scan/fax devices. And it paid off, because people who print stuff naturally want to take printed stuff in, too. These multi-purpose, print-oriented devices are still pretty popular. If you take Al's premise that divergence and not convergence drives new products, then I should expect people to buy a 4x6 photo printer, a scanner, a FAX machine, a laser printer, and a color document printer. But that formula doesn't add up, because you have to spend time and money maintaining all of these things, when you can get good (or even great) performance across all these paper-y functions with a single device for which you can buy a single set of ink cartridges. Me, I don't use a scanner very often, but man, when I need it, I love that it's attached to my printer. I almost never FAX. But when I need to, it's great that I can. And I really didn't pay anything for these features, maybe a small premium. These printer companies provide me a closed loop system for paper handling. And the world is good.
Now, let's talk about another kind of media --- audio. The iPhone converges my need for instant voice communication (phone), delayed voice communication (voice mail), entertainment (iPod), and "yellow pages" (Google Maps). When you watch the video, really think about how Apple has closed all these loops. You can go from a need (Calamari, a famous example) to the yellow pages, directly to calling, all while managing the "ambient" audio experience of the iPod track playing in the background. That's a loop. Now consider when you hook up your iPhone to your car. You can walk through the same steps, but throw in playing your favorite music or audio book. Today, I can use my phone, iPod, and Bluetooth connection in my car, but it's a mess. With the iPhone, when someone calls me, my iPhone will fade out my music and let me take a call! I can't tell you how much this improves my own experience. I hate searching for the pause button and missing the "reveal" in a good mystery or thriller. Or missing my favorite guitar riff because I need to stop for milk. Car manufacturers have figured out this loop, but not one of them has closed it as well as the iPhone does.
I haven't done a full analysis of these loops, but Apple has impressed me, as usual, with its attention to these details. I first learned to look at the world this way when working on a web site for a large consumer pharmaceutical company. An "Information Architect" started drawing these things out on a set of those 2' x 3' Post-It notes. By the time he was done drawing the "List my Work" function, we had about 8 of these huge drawings, all connected. It was beautiful in its completeness and its simplicity. Just like the iPhone, convergence and all.
Labels: apple, audio, aural, convergence, iphone, iTMS, visual
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Apple DRM Follow-Up
Well, well. It has been an interesting couple of weeks since I last wrote. It seems that EMI and Apple have agreed that maybe DRM-free music is a good idea, after all. Some think that this places labels in direct competition with free (and illegitimate) music downloads. I'm not sure that's completely true. I'm not sure people will want to pay a premium for DRM-free content (especially those who have bought completely into the iTunes digital supply chain, which would include me). However, I think it strikes a compelling note by focusing on high quality, DRM-free, ultra-portable music.
Let's think about the demographic the marketing is focusing on:
1. Ultra-portable. Allowing the tracks to be played on a wide variety of devices is a great move. It really shows some faith in the digital music consumer, which I think the industry needs to start doing. For Apple's part, in addition to "walking the talk" that they made last month (see my previous post), they are showing some interest in making sure the labels' tracks can reach every nook and cranny of the consumer's investment in digital media products. Verizon Wireless, take note. As a devout Mac user, I am incredibly disappointed that I can't play any of my iTMS tracks (or even transfer tracks that my phone _could_ play) to a modern media phone. More on that later, perhaps. All that being said, though, this is just one leg of the proverbial stool. This puts iTMS on par with "free" downloads (plus the per-track charge).
2. Easily found. I heard from a friend-of-a-friend that it can be difficult just to find tracks you're looking for on these free download services. If you do think you found something, you just end up relying on a high number of other "sharers" being online at the same time. Also, user-labeled content is notoriously badly organized. Maybe there is a trick to finding things like replacing 'S' with 'Z' everywhere, but you certainly aren't guaranteed a good experience when using these networks.
3. High-quality. The tracks offered by this iTMS/EMI deal will have twice the sample rate of the standard FairPlay(tm) tracks. Even if you can get the track to your computer in finite time, the quality of these tracks varies widely. And I'm not just talking about the sample rate of the tracks, which can get a bit insane on these networks (so I'm told). There is really something to be said about production quality (Apple understands this well). Tracks that are consistently produced, with accurate fades, cuts, and volume levels are much more valuable... especiall to the audiophiles that are clearly being targeted with this offering. I'm a bit of an audiophile myself, but I can't tell the difference between 128kbps and 392kbps once my signal gets munged by my RF modulator (the best way I've found under $500 to connect my iPod to my car... and my wife's).
A guarantee that the track will be easily found, high-quality, and portable to any audio device (including in-dash players that would remove RF from my personal enjoyment of digital tracks) is worth a buck to anyone making more than minimum wage. That's just economics! I think it's a great move, and I hope the experiment pays off for these two companies. I don't think this deal will stop sharing of digital media through less-than-legitimate means, but I think this is a valuable service. My fondest hope is that it will open up digital media to a broader base of influencers and will prove that DRM isn't needed to have a feasible digital distribution model.
Let's think about the demographic the marketing is focusing on:
1. Ultra-portable. Allowing the tracks to be played on a wide variety of devices is a great move. It really shows some faith in the digital music consumer, which I think the industry needs to start doing. For Apple's part, in addition to "walking the talk" that they made last month (see my previous post), they are showing some interest in making sure the labels' tracks can reach every nook and cranny of the consumer's investment in digital media products. Verizon Wireless, take note. As a devout Mac user, I am incredibly disappointed that I can't play any of my iTMS tracks (or even transfer tracks that my phone _could_ play) to a modern media phone. More on that later, perhaps. All that being said, though, this is just one leg of the proverbial stool. This puts iTMS on par with "free" downloads (plus the per-track charge).
2. Easily found. I heard from a friend-of-a-friend that it can be difficult just to find tracks you're looking for on these free download services. If you do think you found something, you just end up relying on a high number of other "sharers" being online at the same time. Also, user-labeled content is notoriously badly organized. Maybe there is a trick to finding things like replacing 'S' with 'Z' everywhere, but you certainly aren't guaranteed a good experience when using these networks.
3. High-quality. The tracks offered by this iTMS/EMI deal will have twice the sample rate of the standard FairPlay(tm) tracks. Even if you can get the track to your computer in finite time, the quality of these tracks varies widely. And I'm not just talking about the sample rate of the tracks, which can get a bit insane on these networks (so I'm told). There is really something to be said about production quality (Apple understands this well). Tracks that are consistently produced, with accurate fades, cuts, and volume levels are much more valuable... especiall to the audiophiles that are clearly being targeted with this offering. I'm a bit of an audiophile myself, but I can't tell the difference between 128kbps and 392kbps once my signal gets munged by my RF modulator (the best way I've found under $500 to connect my iPod to my car... and my wife's).
A guarantee that the track will be easily found, high-quality, and portable to any audio device (including in-dash players that would remove RF from my personal enjoyment of digital tracks) is worth a buck to anyone making more than minimum wage. That's just economics! I think it's a great move, and I hope the experiment pays off for these two companies. I don't think this deal will stop sharing of digital media through less-than-legitimate means, but I think this is a valuable service. My fondest hope is that it will open up digital media to a broader base of influencers and will prove that DRM isn't needed to have a feasible digital distribution model.
Labels: apple, drm, free music
Friday, March 02, 2007
Apple v. RIAA
Once a year, whether I need to or not, I post here. At least, that's how it seems to be working out! At any rate, I just have to weigh in on the whole Steve Jobs and recording industry banter about DRM. Here's my brief summary:
Steve Jobs says something like, "Hey, I hate DRM because it makes my company more expensive to run. The RIAA makes us do it!"
RIAA says something like, "Hey, I hate DRM because Apple won't let us charge more for music. Steve Jobs makes us do it!"
When I think about this, and I think about the overall market share that Apple has in the recording distribution pipeline, I can only come to one conclusion. That conclusion is that there is still a lot of fear about releasing DRM-free music. Everyone knows that consumers either don't like it or don't care -- nobody "likes" DRM. I think consumers are far too willing to give up freedoms via things like the FairPlay licensing agreement. Everyone knows that it impedes the progress of digital music (and other media) in general (score one for Steve Jobs). Everyone knows that removing DRM would cause a dramatic up-tick in the overall usage of digital media (and not all of that benefit would belong to iTMS; score one RIAA). Here's what you won't be hearing from anyone:
Steve Jobs WON'T say, "DRM is great, because it makes people use the iPod to get access to the iTunes Music store! I love lock-in!" (Even though this has to be, at least in part, true)
RIAA WON'T say, "DRM scares the crap out of us because we're afraid most of the 'dramatic up-tick' will be illegal re-distribution of free track that we pay millions of dollars to cram down teenagers' throats!" (Okay, I'm showing some personal bias here, but let's face it: the twenty- and thirty-somethings that are downloading music are much more likely to pay a dollar to avoid seeing certain advertising and possible malware infection than the teens are. Teens think their computers are indestructible!)
In reality, though, music is incredibly easy to redistribute as it is. Someone just has to shell out $11.99 for a CD the week it comes out, and they can share it with millions of their closest friends. So, how has iTMS served billions and billions of electronic tracks? Well, I heard from a friend that the quality of ripped CDs on free services is subject to wide variations in quality. People buy bootlegged DVDs from guys who go into a noisy theater with a hand-held camcorder, too. Let's face another fact: the people who download free music and buy bootlegged DVDs aren't going to buy this stuff at the prices the media companies need to charge, no matter what. If it's not available at ultra-low-cost, they will just do without. I think it's time to start considering the viral effect of these sharing activities and start counting it as a marketing expense rather than as outright theft. (In my humble opinion, certain top-selling stars could afford a 1-2% pay cut to subsidize this free publicity.) I certainly don't condone piracy (hey, I'm a software guy; plenty of people could steal the stuff I've written over the years at zero cost, and I wouldn't like it!). But when it comes to DRM, it didn't work for the software industry (at least the first time; the media industry has inspired companies like Microsoft to try again, this time with the network instead of a box you plug into your serial port), and I don't think it's likely to work out for the media industry.
Steve Jobs says something like, "Hey, I hate DRM because it makes my company more expensive to run. The RIAA makes us do it!"
RIAA says something like, "Hey, I hate DRM because Apple won't let us charge more for music. Steve Jobs makes us do it!"
When I think about this, and I think about the overall market share that Apple has in the recording distribution pipeline, I can only come to one conclusion. That conclusion is that there is still a lot of fear about releasing DRM-free music. Everyone knows that consumers either don't like it or don't care -- nobody "likes" DRM. I think consumers are far too willing to give up freedoms via things like the FairPlay licensing agreement. Everyone knows that it impedes the progress of digital music (and other media) in general (score one for Steve Jobs). Everyone knows that removing DRM would cause a dramatic up-tick in the overall usage of digital media (and not all of that benefit would belong to iTMS; score one RIAA). Here's what you won't be hearing from anyone:
Steve Jobs WON'T say, "DRM is great, because it makes people use the iPod to get access to the iTunes Music store! I love lock-in!" (Even though this has to be, at least in part, true)
RIAA WON'T say, "DRM scares the crap out of us because we're afraid most of the 'dramatic up-tick' will be illegal re-distribution of free track that we pay millions of dollars to cram down teenagers' throats!" (Okay, I'm showing some personal bias here, but let's face it: the twenty- and thirty-somethings that are downloading music are much more likely to pay a dollar to avoid seeing certain advertising and possible malware infection than the teens are. Teens think their computers are indestructible!)
In reality, though, music is incredibly easy to redistribute as it is. Someone just has to shell out $11.99 for a CD the week it comes out, and they can share it with millions of their closest friends. So, how has iTMS served billions and billions of electronic tracks? Well, I heard from a friend that the quality of ripped CDs on free services is subject to wide variations in quality. People buy bootlegged DVDs from guys who go into a noisy theater with a hand-held camcorder, too. Let's face another fact: the people who download free music and buy bootlegged DVDs aren't going to buy this stuff at the prices the media companies need to charge, no matter what. If it's not available at ultra-low-cost, they will just do without. I think it's time to start considering the viral effect of these sharing activities and start counting it as a marketing expense rather than as outright theft. (In my humble opinion, certain top-selling stars could afford a 1-2% pay cut to subsidize this free publicity.) I certainly don't condone piracy (hey, I'm a software guy; plenty of people could steal the stuff I've written over the years at zero cost, and I wouldn't like it!). But when it comes to DRM, it didn't work for the software industry (at least the first time; the media industry has inspired companies like Microsoft to try again, this time with the network instead of a box you plug into your serial port), and I don't think it's likely to work out for the media industry.
Labels: apple, drm, free music, riaa
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Copying CDs Violates Copyright?
It's been a while since I've had something to say, here, but the latest spewage from the RIAA requires some kind of response. Apparently, copying content from a CD to a portable digital media player does not constitute "fair use" of the content on the CD. Well, I find this very interesting on many levels.
First, there is the threat that the RIAA, if successful, could start taking action on just about everyone, since I'm sure that many of us (note to RIAA: not me, of course!) have made copies of individual tracks and placed them on different media (cassette tapes for those of us old enough to remember them, CDs for the more modern of us). Valentine's Day has historically been a popular day to make these mixes for loved ones, and I think the timing of the RIAA position may have been inspired by this date. I'd hate to think that every time any of us made a mix tape, an angel lost its wings.
Second, I think this is an interesting change in the dynamics of user rights in the space. Originally, I griped that the rights you have with a purchased CD were greater than that of a digital music download. This position taken by the RIAA really reverses the concept. Now, when I pay $0.99 for a track on iTMS, I actually enjoy more rights than I do if I buy a CD at Virgin Megastore. I have to wonder how these retailers enjoy being scuttled by the industry they are members of.
Finally, a successful defense of this position would certainly have far-reaching implications. Will software companies not allow archival backups of their software? Or will they charge exhorbitant retroactive license fees to allow this behavior? Is Tivo now an infringing product in the video space? Insert your question here; I'm sure you have one.
The point of this blog is that, as the community of digital media users, we should accept that we have a role and a responsibility to make sure the we apply good thinking and make sure that the laws come out fairly. Considering all the money we have all poured into these companies over the years, I think it's the least they can do to let us reasonably use the content we've paid for.
First, there is the threat that the RIAA, if successful, could start taking action on just about everyone, since I'm sure that many of us (note to RIAA: not me, of course!) have made copies of individual tracks and placed them on different media (cassette tapes for those of us old enough to remember them, CDs for the more modern of us). Valentine's Day has historically been a popular day to make these mixes for loved ones, and I think the timing of the RIAA position may have been inspired by this date. I'd hate to think that every time any of us made a mix tape, an angel lost its wings.
Second, I think this is an interesting change in the dynamics of user rights in the space. Originally, I griped that the rights you have with a purchased CD were greater than that of a digital music download. This position taken by the RIAA really reverses the concept. Now, when I pay $0.99 for a track on iTMS, I actually enjoy more rights than I do if I buy a CD at Virgin Megastore. I have to wonder how these retailers enjoy being scuttled by the industry they are members of.
Finally, a successful defense of this position would certainly have far-reaching implications. Will software companies not allow archival backups of their software? Or will they charge exhorbitant retroactive license fees to allow this behavior? Is Tivo now an infringing product in the video space? Insert your question here; I'm sure you have one.
The point of this blog is that, as the community of digital media users, we should accept that we have a role and a responsibility to make sure the we apply good thinking and make sure that the laws come out fairly. Considering all the money we have all poured into these companies over the years, I think it's the least they can do to let us reasonably use the content we've paid for.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
CD Copy Protection - Missing the Boat
Macrovision and SunnComm court Apple for a seachange in CDs | The Register
In this article, the Register outlines how the two major CD copy protection companies are trying (unsuccessfully) to court Apple into an arrangement that would supply copy-protected AAC (Apple's semi-proprietary format) files instead of WMA (Microsofts completely-proprietary format) files in a special region of an audio CD. Presumably, this technology is to make it easy for customers to get legal copies of digital music for the CDs they buy the old fashioned way.
The only problem is that none of these vendors seem to realize that this isn't very convenient, and is certainly not as convenient as ripping MP3 (or MPEG-4) format tracks from the CD. Sure, the copy protection is supposed to prevent people from doing this, but there are several well-known vulnerabilities to the schemes currently in use. If you don't know one of these, I'm not going to be the one to tell you, lest I be subject to the INDUCE act, currently being deliberated in US Congress.
Somebody needs to come up with a better way. The public cannot tolerate how exposed the wiring is in this digital music landscape. Nobody is going to buy a Mercedes without a dashboard, and nobody is going to continue to deal with all of these complex technologies. I am sure they already know that the key to sales is removing barriers, but they seem to be suffering from an "I'm sure it's not drug-induced" paranoia about people sneaking around with their precious music. I'm happy to be a digital music (and spoken word) junkie, and I'd just like the industry to support my lifestyle far better than they are today.
In this article, the Register outlines how the two major CD copy protection companies are trying (unsuccessfully) to court Apple into an arrangement that would supply copy-protected AAC (Apple's semi-proprietary format) files instead of WMA (Microsofts completely-proprietary format) files in a special region of an audio CD. Presumably, this technology is to make it easy for customers to get legal copies of digital music for the CDs they buy the old fashioned way.
The only problem is that none of these vendors seem to realize that this isn't very convenient, and is certainly not as convenient as ripping MP3 (or MPEG-4) format tracks from the CD. Sure, the copy protection is supposed to prevent people from doing this, but there are several well-known vulnerabilities to the schemes currently in use. If you don't know one of these, I'm not going to be the one to tell you, lest I be subject to the INDUCE act, currently being deliberated in US Congress.
Somebody needs to come up with a better way. The public cannot tolerate how exposed the wiring is in this digital music landscape. Nobody is going to buy a Mercedes without a dashboard, and nobody is going to continue to deal with all of these complex technologies. I am sure they already know that the key to sales is removing barriers, but they seem to be suffering from an "I'm sure it's not drug-induced" paranoia about people sneaking around with their precious music. I'm happy to be a digital music (and spoken word) junkie, and I'd just like the industry to support my lifestyle far better than they are today.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Welcome
Welcome to the Conscious Media blog. Everyone talks a lot about being "Media Conscious", but this blog is about something different. It is about being deliberate about how we use technology in media. Topics are likely to include:
- Appropriateness of Digital Rights Management technology
- Wild prognostications on the future success (or failure) of media technology products
- The implications of technology on culture, of which media is a part
Like many blogs, I'm doing this primarily for me. It will give me a place to vent, to comment on what I'm seeing, and a place for me to see what other people are thinking about what interests me. Despite my selfish motivations, I do hope that others will find the discussions useful.
