Smart TVs: Not Such A Smart Idea

from the Temporal-Pre-crime dept

A Smart TV is a TV that includes at least a rudimentary OS, access to web and Internet functions, and streaming content. They have been a hot product category at the last two CES shows, and the rumor that Apple is about to launch one is adding fuel to the fire. The Apple rumor is somewhat reliable, since it is partly based on a quote from the Steve Jobs biography where Jobs says of the Smart TV: "I finally cracked it."

But having looked closely at the offerings at CES, and comparing them to the mobile phone industry, I don't believe that the entire concept of putting extensive intelligence into the TV is a wise one. The reason is mostly because of the temporal mismatch between the lifetime of a TV, and the lifetime of a mobile device, mobile OS, or mobile processor. You see, people want large screen TVs, and these are expensive investments. The main screen in most American homes runs around $1,100. And those screens are designed to have a half-life of around 60,000 hours of viewing. Now, it's not clear how long the average consumer will keep a 1080p TV bought in 2012, but I'd suppose that 10 years is not a ridiculous guess, so humor me and work with 10 years.

So if there is one component of the Smart TV that costs $1,100 and lasts most people about 10 years, does it make sense to mate it to the "smart" part? The cost of the "smartness" is fairly easy to estimate: A Roku box, Google TV box, or Apple TV box run around $70-$100, a Boxee box goes for around $200. So, the "smart" factor runs between $70 and $200 street price. But what is the life-cycle of the average "smart" device? For that, I look to the phone market, where people cycle their smartphones every two years. Apple fans line up at the store to replace their one or two year old 3GS for a 4G because of added features and function. On Android and iOS alike, the latest OS versions, features and apps only work on the latest hardware. Does anyone here have an old phone or smartphone sitting in a drawer? Yes? Do you want to do the same with your $1,100 TV investment? It's a given that a TV is not a smartphone, but for now we're asking them to do similar tasks: apps, streaming media, social updates, etc. The Internet performance of the TVs will become out of date like smartphones do. Tying relatively cheap, 2-3 year life-cycle smarts to an expensive 10 year product just doesn't make sense.

It seems the obvious solution is already here: keep the TV dumb, and provide a set-top box (STB) that has the smarts. The STB can thus be replaced cheaply, once out of date. Consumers can easily have more than one STB, not committing to any one company's ecosystem. Do people really want to buy their TV's by ecosystem? "Hey, I love this Sony's picture, price, and size...but I want an iCloud, so I'll buy this smaller TV instead."

Really, the Smart TV is just a sales vehicle dreamt up and promoted by the TV OEMs. They had a bang-up decade updating everyone to flat panels, then pushing the upgrade to 1080P. They've had less success with 3D, and are looking for the hook to make another upgrade worthwhile. For now, Smart is it. But I doubt customers are eager to jump on, given they can just buy a STB. Even those actively looking for a TV may resist if there is a price premium, given most Blu-ray players and many cable or telco STBs already provide smart features. The TV OEMs are going to have to bundle in the smarts for free, and hope that they can make money back on the content ecosystem. But will they enjoy ecosystem lock-in for 10 years, or less?

So far, the Smart TVs sold to market are too new to have suffered from the life-cycle mismatch. The earliest Smart TVs can still compete on level ground with the latest, since it's only been a year or so since they've been in shops. But it won't be long until we start hearing complaints from those customers that "I can't stream that resolution." or "Why can't I watch programs with that new MP4 codec?" or "That app doesn't work for me. Why can't I get the latest OS on my TV?" Some of those people will end up with a newer STB, and just obviate the smarts that had been built into their TV, much the same way most of us don't use the TV tuner that is bundled with our sets.

Ultimately, whatever the problem that Steve Jobs "cracked", or whatever smarts are provided by Sony, Google, LG, Samsung, etc. I think those smarts will be better placed in a STB (or tablet, or other smart device) than in a TV.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why You Should Regret LightSquared's Setbacks

from the competition-is-good dept

LightSquared is a new wireless carrier that has been trying to launch a wholesale 4G network across the USA. Funded by private equity firm Harbinger Capital, it sought to re-purpose satellite communication frequencies to build a nationwide cellular-satellite hybrid network, and then re-sell the network capacity to other brands. In January 2011, the FCC, eager to foster new competitors in the mobile space, gave LightSquared the green light to launch using their spectrum with one provision - that their network equipment NOT interfere with GPS signals and devices. Well, over a year has come and gone, and despite incredible effort and wrangling, the independent testing keeps indicating that LightSquared's terrestrial towers are not compatible with GPS device use. As such, the FCC has basically rescinded LightSquared's request to launch service on their 1.5GHz L-Band spectrum.

Note that, while LightSquared DID knock out GPS devices, it was not LightSquared that transmitted on the GPS frequencies, but rather the GPS devices that sloppily "listen" to the adjacent LightSquared frequencies. The GPS chipsets were generally cheaply made with inadequate filtering. That said, who is at fault is irrelevant: it remains LightSquared's problem to solve if they want to launch their network. A long history of spectrum policy states that new entrants must not mess up the existing radio devices.

What we've lost here is the chance to have a truly innovative wireless carrier which would have stimulated competition, energized the vendor community, and provided a white-label network for MVNOs. LightSquared had, in fact, signed up dozens of partners who would offer LTE wireless services as cellular companies, CE makers, and store brands like Best Buy, for example, who could sell connectivity in a bundle with laptops. Maisie Ramsay over at Wireless Week explains how a vast community of over 30 technology vendors have also lost a valuable path to market.

What strikes me, as someone who works with wireless carriers (LightSquared included), is that we may lose one of the scrappiest players out there. And markets thrive when a scrappy player stirs up the pot. Hutchison Whampoa stirred up the UK markets when it launched 3G in 2003, Free is currently doing the same in France. In the USA, we have regional players like Metro PCS, but nothing at the national level. My role at the Telecom Council of Silicon Valley is right where innovators meet with the telcos, and it was gratifying to see the tornado of new ideas, vendors, and possibilities that came about with a new network. Without legacy systems nor legacy thinking, lots of great ideas are free to emerge.

For now, with LightSquared's options dwindling, we may have to have to look elsewhere for new competition and open creativity. The WiFi space is fairly promising, as the spread of hotspots continues to soar, and new versions (802.11ac) promise greater range and throughput. Chipsets are cheap, and billions of WiFi devices have been produced. Republic Wireless exemplifies the possibilities of leveraging WiFi in mobile phones to the limit. Lots of people are hoping that the "white spaces" frequencies in between TV channels will be offered up to a WiFi variant, which will mean low-frequency spectrum that penetrates walls and buildings much better than today's WiFi. I like what the US carriers have done with the (globally) early launch of LTE, but there's no doubt that with increased competition we'd have a more dynamic market.

71 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Getting Past The Uncanny Valley In Targeted Advertising

from the from-creepy-to-useful dept

A few years back we talked about how the concept of the "uncanny valley" could be applied to targeted advertising. Of course, the general concept of the uncanny valley is usually discussed in the field of robotics. It's the notion that people are comfortable with robots that clearly look like robots, but at a point where they become too similar to humans, but not actually human-like, people feel rather uncomfortable. However, if a robot appears fully human, then people go back to being comfortable with them -- even to the point of identifying with them and feeling empathy for them. The problem is the area where they're "too human" but just different enough to just... feel "off" that somehow makes it "creepy." As we noted the same thing really was kind of true for targeted advertising. As advertising gets more "targeted" it seems to creep people out, because they feel like they're being spied on.

A perfect example of that is seen in this recent NYTimes Magazine piece, talking about the details of how Target mines its purchasing data to figure out who's pregnant and when they're due. And it's not because they're buying diapers or something like that:

The only problem is that identifying pregnant customers is harder than it sounds. Target has a baby-shower registry, and Pole started there, observing how shopping habits changed as a woman approached her due date, which women on the registry had willingly disclosed. He ran test after test, analyzing the data, and before long some useful patterns emerged. Lotions, for example. Lots of people buy lotion, but one of Pole's colleagues noticed that women on the baby registry were buying larger quantities of unscented lotion around the beginning of their second trimester. Another analyst noted that sometime in the first 20 weeks, pregnant women loaded up on supplements like calcium, magnesium and zinc. Many shoppers purchase soap and cotton balls, but when someone suddenly starts buying lots of scent-free soap and extra-big bags of cotton balls, in addition to hand sanitizers and washcloths, it signals they could be getting close to their delivery date.

As Pole's computers crawled through the data, he was able to identify about 25 products that, when analyzed together, allowed him to assign each shopper a "pregnancy prediction" score. More important, he could also estimate her due date to within a small window, so Target could send coupons timed to very specific stages of her pregnancy.

But, of course, Target then appears to have run into the "uncanny valley" problem of having just enough info to target ads... but doing so in a way that feels creepy:

"If we send someone a catalog and say, 'Congratulations on your first child!' and they've never told us they're pregnant, that's going to make some people uncomfortable," Pole told me. "We are very conservative about compliance with all privacy laws. But even if you're following the law, you can do things where people get queasy."

About a year after Pole created his pregnancy-prediction model, a man walked into a Target outside Minneapolis and demanded to see the manager. He was clutching coupons that had been sent to his daughter, and he was angry, according to an employee who participated in the conversation.

"My daughter got this in the mail!" he said. "She's still in high school, and you're sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?"

The manager didn't have any idea what the man was talking about. He looked at the mailer. Sure enough, it was addressed to the man's daughter and contained advertisements for maternity clothing, nursery furniture and pictures of smiling infants. The manager apologized and then called a few days later to apologize again.

On the phone, though, the father was somewhat abashed. "I had a talk with my daughter," he said. "It turns out there's been some activities in my house I haven't been completely aware of. She's due in August. I owe you an apology."

Target appears to have recognized just how creepy this appeared -- and once they discovered that the reporter was working on this story they cut off his access to the researcher and wouldn't talk to him at all, other than to make bland PR statements about "delivering outstanding value," and, later, to try to convince him not to publish his story.

However, there are indications that Target tried to cross the uncanny valley.... by making the extremely targeted advertising appear more "life like" by not being "too perfect." That is they still sent targeted ads, but mixed them in with unrelated ads, so people wouldn't realize how targeted they were:

"We have the capacity to send every customer an ad booklet, specifically designed for them, that says, 'Here's everything you bought last week and a coupon for it,' " one Target executive told me. "We do that for grocery products all the time." But for pregnant women, Target's goal was selling them baby items they didn't even know they needed yet.

"With the pregnancy products, though, we learned that some women react badly," the executive said. "Then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy, so the baby ads looked random. We'd put an ad for a lawn mower next to diapers. We'd put a coupon for wineglasses next to infant clothes. That way, it looked like all the products were chosen by chance.

"And we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn't been spied on, she'll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don't spook her, it works."

I'm sure that this disturbs some people, who may sense that there's "trickery" going on here, but I'm not sure that's the case. It seems like this actually creates something rather useful. After all, perfectly targeted ads actually provide useful information in that it's ads/deals/coupons targeted for exactly what we need, such that we'll actually save money on the key things we want. That's a benefit to consumers. But if it's done in a way that doesn't feel as creepy, then there aren't those lingering concerns of being tracked -- and that seems a more reasonable fear.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How The Megaupload Shutdown Has Put 'Cloud Computing' Business Plans At Risk

from the that's-not-a-good-thing dept

As you recall, last month's SOPA/PIPA protests were followed the very next day by the US government shutting down Megaupload. While there have been plenty of discussions about the wider implications of the January 18th anti-SOPA/PIPA protests, there's been less analysis about the wider impact of the Megaupload case. Lawyer Philip Corwin has a long (really, really long) article suggesting that the longer term impact will come more from the Megaupload shutdown... and not in a good way.

It is however the viewpoint of this article that the Megaupload indictment will likely be seen in the long run as having a more significant impact on Internet business models and innovation than the withdrawal of PIPA and SOPA — and this would be the case even if those bills had been enacted in some combined form.

The article covers a lot of ground (much of which you'll already be familiar with, if you read Techdirt regularly). But the gist of it is that the details of the indictment significantly blur the lines between what is civil and and what is criminal copyright infringement, and also rely on multiple, very common practices for various cloud service providers. While the US government cheers on the fact that other cyberlockers are changing how they operate, there's significant fear that this will massively alter the "cloud computing" landscape, in that it creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty, where services with perfectly legitimate intent can be accused of criminal activities based on very questionable claims. Perhaps the most ridiculous is the catch-22 situation in which Megaupload got blamed for trying to hide the infringing activity on its site. If it had left it up, it would have been accused of facilitating or inducing infringement, but by making it hard to find, it's accused of conspiracy to hide the activity.

Megaupload removed the search feature on its website, which had previously been of assistance to those looking for infringing content. The indictment alleges that this was done to disguise the company's willful infringement, much of which was purportedly facilitated by other "linking" websites operated by unrelated third parties. But if the search feature had not been removed, wouldn't that have been cited as evidence of facilitating infringement? Similarly, the indictment notes that "browsing the front page of Megavideo.com does not show any obviously infringing copies of any copyrighted works; instead, the page contains videos of news stories, user generated videos, and general Internet videos in a manner substantially similar to Youtube.com", but then cites "the most-viewed videos in the Entertainment category on Megavideo.com… has at times revealed a number of infringing copies of copyrighted works that are available from Mega Conspiracy-controlled servers" as evidence of knowing facilitation of commercial infringement.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But the bigger fear is about the kinds of businesses that are put at risk under the vague standards used in the indictment. The article talks about popular services like Dropbox, which could be accused of many of the things in the Megaupload indictment. It also talks about YouTube, and how -- if these kinds of enforcement actions were popular five years ago -- we might not have had a YouTube any more:

A recent New Yorker profile of YouTube's evolution makes one wonder if the "YouTube Conspiracy" might not have been criminally targeted if this enforcement tactic was being employed when it launched in 2005, especially since e-mails between its principals indicated a deliberate toleration of infringing content to build traffic — e-mails that bear a distinct resemblance to some of those reproduced in the Megaupload indictment.

Instead, as Corwin points out, YouTube "has become a treasured piece of contemporary Americana."

For all the talk of how SOPA and PIPA were bad for changing the way the internet would have to work, it's worth noting the very very real impact of the Megaupload takedown on the potential development of various new services and business models. The risks and uncertainty increased massively on January 19th, and not in a good way for anyone.

107 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congrats, US Government: You're Scaring Web Businesses Into Moving Out Of The US

from the destroying-business dept

The federal government has been paying lip service to the idea that it wants to encourage new businesses and startups in the US. And this is truly important to the economy, as studies have shown that almost all of the net job growth in this country is coming from internet startups. Thankfully some politicians recognize this, but the federal government seems to be going in the other direction. With the JotForm situation unfolding, where the US government shut down an entire website with no notice or explanation, people are beginning to recognize that the US is not safe for internet startups.

Lots of folks have been passing around this rather reasonable list of activities for US-based websites:

Today's sysadmin todo list:

0. Get corporate membership with EFF.

1. Identify all applications with user-generated content.

2. Move all associated domains to a non-US based registrar.

3. Migrate DNS, web serving and other critical services to non-US based servers.

4. Migrate yourself to a non-US controlled country.

I'm sorry for US sites and users. Your government is hell-bent on turning the internet into a read-only device like TV, easily regulated and controlled. The population will be required to sit quietly and keep their eyes glued on the screen so they don't miss the ads, with any infringers deemed terrorists and pedophiles and thus deserving of summary punishment by DHS squads.

Hopefully the internet will route around the damaged segment, and the rest of us can continue to enjoy the amazing interactivity it has brought our society.

What's amazing is the "what's the big deal?" attitude the government has taken to all of this. For most of us, this situation is shocking. The US government should never be able to flat out shut down a business with no notice or explanation, only to say "sorry" a couple days later. It's done this in the past and insisted that it would be more careful in the future. So far, it doesn't appear to be living up to that promise. While these may be "mistakes," the wider impact should be frightening to federal officials. They're now actively scaring startups away from US businesses at a time when they should be doing exactly the opposite.

191 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A 4G iPad Requires A Sensible Shared Data Plan

from the cellular-operators-losing-the-battle-for-connected-devices dept

The Apple rumor mill is spinning at full speed again, with word of a new iPad release in March. This would be on schedule for Apple, so the real speculation is around exactly what improvements this iPad will feature. The Wall Street Journal, normally not the town gossip, wrote that the upcoming iPad would feature a smaller 8-inch screen, and would be LTE-enabled. LTE is the latest, fastest network technology available from Verizon, AT&T, and other network operators. But the intention here is not to pile on to the speculation of what Apple might deliver. The intention is to speculate instead as to what the carriers might have up their sleeves with respect to an LTE tablet pricing plan.

When the LTE iPad hits the market, expect to see it sold with a "shared data plan", or a plan that is connected to a smartphone plan, and share a common pool of MB of traffic per month. Verizon, in particular, has hinted that just such plans will be emerging soon. Lowell McAdam said in December that such plans would emerge "sometime in 2012" to accommodate the increasing number of people with multiple mobile Internet devices. Such devices include smartphones, laptops, tablets, and others. More and more, subscribers are adding devices, and are getting frustrated at having to open a separate account, with a ~$50/month price, just because they choose to browse on their tablet instead of their smartphone. Most customers, rightly, assume that it should make little difference to the operator whether they access the net on their tablet, laptop, or phone. This is just a substitution of the access device. Because of the current punitive billing, owners of multiple connected devices are defecting from the cellular game, and instead opting to use Wi-Fi only on laptops and tablets...and liking it!

Research from The NPD Group has shown how the attach rates (portion that sign on to cellular service) for cellular-ready tablets have been less than stellar, and decreasing over time. In April 2011, NPD says that 60% of tablets only connected via Wi-Fi, but by December 2011, that number had jumped to 65%, showing how Wi-Fi has been winning out over the more expensive and contract-laden cellular offerings. Tablets like the Kindle Fire are sold as Wi-Fi only, contrasting with the earliest Kindles which all had cellular radios embedded. The carriers are at extreme jeopardy of losing the connected device market (and embedded market and M2M) simply because they have lagged in offering the kinds of flexible plans that make sense.

Once a trend away from cellular connection takes hold, it becomes harder to stop. Wi-Fi networks will respond with increased capacity and increased hotspots, OEMs will respond with more Wi-Fi-only devices, and consumer behavior will respond by considering tablets as "portable" Wi-Fi devices, not fully mobile like smartphones. The strategic cost to the carriers is significant. While the trend won't be stopped, it is certain that carriers could retain significance by offering pooled data plans at sensible bundled prices. This means selling data to a consumer, not to a consumers specific device. And what better way to launch such a new pricing plan than with a device that the market has proven to love - a new iPad?

So whatever the shape of the new iPad, and the fantastic new features that fanbois laud while naysayers explain how they were just repurposed from other devices, we should fully expect an LTE iPad with a new kind of cellular pricing model, which drives up the attach rate, increases device utility at a reasonable price, and creates greater carrier loyalty and long-term gains. If Verizon and AT&T do this right, we could all win.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Would Steve Jobs Have Approved? Artist Offers His Apple Monologue, Performance Rights, For Free

from the it's-good-to-share dept

As sales of its products soar, and its share price continues to climb, Apple has come under increasing scrutiny because of the working conditions in the Chinese factories where its iPhone and iPad are manufactured. This has led Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, to announce recently that the Fair Labor Association will be conducting audits of Apple’s final assembly suppliers, including Foxconn factories in China.

That tension between the undeniably desirable products and the not-so-glamorous conditions under which they are made powers a monologue by Mike Daisey, entitled "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs," which we discussed last month, and described by the New York Times as:

a mind-clouding, eye-opening exploration of the moral choices we unknowingly or unthinkingly make when we purchase nifty little gadgets like the iPhone and the iPad and the PowerBook.

The NYT also has an interview with Daisey in which he makes clear his view that, for all the shiny-toy ecstasy Apple's leader purveyed to the world, Jobs could have done better:

This is someone who had an opportunity to transform the world with these devices and then did. He started as someone whose devices were forged out of piracy, and today it’s the most locked-down computer company in the world. As a capitalist I’m sure that it’s very attractive. But if we’re talking about him as an artist, I’d say that he completely lost track of his ideals.

Given that jaundiced view of "the most locked-down computer company in the world", it perhaps shouldn't be too much of a surprise to discover that Daisey the artist is trying to stay true to his own ideals by opening up his work to everyone, not just to download, but to perform:

after nearly 200 performances, the monologuist Mike Daisey was to release a theatrical transcript of his latest one-man show, “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs,” through his Web site, mikedaisey.blogspot.com. It will be free to download and in a rare twist, if an aspiring performer should want to mount a production of the show, Mr. Daisey will not ask for payment.

Rare indeed. Given Jobs' allergic reaction to letting people 'do what they want' without significant limits or tollbooths, would he have approved?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

DailyDirt: Robots Inspired By Nature

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Biomimicry for robot design is a fascinating area of research, and all kinds of interesting robots are being developed that almost look like natural creatures. Here are just a few more examples of machines that are adopting biologically-inspired features.

• Robot researchers in Switzerland are copying the physiology of bats, grasshoppers and locusts to create robots that are more efficient at moving around. Swarms of these kinds of robots are going to be pretty scary looking... [url]
• Lockheed Martin is developing an unmanned aircraft called the Samarai and looks like a foot-long maple seed -- with propellers attached. These remote-controlled aircraft can hover in place and come equipped with video cameras for surveillance missions. [url]
• The exoskeleton of an African desert scorpion isn't smooth, but covered with microscopic bumps that protect it from sandblasting winds. This discovery could help helicopters fly in the desert for longer periods of time, since adding some grooves to smooth steel surfaces can reduce erosion by up to 20%. [url]
• To discover more interesting robotics-related content, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Do We Know That Piracy Isn't Really A Big Issue? Because Media Companies Still Haven't Needed To Change As A Result Of It

from the calling-their-bluff dept

One of the positive outcomes of the debate that has raged around SOPA/PIPA is that more people have looked at the facts, rather than listened to the rhetoric, surrounding piracy. In particular, the copyright industries' hitherto unchallenged claim that piracy is destroying their business is finally being challenged – not least by reports like "The Sky is Rising" that consolidate industry figures to show that things are really looking pretty good across the board.

Another indication of that new attitude is the incredible response elicited by an article in Forbes entitled "You Will Never Kill Piracy, and Piracy Will Never Kill You", which has received over 3600 re-tweets on Twitter, and nearly 10,000 shares on Facebook. The basic argument will be familiar enough to Techdirt readers: that the war on piracy can never be "won", and that what is needed is a change of attitude on the part of the media companies. The article concludes:

Treat your customers with respect, and they’ll do the same to you. And that is how you fight piracy.

Pretty obvious, you would have thought, although strangely it isn't to the media companies.

The author of that piece, Paul Tassi, has followed it up with "Lies, Damned Lies and Piracy." Although this has proved far less popular than the first one, I think it's better, because it offers some original insights where the other went over well-trod ground.

I particularly liked his closing thoughts:

If the industry is struggling, I just don’t see it, as their projects are getting bigger and more costly with each passing year. When a movie bombs or a show gets cancelled, no one ever says “oh, well, piracy.” Rather, it’s the quality of the product that accounts for such failures. Even with relatively high piracy rates across all forms of media, we’re still seeing blockbuster films, shows and games released at a higher rate than ever, and profits to match.

I think the media industries would love to kill piracy with a quick piece of legislation that blacks out every torrent site on the internet, but I don’t think they want to fight it so much that they’ll change their entire distribution model on a dime, which would actually go a long way toward truly competing with piracy. The reason things are the way they are is because they’re working. Despite the fact that even though yes, every piece of media is available on the internet for free somewhere, people are still buying.

There are three really key points packed in there. First, that the media industries just aren't struggling, despite their cries of woe. Secondly, what causes real financial harm to the film and music worlds are bad products that lose huge amounts of money and disappoint audiences. And finally – and most importantly – if piracy really were so life-threatening to the copyright industries, and if their bottom lines really were in danger, then they would have tried something other than begging lawmakers to protect them. The fact that they haven't, as Tassi emphasizes, means that there is no real pressure on them to do so: people still buy lots of stuff, piracy isn't really a problem, things are working.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

61 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If People Like You And Your Work They'll Pay; If They Like Your Work, But Don't Like You, They'll Infringe

from the cthulhu-saves-your-games dept

With the massive success of Double Fine's Kickstarter campaign (which has passed quadruple what it asked), a lot of people are commenting about just what it means to be successful in today's digital climate. Among those talking are indie game developers who are taking the time to reflect on this phenomena and how they might be able to duplicate it for themselves. One of these indie developers is Robert Boyd, the creative mind behind retro JRPGs Breath of Death VII and Cthulhu Saves The World. After a series of tweets on the topic of Double Fine's success, Robert closed with this profound statement:

If people like you and like your work, they'll buy your games. If they like your work but don't like you, they'll pirate them.

The first half of this statement is at the heart of the idea of connecting with your fans. Part of this ability to connect with your fans is to be more open and human with them. We have seen repeatedly how artists sell more of their work and scarcities associated with their work as they become more human to their fan base. As fans come to trust you and feel that they can approach you directly, even if that is through email, Twitter or Facebook, they will be far more likely to trust you enough to part with their money. This trust is one of the keys to Double Fine's success and a key to the success of any game developer. Similarly, it was seen in the way Louis CK treated his fans.

The second half of this statement is a lesson that many larger publishers, developers and others in the entertainment industry have forgotten. Because of that, they are suffering the fallout. DRM and other methods that show how little the developer or publisher trusts its fans breeds contempt within the fan community. While those consumers may still like the product, they don't like the way they are treated. This is one of the driving factors behind piracy. To top off the problem, these creators and gatekeepers set up walls between themselves and their fans. They do everything to avoid contact with fans outside carefully orchestrated scenarios. This turns fans off and decreases the amount of trust they have for these individuals and companies.

It's often said that people will just get stuff for free if they can. But, clearly, that's not true. We've seen so many cases of content creators being supported by their fans at tremendous levels (such as the two cases mentioned above) that there's clearly more to it. And it seems that a key element is whether or not fans actually like you. Some people suggest that the disconnect with piracy is that people value the work, but won't pay for it. But a more accurate realization may be that people value the work... but don't value the creator if the creator doesn't value them. When the two sides value each other, it seems people are more than willing to pay.

64 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Beastie Boy Mike D Forces AT&T To Let Shareholders Vote On Net Neutrality

from the you-gotta-fight-for-your-right-to-vooooote-on-a-net-neutrality-policy dept

Yeah, well there's a title I never thought I'd write. It seems that Mike D of the Beastie Boys, along with his wife, filmmaker Tamra Davis, and John Silva (of Silva Artist Management, one of the more forward-thinking artist management groups out there, representing a ton of big name acts), have helped to get the SEC to require telcos (mainly AT&T) to include a resolution among shareholder votes over whether or not those shareholders want the company to support wireless net neutrality concepts. Remember, the telcos have been willing to bend (a tiny bit) on wireline neutrality rules, so long as wireless rules have been exempt. So, letting shareholders vote on a resolution concerning wireless neutrality certainly could become a pretty big deal.

I've said in the past that I'm very, very wary of any net neutrality regulations from the government -- because we've all seen how that works, where the telcos take control of the process, and the end result is quite the opposite of what supporters intended. Regulatory capture can be a big deal. But... I am a big supporter in the importance of the concept of net neutrality and the principles of an end-to-end network. If it can be forced on these companies by shareholder proxy that may be the most compelling solution so far. In the past, the SEC has said this issue was not a big enough issue, and could be omitted from shareholder votes as "ordinary business matters." But, now the SEC has come around to realize that net neutrality is, in fact, a big issue, thanks in part to the letter from a group representing Mike D and the others mentioned above. The SEC responded in a pretty straightforward manner:

In view of the sustained public debate over the last several years concerning net neutrality and the Internet and the increasing recognition that the issue raises significant policy considerations, we do not believe that AT&T may omit the proposal from its proxy materials in reliance on rule 14a-8(i)(7).

Of course, who knows if enough shareholders will vote for such a thing. I could easily see a rather confused Wall Street thinking (incorrectly) that breaking the end-to-end principle would be good for business, even if it erodes network usefulness and value.

Read More | 23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing

from the check-your-assumptions dept

Perhaps the biggest illusion in content-centric industries is the belief that the content itself is the main product. For the end-consumer, music is not a product or a service. End-consumers rarely pay for music. They put down money for copies of music, such as CDs, sheet music or music downloads. They put down money for tickets to live experiences. They put down money for subscriptions to music services. Those are all products, but music itself is not. Arguably, the only way to directly 'pay for music' is through commission or donation.

So what is music, or any other type of content? It's what adds value to the CD in the box. It's what makes 2 covers separated by a stack of paper worth buying from the book shop. It's what brings hundreds of people to one place for a shared experience. But it's not a product.

For people that have effectively programmed their minds to see their content as a product, this might be an uncomfortable revelation. Yet while uncomfortable, it can also be very empowering and here's why:

• Digital-proof. For a long time the music industry 'got away' with believing that the content is what people buy. However as music went digital, an increasing amount of people were able to separate the content from the product; thus leading to an uncontrollable proliferation of the content through unauthorized networks. Understanding that music ≠ the product fully acknowledges the digital reality, which is the first step to finding viable alternatives for products.
• Flexibility. Understanding that music is not the same thing as the product which creates the financial reward is a great way to rethink the products that are created surrounding your music. Music is neither a CD nor a download. It can add value to anything. Some people actually create content around physical things to make them more valuable and easier to sell (it's called Significant Objects).
• Fan-centrism. Separating product and content means you no longer have to sell fans what you want them to buy. You can sell them what they want to buy and let the music add value. By understanding who your most avid fans are, you can provide them with something they'll be happy to spend money on. Example (oversimplification alert): got hipster fans? Sell subscriptions to exclusive content via an iPhone app. Got teenage girl fans? When doing a live show, give them a number to send a text message to for an x amount of money & give them exclusive backstage content from the show when they return home. You can do anything; just understand your audience by being connected with them and realize that it's not the content itself that's being sold.

This way, everybody wins. The fans win, because what they pay for is more relevant to them. The artists win, because not only do you have increased chances to monetize, but you will also create a stronger connection with your fans by giving (or selling) them what they want.

Some great, classic examples of artists & labels that 'get it' are:

• Nine Inch Nails' Trent Reznor (Mike's case-study on Trent Reznor & the formula for future music business models);
• Younger Brother & Twisted Music (Case Study: How Shpongle Went From Yelling At Fans To Embracing Fans);
• Cee-Lo Green (uses his content to make himself & his endorsement the scarce good);
• Dave Matthews Band (particularly the fan club and the emphasis on merchandising).

In short, the value of the products you sell can be raised dramatically by attaching your content to it. Your content is valuable, but for end-consumers, it's not your product.

103 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The World Of Open Textbooks Just Became A Little More Crowded -- And A Little More Open

from the sharing-the-knowledge dept

Open e-textbooks are hardly new: Techdirt has been reporting on the pioneer in this market, Flat World Knowledge, for several years now. But a new entrant called OpenStax College is noteworthy for a number of reasons:

OpenStax College is a nonprofit organization committed to improving student access to quality learning materials. Our free textbooks are developed and peer-reviewed by educators to ensure they are readable, accurate, and meet the scope and sequence requirements of your course. Through our partnerships with companies and foundations committed to reducing costs for students, OpenStax College is working to improve access to higher education for all. OpenStax College is an initiative of Rice University and is made possible through the generous support of several philanthropic foundations.

Those foundations include the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, probably the leading philanthropic organization in the field of open education, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. But the Rice connection is just as important as the funding.

Although MIT is known as a pioneer of sharing its courses freely online through its OpenCourseWare project, arguably Rice University went even further with its highly-modular Connexions program, which offers what it calls "frictionless remixing". The use of small learning modules, together with a permissive cc-by license for everything, allows educators and publishers to create their own courses by drawing on Connexions' material.

Given that the founder of Connexions, Richard Baraniuk, is also the Director of OpenStax College, it's hardly a surprise that the same cc-by licensing applies to the latter's textbooks. Still, that's a step beyond Flat World Knowledge, which allows textbooks to be modified, but under the more restrictive cc by-nc-sa license. Even though OpenStax College is a non-profit, and Flat World Knowledge a company, both adopt the same business model: the e-textbooks are given away, while printed copies and supplementary materials require payment -- a classic example of using abundance to make money from associated scarcities.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Oh No! Car Dealers Might Have To Deal With Informed Customers! That Must Be Illegal!

from the felony-interference-of-a-business-model dept

A few folks sent over this recent NY Times article about how the traditional auto sales world was apparently up in arms about a company called TrueCar that seeks to make the process of buying cars easier by providing more info to buyers about what cars are actually selling for, what the dealers' true prices are, and also offering guaranteed "haggle free" prices from certain dealers. To be honest, this really doesn't sound all that different from a few other services online. The last two times I've bought cars, I've been able to get good deals using online services like this and just emailing directly to dealers (and for anyone buying a car, I can't recommend CarBuyingTips.com enough, even with its 90's era web design -- that site has saved me a ton).

However, what's really incredible is how the industry has reacted to this site -- basically freaking out and whining about how consumers actually being informed might put them all out of business. The excuses are typical of what you'll find with an industry that works on a collusion or gatekeeper system when it's finally faced with real competition. They start talking about how real competition is evil and how it will lead to a worse situation with more scams. In fact, TrueCar got hit with claims that what it was doing, in providing consumers with more info, was illegal. They've even had to change their practices in some states -- which really only goes to show just how much car dealers have influenced various state laws in their favor to protect against true competition and an informed consumer.

Others, including Honda, have argued that TrueCar could open the door to unscrupulous dealers trying to sell a more expensive car or more options once they get the customers in the door — which Honda said reflected poorly on the brand. Honda also threatened to cut off marketing dollars to dealers who promoted its cars on the site below the invoice price, a price that is supposed to represent something close to the dealer’s cost (though dealers usually make more money on other manufacturer incentives and programs).

Think of just how convoluted and insane this argument is. Honda doesn't want informed consumers because (wait for it...) informed consumers might lead dealers to try to trick buyers. Seriously. Okay, time to cross Honda off any future potential car list.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Innovation In Security: It's All About Trust

from the who-do-you-trust? dept

This post is part of an Intel-sponsored series of posts we'll be doing here at Techdirt on the topic of innovation. Posts in the series consist of a video interview of myself (which you'll see below), the post, and another video interview with an Intel representative and others. That second video, obviously, is content from Intel, but my video and what I've written here was done with complete and total editorial independence. We hope you enjoy the content and take part in the overall discussion, either via the comments or through the interactive ad unit to the right of the post.

Security is a touchy subject, these days. There's a fine line between legitimate security concerns and blatant fear mongering, but there's no doubt that security, in general, is an important subject. One key point that I think too often gets lost in the discussions around security is the question of trust. First up: the short video of me discussion a bit about security today:

Trust is one of the key elements of security, and while I only really had a chance to discuss it briefly at the end of the video, it is something that deserves a bigger discussion. After all, the "strongest" security in the world from an untrustworthy party isn't any security at all. I've been thinking more and more about this now that "cloud" storage has become a bigger issue. There are some out there who think that cloud storage means that you have "less" security, since your data is "out there." And, in some cases, that might be true. But, consider this: if you store the data yourself, you're responsible for your own security, and you might not be nearly as good as whoever is on the security team at the cloud storage provider.

Of course, there are also different factors at play here. If you do it yourself, you're likely a smaller target than a larger cloud provider, but that doesn't mean you're not a target. As the video below notes, you either you know you've been attacked, or you've been attacked and you just don't know it. Point being: everyone's a security target. Relying on the fact that you're not big enough to be a target is a naive game to play. So, if we're to accept the idea that cloud storage may be important, the security chops of the crowd storage partner you're working with becomes key. And that's where trust is important.

Suddenly, "trust" becomes almost as, if not more, important than the type of the actual security. When you hand off your security to someone else, its almost entirely based solely on trust. Unless you're directly a security professional who is going to dive in and fully test the technology itself, most people (and many organizations) aren't making their security decisions based on whose security is "best," but on which company they trust the most not to screw things up.

Based on that, I'm often surprised at how little some security companies do to really build up and keep that trust. Too often it feels like security vendors focus just on the nuts and bolts. Obviously that's important, and having good technology is always going to be a major component of trust. But it has to go beyond that as well, showing how responsive and clear a firm is about security issues.

Trust has filtered through into a number of different tech categories, but it still seems to be something that many overlook. In the next few years, I fully expect that to change, as more and more companies seek to play themselves up as the "trustworthy" partner in security.

Below is the Intel video discussing computer security today

5 Comments

Innovation In Wireless: The Disruption In Connectivity

from the data-everywhere dept

This post is part of an Intel-sponsored series of posts we'll be doing here at Techdirt on the topic of innovation. Posts in the series consist of a video interview of myself (which you'll see below), the post, and another video interview with an Intel representative and others. That second video, obviously, is content from Intel, but my video and what I've written here was done with complete and total editorial independence. We hope you enjoy the content and take part in the overall discussion, either via the comments or through the interactive ad unit to the right of the post.

When most people think about wireless technologies today, they think about the fact that it makes it easier for them to connect their computers without having to plug in. Or that it lets data flow to their smartphones. But the overall impact can be seen as being much more profound. First up, here's a short video of me talking about the impact of wireless technologies:

I think it has become easy for many of us to take for granted the power of wireless connectivity. It's almost difficult to remember what life was like before we had data at our fingertips anywhere, at any time on any device. And, yet, it wasn't that long ago that this wasn't true at all. WiFi has only been around for about a dozen years. Mobile cellular data (at any reasonable bandwidth) is much more recent. And, yet it's become so embedded in our lives. The idea that you can get directions anywhere, pull up information about any shop or restaurant, or even access any content at all is so powerful, yet almost feels mundane already.

But think about just how powerful it is in areas that were barely connected at all in the past. We've read stories about communities in developing nations where small players, who only used to have access to the nearest market, can suddenly reach out to others, and actually allow for competition for their products. That can be a massive change, in that it gets rid of a monopsony situation, allowing the poor in developing countries to get out of a never-ending cycle of poverty.

Similarly, wireless technology alone is enabling new careers and new types of businesses. There are the famous stories of women (and it's almost always women) in certain rural villages, who have built careers out of carrying around mobile phones that can be brought to different farmers, and used on a time-share-like system. This allows those farmers to have access to data and connectivity, but also has provided a way for those women to build up a career for themselves.

And think, then, about what begins to happen as the vast richness of data and information, that we now take for granted, reaches further and further into the far corners of the globe. The ability to do more, to build more and to connect more is going to reshape the lives of the many billions of underprivileged people of the world in ways that we can't even begin to fathom. The world just reached an astounding 7 billion people -- most of whom don't have access to many of the things we in the west take for granted -- including information. Wireless technologies have a chance to change that equation, and what comes out of it may be completely unexpected, but tremendously powerful. The idea that people who in the past may never have had an impact on the world may now be able to reach out and share their ideas and innovations with everyone is a revolution that is destined to bring powerful new ideas to the entire world.

Below you can see a video Intel put together, discussing how powerful wireless technologies can be.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Which Causes More Harm: Copyright Or Patents?

from the hard-to-choose dept

One of the recurrent themes on Techdirt is the harm caused by intellectual monopolies – copyright and patents – to the economy in particular, and to society in general. Stephan Kinsella has raised an interesting question: which of them is worse?

There are many Types of Intellectual Property, and all of them are bad, and most of them are getting worse and expanding. The worst two by far are patent and copyright. Some say the patent system is worse than copyright, because most innovations are inevitable anyway and there is no independent inventor defense, whereas it’s unlikely someone else would independently write Romeo and Juliet (of course, Shakespeare had no copyright and he borrowed freely from previous stories, but let’s not let facts get in the way of the romanticized notion of copyright). This argument overlooks the fact that copyright prohibits not only literal copying but non-literal copying of “similar” aspects of the copyrighted work and also the making of derivative works.

Others think copyright is worse because it lasts longer, for example.

In the end, he plumps for copyright, and gives three main reasons.

Length. The patent term is about 17 years, while copyright usually lasts over 100 years (life of author plus 70 years).

It's interesting that there hasn't been the same push to lengthen the patent term in the same way as for copyright. Is that just because it needed companies like Disney with skilful lobbyists to push through legislation extending copyright, or is there some reason that people feel that the heirs of artists have a greater "right" to this protracted monopoly than the heirs of inventors?

Trends. Copyright law keeps getting worse, while patent law has been basically the same for a while now, and in fact has slightly improved–in recent years it’s more difficult to get injunctions; and the recent patent reform law, the America Invents Act, actually added a general prior commercial user defense, the first significant legislative improvement to patent law … ever.

Again, is that simply a function of corporate greed being more prevalent in the copyright industries? Or maybe it's because there is a greater concentration of power in the world of music or films, say, that makes it easier for a few corporations to exert pressure on politicians. There is no equivalent concentration in the patent world. In fact, there is a very clear tension between different sectors – the pharmaceutical industries just can't get enough patent power, whereas the computer industry is far less enthusiastic.

Taxation versus Censorship, the Police State, and Regulation of the Internet. The patent system imposes costs of at least $100 billion a year, by reducing innovation and competition. So it basically acts like a tax. It’s bad, it impoverishes us, it slows things down. But it’s just another tax.

The copyright system, by contrast, besides imposing untold billions of cost on the economy, consumers, and artistic creation, and distorting the entire domain of creative works, is also being used as an excuse by the state to increase its surveillance, warrantless searches and seizures, punitive bans of people from the Internet without due process, censorship, cutting off websites accused of piracy, and control and regulation of the Internet and related technologies. As the Internet is one of the most significant tools ever to emerge to help people battle the state and communicate and learn and spread ideas, this is very chilling. In the name of stopping copyright piracy, the state is trying to squash mankind’s greatest anti-state weapon. Taxes are bad, but killing or restricting the Internet is just horrible.

The Internet works by copying files multiple times as they are transmitted across the network. Everything we look at online is a copy. So there is a fundamental dissonance between copyright, a monopoly that seeks to stop people from copying, and the Internet, which is built on it.

This explains why previous laws to stamp out online copyright infringement have failed: it's inherent in the system. It also helps us understand why the latest iteration of those laws – E-PARASITE/SOPA – is about destroying the Internet as we know it. Turning the clock back really is the only way of preserving copyright's 18th century approach to controlling copies.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology

from the the-sky-is-falling,-the-sky-is-falling dept

It seems that the entertainment industry has settled on its hilarious key talking point against people who are concerned about SOPA/PROTECT IP. I've been seeing variations on this in a bunch of different places, but the entertainment industry's biggest shills are focusing on the idea that the concerns being raised by actual technologists, entrepreneurs, innovators, creators and investors are somehow "hysterical hyperbole." A key example is RIAA boss Cary Sherman's "rebuttal" posted to News.com this week, which starts out with "let's all take a deep breath," and goes on to say that passing SOPA "won't kill the internet."

That's all well and good, though no one has said it will kill the internet, but just change it in massively significant ways that the RIAA/MPAA and its ilk don't understand. Remember, these are the folks who once admitted that they were too clueless to even know how to hire a good technologist, let alone understand how a massive change to the fundamental regulatory and technological framework of the internet will impact innovation.

But, really, let's go back to a key point. In the last century or so, which industry has a habit of being hysterical and hyperbolic about copyright issues... and which has a history of being right. Let's start about a century ago, with John Philip Sousa, the composer. In 1906, he went to Congress to complain about the infernal technology industry and how it was going to ruin music:

These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.

Yes, the tech industry was going to kill music, because of "these infernal machines."

Around that time, Thomas Edison, who tried to monopolize the entire "moving pictures" industry as both a content provider and a tech provider, freaked out over the idea of others providing machines that could show movies, claiming that if there were ten such movie "screen machines" in the US, it would kill the industry:

If we put out a screen machine there will be a use for maybe ten of them in the whole United States. With that many screen machines you would show the pictures to everyone in the country -- and then it would be done. Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Jump forward to 1932 and that great technological innovation called "radio." Once again, fear permeated the entertainment industry, leading to calls for massive changes to the laws and complaints about how radio was killing the industry:

Tin Pan Alley is sadly aware that Radio has virtually plugged up its oldtime outlets, sheet music and gramophone discs. The average music publisher used to get $175,000 a year from disc sales. He now gets about 10% of this. No longer does a song hit sell a million copies. The copious stream of music poured out by Radio puts a song quickly to death. The average song's life has dwindled from 18 months to 90 days; composers are forced to turn out a dozen songs a year instead of the oldtime two or three.

Evil stuff. Okay. Jump forward a few years, to the rise of cable TV. Once again, the MPAA freaks out, because some cable TV stations are "rebroadcasting" network TV. The MPAA argues in court that cable TV effectively kills off copyright law, as noted in a dissent in one of the key cases concerning the legality of cable TV:

We are advised by an amicus brief of the Motion Picture Association that films from TV telecasts are being imported by CATV into their own markets in competition with the same pictures licensed to TV stations in the area into which the CATV—a nonpaying pirate of the films—imports them. It would be difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of the Copyright Act. Since the Copyright Act is our only guide to law and justice in this case, it is difficult to see why CATV systems are free of copyright license fees, when they import programs from distant stations and transmit them to their paying customers in a distant market. That result reads the Copyright Act out of existence for CATV.

Jump forward a decade or so, and we have the infamous statement of Jack Valenti comparing the VCR to the Boston Strangler:

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

Around the same time, over in the UK, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) -- the equivalent of the RIAA -- began its infamous campaign telling the world:

Home taping is killing music.

Or, in logo form: Okay, how about the DVR? The wonderful device that made TV watchable and useful again? The entertainment industry attacked that big time, focusing its legal guns on ReplayTV, who it effectively forced out of business. As part of the arguments against Replay, the entertainment industry's lawyers claimed that:

What's happening here is much more than just delaying the time in which I watch a show that I taped off the television. I'm delaying it, and watching it without commercials, and that is something that our courts have never said is acceptable.

Yes, watching TV without commercials goes against the law. Turner Broadcasting boss Jamie Kellner put it more succinctly:

People who watch TV without commercials are stealing from the entertainment producers.

Okay. MP3 players? The thing that's such a huge part of the music industry today? Cary Sherman's RIAA did everything it could to kill them in its lawsuit against the Diamond Rio. From the RIAA's filing in the case:

While the proliferation of MP3s over the Internet has been a serious problem for the recording industry, the scope of that problem has been bound by a natural limitation. MP3 files can be played only by computers, and enjoyed only while operating a computer. The introduction of the Rio devices -- and a number of anticipated look-alike devices from other vendors -- will change that by making MP3 files portable.

[....]

The growth of illicit MP3 files will injure not only the record companies and artists whose work will be pirated, but also the music publishers, musicians, background singers, songwriters and others whose existence is dependent on revenue earned by record sales.

How about the XM + MP3 device that let paying subscribers to XM radio record what they listen to -- just like you could record radio over the air or off a computer? Yeah, the record labels sued over that, claiming $150,000 in statutory damages per recorded song.

And, finally, how about Viacom's attack on YouTube, claiming it was the equivalent of a "Grokster for video." While that case is still ongoing, Viacom has argued that if the district court ruling stands, it would completely destroy the value of content:

If affirmed by this Court, that construction of Section 512(c) would radically transform the functioning of the copyright system and severely impair, if not completely destroy, the value of many copyrighted creations. It would immunize from copyright infringement liability even avowedly piratical Internet businesses.

Given this little tour through history, it's pretty damn funny to see the RIAA and MPAA and their supporters insisting that it's the tech industry who has a history of hyperbole on these subjects. As far as I can tell, there isn't a technological innovation that has come along in the last century that the entertainment industry hasn't had a hysterical negative reaction to... even as it later turned out to be a massive help to the industry.

Thus, when the entertainment industry seeks to totally overturn the basic technological and regulatory underpinnings of the internet, over its latest freakout (rogue sites! cyberlockers!), forgive those of us who have seen this hyperbolic overreaction play out before, from pointing out that (a) the entertainment industry is totally and completely overreacting and (b) rushing into broad regulatory changes without the input or help of the tech industry is a big, big mistake. As with nearly every technology discussed above, if the RIAA and MPAA would just stop freaking out and falsely believing it's a legal or enforcement issue, and recognize that it's all a business issue, then the tech industry can actually help them innovate, support new services and make more money. Instead, in typical hyperbolic overreaction fashion, they're seeking to kill the very infrastructure that is their path to solve their current financial woes.

So, when the RIAA and the MPAA insist that "something must be done!" as quickly as is humanly possible to deal with the "threat" of so-called "rogue sites" domestically and abroad, we say back to them: "let's all take a deep breath." And suggest that, perhaps it is they who are hysterically overreacting... as they've done for over a century.

108 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Steve Jobs' Real Genius: Tweaking, Curating, Editing & Remixing To Make Things Better

from the indeed dept

We've argued a few times that Steve Jobs' real success wasn't in inventing anything particularly new, but in taking what others had done and making it better. That's why we found his complaints about Android seem so odd. Now, as a ton of you have submitted, Malcolm Gladwell has penned a piece on Steve Jobs' "real genius," which he describes (eloquently, as always) as a "tweaker" more than inventor. Elsewhere, he's described as an "editor," rather than inventor.

Jobs’s sensibility was editorial, not inventive. His gift lay in taking what was in front of him—the tablet with stylus—and ruthlessly refining it. After looking at the first commercials for the iPad, he tracked down the copywriter, James Vincent, and told him, “Your commercials suck.”

“Well, what do you want?” Vincent shot back. “You’ve not been able to tell me what you want.”

“I don’t know,” Jobs said. “You have to bring me something new. Nothing you’ve shown me is even close.”

Vincent argued back and suddenly Jobs went ballistic. “He just started screaming at me,” Vincent recalled. Vincent could be volatile himself, and the volleys escalated.

When Vincent shouted, “You’ve got to tell me what you want,” Jobs shot back, “You’ve got to show me some stuff, and I’ll know it when I see it.”

I’ll know it when I see it. That was Jobs’s credo, and until he saw it his perfectionism kept him on edge. He looked at the title bars—the headers that run across the top of windows and documents—that his team of software developers had designed for the original Macintosh and decided he didn’t like them. He forced the developers to do another version, and then another, about twenty iterations in all, insisting on one tiny tweak after another, and when the developers protested that they had better things to do he shouted, “Can you imagine looking at that every day? It’s not just a little thing. It’s something we have to do right.”

This is a key point that we've been arguing about for years. There's tremendous value in what Jobs did: innovating not actually by inventing, but by tweaking and "editing" the ideas and designs of others to make them "perfect." That act of taking what others have done and making it more valuable is such an underrated skill -- and yet it's really the key ingredient to innovation.

If you look back, historically, it's what Thomas Edison really did as well. He didn't actually invent very much himself. But he took others' ideas and made them better -- often recognizing how valuable the ideas were much more than those who originally came up with them. That's a form of editing and a form of remixing to make things better -- and Edison and Jobs were both amazingly skillful at it. So skillful, that many people falsely credit them with "inventing" things they really just remixed.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Applying Apple's Design Sense To Other Items... Like The Thermostat

from the just-as-long-as-it-doesn't-crash-so-often dept

There's no denying that Apple has been amazing at industrial design for years. Tons of companies strive (and usually fail) to reach the bar that Apple regularly crosses. But what if you took a bunch of ex-Apple designers, and they started building other stuff? Apparently that's the question being answered by a company called "Nest" which is releasing a smart thermostat, that beyond looking awesome, also learns from you and your habits to become much more efficient. It also, conveniently, allows access via computers and mobile phones. My thermostat with a mobile app? Why not? And it is definitely nice looking.

And, yes, a bunch of people there, including the founder and CEO, came from Apple, and helped design the iPod and iPhone.

Nest claims that using the thermostat will help you save a ton of money by making your heating usage a lot more efficient -- though it would be nice to see some real world testing on such claims before anyone buys into them. Also, while perhaps not nearly as pretty, we've seen similar home automation thermostats on the market for years, without making a huge dent. It's just not that clear people that care enough to make even the initial outlay ($250 apparently).

Still, I'm intrigued by getting more products out on the market with exceptional design. We need more of that.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..