leveraging boredom.
I bought an app on my iPhone yesterday specifically because I was bored. This does not bode well.
I bought an app on my iPhone yesterday specifically because I was bored. This does not bode well.
posted by
jon crowley
at
11:53 AM
1 comments
I've been thinking that Microsoft and Apple have more or less the same plan, when you stop and think about it.
I will be the first to admit that owning an iPhone rather than an iPod has resulted in a massive shift from listening to music, to watching video. That said, it's still my primary music device, and it opens some interesting possibilities. Two notable things I've seen:
posted by
jon crowley
at
11:38 AM
0
comments
tags: apple, applications, iPhone, iPod, music, NIN, recontextualisation
I realized something while sitting at a stoplight, downloading an application from the mobile version of the iTunes application store onto my iPhone.
posted by
jon crowley
at
9:28 AM
0
comments
tags: apple, applications, fiction, iPhone, matrix
I haven't bought Leopard yet, because despite an impressive set of features, I keep hearing horror stories about it not working properly without a clean install. And I just downlaoded an iPhone update that included the phrase 'crashing' when it listed it's fixes.
posted by
jon crowley
at
3:02 PM
0
comments
And now, the broken gentleman's top 10 iPhone apps, based on usefulness, coolness, and how excited they make me.
posted by
jon crowley
at
4:15 PM
0
comments
tags: apple, applications, iPhone, itunes
posted by
jon crowley
at
6:11 PM
0
comments
tags: apple, digital distribution, dr. horrible, itunes
This time, I think, I've centered on why the iPhone impresses me so very much. It's not just a phone with mobile internet. It's the first thing I've used that has actually incorporated nearly all of my mediated communications into one package, that fits into my pocket.
posted by
jon crowley
at
12:02 PM
0
comments
tags: apple, cell phones, communication, iPhone
I'm weighing in now; the people who love to argue that the iPhone is overpriced, over-hyped, and inferior to the Blackberries they have been using for the last couple years, are the equivalent of the people who until 2003 or so, would argue that Apple products were overpriced crap, and that Windows was vastly superior, and the far more intelligent choice.
You're confusing familiarity with usability. You're arguing that a cheaper, more limited experience is always better than a more expensive, broader one. And, more than slightly amusing since we're living in the soon-to-be cloud computing age, you're arguing that a full featured, desktop class mobile web browsing environment isn't a game breaker.
We're living in times of change. Microsoft has stopped copying Apple in favour of Nintendo, and the new 'sensible' choice in competition with Apple is RIM's Blackberry.
[N.B. - I am currently less than 24 hours into owning an iPhone. I am reserving the right to revise my impressions if this just turns out to be afterglow.]
posted by
jon crowley
at
4:00 PM
2
comments
tags: apple, blackberry, cloud computing, iPhone, microsoft
Nike’s Human Race is probably the best promotion I’ve heard of this year. This is fairly unsurprising, considering it’s directly tied to Nike+, a joint product of Nike and Apple, the two greatest media machines in the corporate world.
The premise is dead simple. You’ve got an army of people, running all over the world, using the Nike+ product to track their progress, training against themselves day after day. You use the product, and the behaviour they’ve integrated into their daily lives, and you make it a marathon, run individually, tracked over the software. A global event that has no costs tied directly to the physical event. Just aggregating the data that’s already being tracked and stored, creating a central side for participants to visit, and donating some of the massive advertising budget to publicize the event.
I personally have only heard about it through local radio, but I don’t see why it would need to be a huge media blitz, considering the only participants are those who already use the Nike+ system, and are therefore accessible through that channel.
This is what the internet is for: taking people from different areas, with different experiences, and reminding them that they are indeed connected. Attaching that feeling of connectedness with your product, which the consumer has already connected to a physical pursuit, and achievements related to that pursuit, furthers the long, impressive history of Nike crafting itself as something people want to be associated with for competitive, social, and quality reasons.
That, and really, a global crowd-sourced marathon called the Human Race is more or less guaranteed to get my attention.
posted by
jon crowley
at
6:36 PM
0
comments
tags: advertising, apple, crowdsourcing, nike, pr
I am probably going to go to the Fido store nearest work on monday, to see what my options are in procuring an iPhone.
posted by
jon crowley
at
8:27 PM
0
comments
The perception of a barrier is more important than the realities of that barrier.
This is equally true of whether or not you can get someone to pay for a product or service, whether they will pay twenty nine dollars but not thirty, whether they will change their behaviour around your product or service, or whether they will watch / eat / do what-have-you in a new location.
The issue isn’t simplifying the barrier, or even minimizing it. The issue is the existence of that barrier.
The reason itunes is important is it carefully removed the perception of barrier from the music buying experience. You use the same program to buy music that you use to play music. Once your details are logged, you just click through. In the same window you use to play your music.
Buying a song has the same fundamental user experience as playing a song you already have, or subscribing to a podcast.
So, to dispute a point I made earlier, it is still logical to attempt to make money selling music. Assuming the manner in which you sell music is not too divergent from what your market would be doing anyway. It’s not the price point that matters (25 cent MP3s are just as expensive in terms of time and effort as 99 cent ones). It’s the perceived barrier.
posted by
jon crowley
at
1:40 PM
0
comments
tags: apple, itunes, music, perception
So. This is how Microsoft could take over the digital music market, and create a whole new revenue stream in the process:
Before any of this starts, I love Apple to the point where it makes my significant other jealous from time to time. Steve Jobs is one of my heroes, slightly outranked by Fake Steve Jobs. I've bought three iPods, and am planning on a fourth already. My Macbook is necessary in the same way food and oxygen are.
But the approach they've taken to music is hilariously dependent on the labels they are fighting with over control. Luckily, I think Apple considers iTunes a means to the end of selling iPods the world over. This is, mainly, what it does in a manner that is above reproach.
Microsoft has several major advantages that have gone unused, or underused. 1) They are selling a player that has the ability to trade music built in to every unit. 2) Every major music label is looking for a credible place to turn that isn't Apple, and that is more willing to negotiate terms. 3) Microsoft is sitting on a massive user-base who trusts (or at least tolerates) their products. 4) Microsoft is Microsoft.
The music sharing functions on the Zune are crippled by DRM. This is inarguable, and definitely had to be thrust upon the company by the music industry partners they needed to launch the accompanying music service. Still, this is the game changing tool that is needed. Music is social. Music is supposed to be shared, and learned about through social connection, and that requires sharing. There was a time when that meant inviting someone over and playing it for them, but now it involves copies.
This is the main issue that isn't discussed. Music is not what it was. This is no longer a market defined by selling slabs of plastic. It's about offering context and convenience, because the competition is the now normalized act of online piracy. This is the basis of subscription models, which, if memory serves, is what Gates and Co are trying to push.
The first thing Microsoft would have to do is unlock the sharing function. Make it so that any song traded from Zune to Zune is traded permanently. This, obviously, will be a hard sell to anyone in the music industry. So, there's a simple solution. Make one of the requirements of the sharing function is that anyone who is not signed up with the Zune marketplace, or social, or whatever it's called this week, gets files wrapped in timed-delete DRM. Everyone subscribed, go nuts. Free and easy trading to anyone with a subscription, because in a sub-based service, they're getting the music anyways.
However, this is all useless unless you get people to try the damn thing, first. Which is why you need to bundle a year's subscription to every new Zune unit.
Unfettered sharing is a useful thing. So, it has the potential to become addictive. Let it do so. This will require concessions to the labels (as everything does) so offer them, at first, a percentage of the price of each new Zune. That might not be enough, but there are still two things up your sleeve at this point.
Firstly, you're Microsoft. The biggest, strongest, most willing to take a loss in the short term, most likely to break into a market already won and take over company in memory. Honestly, the major battle-cry here should be 'Apple dominates the market, and has defined the category? Well, we've never won in THAT situation before...' Play hardball. Make concessions, but make it clear that this is a no-holds-barred fight for control of the market, and not siding with you is like deciding in advance not to succeed. Artists with clout are already leaving labels and creating their own distribution channels. If a major one takes off, and a label has locked itself out of it for no good reason, well, you end up in the situation the music labels are now, with execs approaching senility wondering if that Fanning boy can still get them a dominant position in the market, like he was talking about back in the day.
Be Microsoft. Make it work, because crossing you is generally idiotic.
Secondly, and most importantly, offer them a whole new revenue stream.
In allowing open sharing between any Zune subscriber, which, at first, means any Zune user, you gain access to data. In something as simple as getting users to give you an email address, and A/S/L info, you gain access to a horrendous amount of information. Not only do you get demographic breakdown of who likes what music, and how it spreads among ages and locations, but you get something truly unprecedented. By tracking sharing, you get an epidemiology of music, information on who the influencers are, who shares music, who is the first in an area or social circle to discover it, and how many people they send it to. You get real time information on the popularity of an artist - not through plays, which though useful are misleading, but through exposure, who is downloading, who is sharing, and who is re-sharing.
This information alone is worth losing money for a few years for. Not just to target advertising, but from a logistics perspective. Imagine the ability to plan a tour to maximize attendance, and therefore profit, at every stop - every single show in a place where the artist is at the peak of popularity. Imagine creating a market for selling this information to touring bands, imagine offering it to managers, to labels, etc, for either money or cooperation. This works for indie acts, as well. They more than anyone need a good turnout at shows, just to make money - price it on a sliding scale, and this information suddenly gets indie acts working with majors on a regular basis, for survival.
Imagine targeting advertising for an artist, or similar artists, to areas where they are right near a breaking point. Imagine trackable word of mouth.
This is ignoring completely random ideas, such as taking the influencers identified for this information, and slipping them preview tracks for new albums or artists. If they like, it, it gets distributed and re-distributed. Completely organic buzz and anticipation, kicked off from a concrete, calculated standpoint.
I've worked out further uses, and further details to make the plan work smoothly, but it's a moot point, as I don't run the Zune division of Microsoft. Other companies could technically do the same thing, but they either lack the software influence, the compatible hardware, or the influence to do it in a game-changing way. This is a method of offering something superior in user experience to a generation used to free music with minor hassle. They need something to play it on. And if Microsoft has taught us anything from the Xbox, it's that taking a loss in the short term, or even the shorter long term, is worth having serious sway in the market.
This is one way to do it.
posted by
jon crowley
at
2:31 PM
1 comments
tags: apple, crossreferencillia, iPod, music, ux design, viral marketing, zune
Oh god I played with an iPod touch for 10 mins at the Eaton Centre yesterday.
I know it's first gen, I know it's overpriced, I know no sane person browses the internet on a 3 inch screen.
I Want One. Desperately.
(For extra geek points, first think I did with it? Surfed to BrokenGent and saw how it was navigated via multi-touch.)
Apple has developed a severely customer unfriendly business model in it's non-pc business, and yet they continue to grow based on an unmatched ability to create pure consumer lust.
I am Steve Jobs' bitch, and I have a problem.
posted by
jon crowley
at
10:49 PM
0
comments
tags: apple, design, iPod, technology, ux design
Two posts in one day? Something disruptive must have happened.
I recall, earlier this summer, a conversation with a friend, relating to the UX of the iPod, and what could trump it. This pops back into my mind because the iPod touch is basically forcing me to laugh at microsoft.
The Zune was interesting because it had a big screen (a beautiful screen, from everything I've heard) and wi-fi. These were the features that everyone saw and started muttering 'iPod killer' over. And with good reason. When bitching about the iPod's UX (which took some thinking, but there were still complaints) my major problems were 1) no search mechanism on the ipod itself other than scrolling, 2) have to be hooked to a computer to download music. This discussion went immediately to how simple it would have been for MSFT to address at least one of these issues, if they hadn't put so much effort into appeasing the DRM lust held by music labels, tv networks, movie studios, et al.
I'm not laughing at Microsoft because they are releasing a new set of Zunes into a marketplace that refuses to stay static long enough for them to play it safe. I'm laughing at Microsoft because the Zune proves, to me at least, that they can no longer even steal ideas and improve on them effectively. The fact that there was a wi-fi enabled, bigger screened competitor available for so long, and they managed to make it less appealing not in spite of the wi-fi, but BECAUSE of it, boggles the mind.
And then Apple walks back into the throne room and says 'Oh yeah, wi-fi, cute idea. Maybe we'll let people use it for what they want, and what it can do'.
I'm laughing because the idea of being able to download music directly to your music player is actually somewhat revolutionary in the current western marketplace. I'm laughing because I want it so badly.
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.
posted by
jon crowley
at
9:49 AM
0
comments
tags: apple, capitalism, innovation, iPhone, itunes, technology
When I first made my never-far-from-the-conversation switch to Apple, I decided I was going to put my actions up against my words, and use OpenOffice for all of my text editing needs. And, for a little while, it was tolerable. When a fellow user and friend switched back to microsoft Word, he did so because OpenOffice felt like 'a windows app that just happens to run on a mac.' I later corrected him that it was much more like a linux app that just happens to run on a mac, but you get his point.
I persevered. But, today, I reached my breaking point. The hassle of settings, of formatting, of doing pretty much anything other than entering text, was getting to me. Hell, the hassle of saving a set of changes, and then opening .doc files to find that they had reverted, got to me. Moreover, my friend was right. The interface was hideous, counter-intuitive, and didn't work well with anything in a .doc biased world.
Today I learned something very odd. Microsoft products can look appealing. Apparently only when they are coded for a Mac, though. Confusing. Still, I had to abandon my open source ideals, and for one simple reason; it doesn't work well enough.
It works, inarguably. I COULD, if forced, live with using only that one program. But, for me, open source isn't just about escaping the tyrrany of massive corporations, or harnessing the power of crowdsourcing. For me, open source is mostly about creating alternatives to fight the limitations intentionally imposed on users for corporate gain.
Today I learned that unintentional limitations and failings are worse, on an individual experience level. Worse because being unable to do what you are supposed to do will always be more glaring than being unable to do something the designer doesn't want you to do.
Still, using Word makes me feel dirty. Maybe I should switch to Pages...
posted by
jon crowley
at
12:42 AM
0
comments
tags: apple, applications, drm, microsoft, open source
I haven't actually had the opportunity to NOT buy one yet, being Canadian, but I have essentially made it impossible for me to justify doing it financially, whenever it is that the iPhone gets a Canadian release. I am trying not to lust after the thing further, and the only method I have is to list the things that piss me off about it. Not the least of which is, the oft mentioned moratorium on third party development. No outside programs on your iPhone unless they run online, without flash. And over embarrassingly slow EDGE service.
Funnily enough, part of the reason I bought a Mac was to avoid Vista, because everything I'd heard had led me to believe that it was a DRM devil OS, designed to penalize me for using any non-microsoft approved software.
And yet, here we are.
I never cease to be impressed by Apple's ability to use it's position as a contender to obscure the decidedly non-little-guy-friendly stances being taken with iPods, the iTunes music store, and now the iPhone. The ubiquity of Apple branded media playing devices makes them, in my mind, one of the worst offenders when it comes to sales of locked media. At the same time, I'm typing this on a MacBook, which is connected to an iPod, and I'm saving for an AppleTV (my reasoning is at least somewhat solid on that one, see below). Obviously, I have developed a kind of cognitive dissonance that can only be described as having taken a liking to the Kool-Aid.
It was easy for me to blow off Microsoft products wherever possible, mostly because the simple act of USING them is enough to make you hate the corporation. Couple that with a distaste for practices, and I'm out the door. However, my Mac is a joy to use. The mixture of iPod and iTunes is, in my opinion, the best digital music experience (from a UX standpoint), and that makes it harder for me to flip out when I hear that there will be no third party apps on the latest Apple object of obsession.
I don't like this hypocrisy coming from my end, but I'm having a hard time seeing an out. So, I look at all the post-release hullabaloo coming from the south, and I'm repeating flaws like a mantra because there are MANY justifiable reasons to dislike the device. But at the same time, Apple has, in recent years, developed some kind of direct stimulation for the 'BUY IT' reaction in my reptile brain.
So I'm looking for a happy compromise, like maybe Jobs will wake up tomorrow and consider policies that are better for the community at large, even if they slightly complicate things in Cupertino.
[In relation to the AppleTV, I want one as a solution to two problems; 1) I hate waiting for DVDs, 2) I don't keep a TV schedule. An addendum to this is, even though I pay for cable, I think subscribing to specific shows over iTunes on a per season basis would be a reasonable and useful option for me. And, even the time spent 'finding' 'reruns' is worth enough that I would be willing to pay.
That, and the salve to my conscience that would come from actually paying for battlestar galactica.]
As of today, as of this post, I am a Mac Panther. That is right, I have finally abandoned the microsoft universe and am now the proud (absurdly proud) owner of a macbook.
What does this mean to the readers of BrokenGentleman.com? Very, very little. But it does mean the beginning of mobile posting, and of more frequent updates. Oh, and of slightly more justification for my apple love.
Thought of the day is the lack of activity in the front of the poster as a narrative medium. I mean, Chris Ware does it, and I have a great Ray Fawkes print sitting on my desk, still awaiting framing, but why is there so little mixture of cartooning techniques with the idea of displaying it as an addition to a room?
More of this later, right now I have to back up 40 gigs of music, carefully and legally purchased over the years.
posted by
jon crowley
at
11:48 PM
0
comments
tags: apple, comics, explanation.
Very, very often, and depressingly, I run into an article that sounds very interesting, but end up finishing it with the thought 'and...?'
This piece, though written well enough, left me with that feeling.
Maybe it's because I'm one of the 20-something university students the article deals with, but it can basically be summarised as 'new methods of distribution change the way people interact with content.' This is, to someone of my generation, similar to a news bulletin that reads 'eating found to reduce hunger', and I hope most people would get the same response.
The article does make the comparison to DVD content, and the difference of experience that comes with watching a story in succession, rather than parceled out by the creators or corporations. Technology is about control, and being able to determine when and how you watch a TV show is worth 1.99 an episode, or 25 bucks a season.
"What will be interesting to see is how the iTunes model will eventually affect these 20-somethings’ viewing habits as they get older. [...] Whether through the “low-tech”method of waiting for DVD box sets to be released, or the instant gratification of the iTunes Store, it looks like viewing habits are being molded."
What's actually interesting, in my opinion, is not just the changing of viewing habits, but the changing of the model of communication, and the alteration of the social experience. Television creates cultural moments because it creates a situation where a large number of people are watching the same thing at the same time. In the 20-somethings of today, you can rarely have a conversation about the episode of heroes that aired last night, because three people are still downloading it.
The article mentions convenience, and scheduling, but misses the larger point. The target audience of many television shows is now unwilling to be told how to watch, when to watch, and even less willing to watch only once. We're used to having control over our entertainment and information, and television is a blip on the otherwise consistent evolution of entertainment content; where, at least to a point, the user decided how and when things will be done. When you see a play or a movie, you pick which showing, fitting it into your life. With a book, you read how ever much you want, whenever you want.
Television networks and cable companies have created a system that works well for them, and that model doesn't shift well. Content on demand means that product placement can't be supplementary television advertising, it means that you won't get viewers for crap just by placing it before or after something of high quality.
It's not that viewing habits are being molded. The issue now is whether the television business model will continue to be adapted to the way people interact with TV shows now, or if they will fall into an embarrassing strategy of harassing consumers to ignore technologies they don't approve of, like another industry based on entertainment content.
[Short commentary on end link: Is this happening? This is beyond idiocy, and far past the border into self-parody. I'd post on it at length, but I don't think I could do it without my head hurting.]
posted by
jon crowley
at
7:51 PM
1 comments
tags: apple, broadcast, itunes, paradigm shift, tv