commentary

Monopolies, seven years later

Monopolies, seven years later: The past, the glorious, profit-making, fun past of the media business was based on:

  • scarce creators, under long term contracts
  • scarce retail outlets, able to be controlled with marketing muscle
  • scarce spectrum (few radio stations, few TV stations)
  • copyright laws (and a lack of technology) that limited theft of services
  • limited power of the creators to compete without a large media company as partner

It’s hard to outline a point of view that shows the power of any form of media getting stronger over the next decade. There are going to be more TV channels, not less. More ways for authors to distribute their works, not less. More ways for musicians to connect with listeners, not less. More ways for consumers to sample or take content, not less.

You were a monopolist. You’re not anymore. [On the money, and on my mind.]
Source: Seth’s Blog

Where there’s muck, there’s brass

Where there’s muck, there’s brass: The one thing that so many of today’s cute startups have in common is that all they have is a simple little Ruby-on-Rails Ajax site that has no barriers to entry and doesn’t solve any gnarly problems. So many of these companies feel insubstantial and fluffy, because, out of necessity (the whole company is three kids and an iguana), they haven’t solved anything difficult yet. Until they do, they won’t be solving problems for people. People pay for solutions to their problems. [Nice article.]
Source: Joel on Software

adaptive path » blog » Todd Wilkens » Why usability is a path to failure

adaptive path » blog » Todd Wilkens » Why usability is a path to failure: Recently, I’m even coming to believe that focusing on usability is actually a path to failure. Usability is too low level, too focused on minutia. It can’t compel people to be interested in interacting with your product or service. It can’t make you compelling or really differentiate you from other organizations. Or put another way, there’s only so far you can get by streamlining the shopping cart on your website. [Interesting but overly simplistic. Lots of interesting comments.]

Apple, where are the rentals?

Apple, where are the rentals?:

Over the past few weeks, the studio bosses have been reversing course and praising apple again.  Warner Chief, Edgar Bronfman recently got caught praising Apple’s iPhone and iPod lines.  Jon Gruber at Daring Fireball reports on  Doug Morris‘ admission that the Entertainment industry had/has no idea what they are doing technology-wise.  In fact they were so stupid that they couldn’t even know who was smart enough to hire to figure it out.  That is Calculus Integral stupid – and it seems about right. Quote:

"There’s no one in the record industry that’s a technologist," Morris explains. "That’s a misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They didn’t. They just didn’t know what to do. It’s like if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?"

Personally, I would hire a vet. But to Morris, even that wasn’t an option. "We didn’t know who to hire," he says, becoming more agitated. "I wouldn’t be able to recognize a good technology person — anyone with a good bullshit story would have gotten past me."

[It’s amazing that these folks can’t even get to let’s try a whole bunch of things and see what works and what doesn’t — including Apple’s solutions. Shameful…]
Source: 9 to 5 Mac – Apple Intelligence

GDrive: Three Ways it Could be a Game Changer

GDrive: Three Ways it Could be a Game Changer: The difference between local and online storage in this case will not just be the absence of space limitations, the data will also be accessible to the nearly infinite computing power of Google. Though it’s a nontraditional use of the world, I think Henry Blodget is on to something important when he writes this morning about GDrive that “‘cloud computing’ represents a paradigm shift similar in magnitude to the one that ushered in the PC age.” Both for individual users and in anonymous aggregate, there’s magic that’s possible when our data is so accessible to unlimited processing power.[Everyone ready to Google with all of this? That’s what I thought…]
Source: Read/WriteWeb

Time to write our own rules

Time to write our own rules: My own version: Stop petitioning Facebook and Google to solve our problems for us. They’re not creating those problems alone. We’re been allowing them to create those problems in the first place, and we’ve been doing that for too long. Time to come up with some new rules of engagement — ones that work for us as well as them. [A continuing problem as the inversion of control will take time to build strength.]
Source: Doc Searls Weblog

Making Rules, II

Making Rules, II: What matters is the first point. (Forgive me, but the others are red herrings, even if you’re an entrepreneur hoping to make money on the advertising gravy train.) Facebook crossed a line here. They lured us into a vast stockyard, and then began to monetize us in ways that violated our quaint notion that we are not in fact cattle.

Treating users of free services like cattle is as old as TV, radio and billboards. It may be as old as people painting in caves with charcoal and spit. The difference now isn’t in Facebook’s manners, which are no different than those of NBC or the New York Times. The difference isn’t even that this time it’s personal. That’s been a holy grail for advertising since the beginning as well. Facebook is reaching for a golden ring here, and I’m inclined to forgive them for doing that. [A must read about marketplaces and understanding our role in it (or what our role should be).]
Source: Doc Searls Weblog