how we deal with real change.

I  never shut up about my beloved iPhone, but it's one of the few things I've owned in the last 5 years that has actually changed anything.  Clearly, this is more about the rise of smartphones in general, than a specific gushing about Apple's current gadget du jour.

I recently read Cory Doctorow's 'Little Brother'* on my iPhone, through Stanza.  Last night, I read several comics released in an iPhone application format, from iVerse media.  Both of these experiences got me thinking.

We deal with new technology in one of two ways, generally.  These are both examples of the first way, which is usually the most successful and the majority of uses; taking something we already do well and finding a way to emulate that on the new platform.  Taking content created for one form (print media) and finding a way to make it work reasonably well in another form.

The second way we deal with new technology is to think about the essence of things we currently do (in this case, text narrative, graphic fiction, etc), and then devise a new way to do them based on the abilities and limits of the new technology.  This is substantially more rare, because it's very easy to do poorly, and very difficult to do if new technology isn't standardized.  Also, in comparison, written text has centuries of R&D behind it, any new form is pre-Alpha, by comparison.

That said, the second method, creating a wholly new way to do something important or interesting, is where the massive transformational power is.  It's at least worth spending some time considering this approach whenever you're tasked with reconfiguring content from one medium to another.

*It's good enough that not only will I recommend it (and probably blog about ways in which it inspired me later on), but that I'm planning on giving it to the majority of YA fiction readers in my extended family, who I've always worried weren't geeky enough. 

you can't copy innovation.

I read an article, not too long ago, about the creation of a Chevrolet plug-in hybrid, and how the major goal was to actually create innovation.  I can't remember where I read it, but the major thing I took away (other than the project probably being doomed) was Toyota announcing a similar product later on, with a more restricted schedule and numbers, and a GM exec feeling accomplishment and delight, even awe, in the fact that this fearsome, dominant competitor was being a 'follower'

The BlackBerry Storm, the first touchscreen phone from RIM, is available in the next few days (I believe starting Nov 21st).

Just saying.

the real (short) meaning of mobile's rise.

Most web applications are about fitting themselves into people's computer using routine.  Whether this is embodied by RSS feeds fitting blog reading around the workflow of other tasks, or about fitting social interaction into computer time at work and home through instant messaging or social networks, tying an application to a computer meant tying an action to a location or mindset.  I didn't think of it this way at the time, but IM probably helped me get more homework done in high school, because it added an incentive to sit in front of the computer and enough distraction that actually doing the work didn't seem arduous.

Mobile applications remove the location bias from these activities.  So, Facebook and IM and GReader, etc etc etc are now fitting into my actual living routine, and the adjustment is notable.  Email is not something I check when I get to work, when I get home, etc.  Email is a way of reaching me at any time, suitable not to a location or time, but to a type of message.  Same thing with Facebook and IM.

This isn't a huge difference to the people who are spending 8 hours a day in front of a monitor anyways, but I start to feel it when I spend more time out in the city, or on location for work.  The change is notable enough that even my laptop is starting to feel cumbersome, which I would have found absurd a year ago.  My social and work information flow / social actions are becoming tied only to the flow of information, and the way I choose to connect to people.

What does this mean?  It means that it's no longer enough to make something seamless in integration with the way people work, or the way people use a machine.  It's becoming necessary to make something that seamlessly integrates with the way people want to connect.  Tying your service to a work-station, or a single machine, isn't a good idea.

If I'm going to be mobile in terms of space, you need to be mobile in terms of platform.

five things to learn from nine inch nails.

1. When selling a product, offer options that will appeal to your different types of consumer.  One offer, at one price point, is a massive number of potential consumers disappointed.
2. Offer an experience that goes beyond just the music – the music is essentially a digital file, a non-rival good.  It’s hard to convince people to pay for something that is infinitely copy-able, and therefore objectively valueless.
3. Offer both instant gratification AND a reward for investing.  If you’re competing with instant gratification (piracy), then that is your bare minimum offer.
4. The most mainstream products are both the most important from a promotional standpoint, and the most likely to be pirated.  Accept this, and use the mainstream product as a promotional tool, and the experimental product as the collector’s item.
5. Adapt your business model not to the differences in distribution, but instead to the differences in consumer behaviour and interests that those changes have enabled and created.

These points are examined at length in posts here, but I figured a quick refresher would make everyone stop and think about Trent Reznor’s recent contribution to figuring out how established acts can make money in a digital music marketplace.

microsoft will never be cool.

Not too long ago, I read an article in Fast Company about Crispin, Porter and Bogusky being hired to more or less make Microsoft cool. This is a reasonable task, from the outside – one of the most prevalent, powerful, successful companies in the world. The problem is that Microsoft is inherently the antithesis of cool. As evidenced by the recent unveiling of their new Xbox 360 Dashboard project at E3.

This is an important moment in Microsoft history. They’ve finally stopped copying Apple, and started copying Nintendo.

Microsoft wants to be cool, that’s easy to understand. Cool equals new customers. But Microsoft, to me, seems based on a simple premise that’s very hard to pull off. They wait to see what resonates with consumers, and then they remake it, with the benefit of having the most money, the best people, and the largest built in market of users.

This isn’t cool. This is the opposite of cool. And despite the model working in every other aspect of the business, you can't copy someone else's ideas and become cool. No matter how much money, time and talent you invest.

Microsoft buys success by operating on a level above, strategy-wise, from their competitors. But not as a leader or a puppet master. As a very rich, very talented follower.

I feel for CP+B. This is an impossible, endless task.

define revolutionary: Nine Inch Nails - Ghosts I-IV

The best way I can find to explain why Trent Reznor's method of releasing Ghosts I-IV is so important, is to adapt the model to another, related industry.

Imagine if, when Iron Man comes out in May, you could buy it online at midnight. Let's assume that, for the sake of this thought experiment, you get charged the full price of the DVD release for this purchase.

Now imagine that buying the film allowed you to download it in every format you could ever want, ensuring it would play on any PMP, iPod or computer, right away. Imagine that this download came with wallpapers, a soundtrack, production stills, all open for you to play with (but not for monetary reward) and all without intruding watermarks ruining them for use as wallpaper or avatars. Imagine that this purchase came with a ticket to see the movie in theatres, redeemable at any major chain.

And then imagine 2 or 3 months down the road (but preferably as soon as plausible), the DVD would arrive at your door, with special features that make it an entirely new experience.

What the release of Ghosts I-IV did was point out that information wants to be free not in terms of free beer, but in terms of free speech, and more importantly in terms of free from physical restraint. This doesn't even necessarily mean no DRM, even though it should. Purchasing something can't just be about the content anymore, because content is available free of charge via piracy. Trent Reznor realised that his customers are his fans. And what they want is to first enjoy the music as soon as possible, then be given context to engage with, then be rewarded for loyalty (shown by paying) by being given a physical product that expands upon the instant gratification of the download package. Ghosts wasn't sold as an experience that was inferior to that provided by piracy - it was sold as an experience that could not be fully replicated by piracy, or by any traditional retail model. I paid for that experience happily, as did several other people I know who wouldn't buy a CD normally.

If it wasn't for the collapse of the infrastructure supporting this idea, I think more people would have seen it for what it was - a complete acceptance than staggering release, and expecting people to abide by time delays and scarcities that information technology has made irrelevant won't work. The population of consumers is getting smarter about how they interact with media, and the barriers for entry are getting lower.

Nine Inch Nails offered fans, and the curious, a scheme that could not be replicated by a download, while still maintaining the best part of the (admittedly near-perfect) piracy experience. This is how a free market should work. Adapting to the reality of an industry, rather than attempting to legislate that time go backwards.

This idea can be traced back to a conversation with animation wizard Randeep Katari, a good friend of the broken gentleman.

memo to trent reznor (2)

I paid for the 2-disc set. I was happy to do it.

What I'm not happy about is having to try a dozen times to download the file I just paid for. It's still not working, so I've sent an email to the support staff, hopefully they can help me.

What kills me isn't that the download doesn't work. Or even that shipping and handling more than doubled the $10 price for the package. What bothers me is that the idea is so, so much better than anything else that's been tried in music distribution. What bothers me is how desperately I'd love to see it succeed. And how, to be honest, shocking it is that the absurd traffic that is ruining this experiment wasn't planned for - NIN has one of the largest, and most active, fan communities online. Did anyone think this wasn't going to be brutally hard on the infrastructure?

The point I always try to make about music isn't that free is impossible to compete with, but rather that ignoring price, illegal downloads are almost always a superior product. At last check there are nearly 3000 people seeding this album I paid for, and cannot listen to, on bittorrent. 10 dollars is reasonable, assuming the experience exceeds the one available for nothing.

Again, I don't want to crap on this model of distribution. It convinced me to pay, and is, in my opinion, a near-perfect next step from the 'Radiohead' model that had me dancing in the aisles. But if you can't compete on price, you have to compete on experience. The three-plus hours I've spent attempting to pay for, and receive, this album is not a competitive experience.

That said, I'm glad I've paid to support talented artists, an innovative delivery system, and creative commons licensed work.

i know, i know...

I am a terrible blogger. I've been working on a post on Helio's latest campaign for about 3 weeks, but I just haven't had the time what with renovations at home, and work, and upcoming crazy media event season type stuff.

But I have to make a simple comment on the new iPod touch - they are going to make a pile of money.

Things that sucked about the iPhone: U.S. only, AT&T only, no 3G, apparently unimpressive phone features.

Things that are still an issue on the iPod touch: no 3G, but it's a wi-fi iPod, not a goddamn phone, quit bitching.

Does it replace an iPod classic? Not in the least. First off, I can't imagine it'll be easy to use blind, and second, anyone with a 16 GB music / movie collection is not taking advantage of their hard drive space effectively. This is an additive product, and it speaks directly to the reptile brain of everyone who 1) really, really wanted an iPhone and 2) didn't care so much about the phone part.

I have a feeling this is a sector even larger than the people who were counting on Stevie J to save them from the tyrrany of Nokia, or whatever.

Time to start saving. Time to figure out what 16 GB of content is most essential for me to have at all times.

Time to swear to never, ever buy music at a Starbucks, just because it's the album or single of the month.

move over iphone.

Apple won me with the iPhone. Pretty, new interface ideas, and smooth minimalist design. I won't buy one until I've had the chance to play with one, but I'm obsessed enough that my girlfriend rolls her eyes when I mention the thing.

At the same time, I've had an eye on Helio for a while, after I read a fold out ad on the inside cover of an issue of Spin (I think the one with Thom Yorke on the cover, but I could be wrong). This is the first I've seen of the Helio Ocean, but it impresses.

The thing about Helio that attracts me is the complete service they offer, including 3G and data plans that understand a multimedia phone is going to eat any limited service plan, or be underused. Frankly, I'm still kinda pissed that Helio isn't available in Canada. Then again, there's been no iPhone announcement for the True North strong and free, either. [EDIT: checking the comments thread, I am entirely incorrect. Rogers it is. Sigh.] This just in, technology hates Canucks.

Offering a complete suite, a service rather than a device, is ironically enough what attracts me to Apple products. Steve Jobs likes to point out at keynotes that if you want to make great software, you should be making hardware as well. Well, if you want to make a great cell phone, create the entire experience, under your own name. It doesn't matter if someone else is providing the network to run on. Don't attach yourself and your unproven design to someone as universally despised as Cingular (Rogers seems to be the best example in Canada, although everyone hates their cellular carrier.)

I still want an iPhone, if only to toy with multi-touch to my hearts content. But innovation as a selling point only works if it's across the board.