Tag Archives: Web 2.0

DRM, The music business has to change, again.

Posted on by

I have a friend who has a site called Howzitsound. He wants to change the way we listen to music. But he wants to be unlike all of the others… Where have we heard that before? If you must know, I’m still in favor of changing the way we listen to, access, and share music, as it stands today. But by no means do I think the current model works. The system is still flawed. In fact there is a great blog post about it right here by Ian Rogers, who seems to understand that, we as listeners and purveyors of music are tired of being played<—pun intended.

What my friend wants to do is open up Howzitsound to the best and the brightest, to build the model that works best for them. He wants Howzitsound to contribute something positive to the music industry. Something sustainable. His problem is, he just doesn’t know what it is. What that ideal model is. I got news for him, neither does anyone else. Think things are ok? tell that to the woman who just lost a court case against the RIAA to the tune of<—pun intended, $200,000! Thats right she was made the poster child for anyone who has downloaded music illegally.  Oh and she has 2 children too. I’m thinking the 10-20-life law might apply here, what do you think? What message did they send by doing that? Was it necessary?

So back to what would a viable web 2.0 music model look like? What would it need to have in regards to having a large scale buy in<—-pun intended, from all of the labels as well as the current keepers of the keys to the kingdom?

What do users want? What I do know is that what they want, is to play their music on any device, access the music from any site, and have it be compatible with anything; Car, house, device, you name it. They don’t want to have to jump through hoops time and time again, and they want access to the largest catalogue possible. I hear you led Zep and Radiohead fans!

 Now I’m getting excited, look how it’s now we and not they… 🙂 We want widgets, we want contextual apps, so that we can listen to similar music, we want to be able to share our playlists and we want it to be affordable. The only problem with that limited wish list is, that like Ian Rogers said, we’ll have to wait, roughly 8 years for even the smallest of miracles in regards to headway.

Tell me what we need to do!!! Lets help my friend at Howzitsound. Someone turn him on to someone else…and lets change the music business again, lets let the users decide for a change!

Dumb People and Technology

Posted on by

According to Wikipedia:

Dumb may refer to:

  • Stupidity, the state of
  • Dumbing down, a term referring to over-simplification

I recently wrote about the fact that sometimes technology and the use thereof, may be too complicated for some “slower” people to grasp, therefore what they might use their computer for, might not neccessarily be what others use it for. Is that ok?

In creating web apps and websites, we always try to dumb down what we are creating, in the hopes that its simplicity will push it over the top in terms of the broadest possible audience grasping what we are trying to convey. In lieu of words sometimes we create icons. Yet other large manufacturers choose to assume that people will “get it” and if they have problems just call the help desk. Can you say focus group? Or lack thereof?

Maybe Dumb people shouldn’t operate computers? Maybe we underestimate the dumb person; Or perhaps they use it to go to YouTube? Do dumb people use email? Has anyone or any company actually looked at that sector of the public to see, just what they use the computer for? Is it a group that we should market to? Are we missing out on this demographic? Or do we just assume that they will get it? Isn’t it the goal of all technology innovations that they are accessible to all? If so, doesn’t that mean regardless of your mental capacity, that that person will be able to grasp it? That you, the slow one, will get it?

Is technology biased towards people who are educated? If it is, do they leave the dumb people in their wake? What are dumb people supposed to do? Rely on smarter people? Or the Geek Squad? Do dumb people want a  crack at technology and what it has to offer?  Does technology provide a fair shake to people who want to learn but just are really really challenged?

A dumb person might have the grandest of intentions when buying a computer, but what are they to do when they have to install software, get an internet connection, download updates, install security software, burn a disc, download some music from itunes, buy some porn, etc etc etc…?

You see the world is moving more and more towards a paperless virtual high speed electronic environment. But it moves at a speed that not a lot of people are comfortable with. And you know what? Technology could not care less! Social networking sites are great but I’m willing to bet the affluency of the users is solid middle class and up. Educationally, we provide our 1st graders with a solid foundation for technology, but we’ve forgotten about the boomers and some gen X’ers even, and those who may have slipped through the cracks and those that it just passed right over. For whatever reason, those people are missing out on what technology can do for them. But now that I think about it, maybe they don’t care. Maybe to them, playing FreeCell, Bejeweled and watching Videos on YouTube, is just fine…

Digital Narcissism and The “Me-Brand”,

Posted on by

One of the more facinating aspects of Web 2.0 these days, is the emergence of self made online stars, and social media experts. Or for that matter, self-created personas.  Not that it’s something that has appeard overnight, but it is something that seems to be growing at  an exponential rate.

Let me explain. Part of the reason that YouTube, MySpace and Facebook, to name a few, have become so popular is the freedom to express oneself in creative ways. The tools that these sites provide empower the user. 7 years ago we wanted to package these tools and sell them as “content managment solutions”. Someone beat everyone to the point and said, why don’t we just release these tools as a  free web service that users can use to communicate and share and interact with others.

What this has fostered though, is the desire for people to show the world or their web audience what they’re all about.  In some cases, with all it’s flaws, cracks, and boorish moments. It’s their way of creating their own star vehicles without the assistance of PR companies, 8×10 glossies and breakout movie roles. All it takes is for someone to virally pass the message, the image, the  words or whatever of that person on to another, and it spreads faster than dead grass burning in the summer. It will appeal to someone. In some cases, it will appeal to a lot of people.

If that happens, some web savvy individuals take that to the next level and parlay their instant web street cred stardom in dollars.

It’s perpetuated though by the users, the audience and the readers who for whatever reason have this voyeuristic thirst for this type of content. Amateur content if you will, thrives online because it’s real. Why do you think Americas funniest videos was able to thrive? Because, we were seeing people as they really were. In their worst and best moments. That same premise exists today currently with the social networking sites, and historically with online chat. The package isn’t packaged, it’s not watered down, it’s real. Real to the extent, that who we are watching or what we are reading is who they really are. Or what they want us to think.

Lets not forget that the Net has a way of distorting things, even when it comes to social networking. We can create a version of who we are, and we can step into that skin and be that person, even to the extent that that person can go on a webcam and be someone that they are not. Why? Digital narcissim. A desire to be something that we are not. To enjoy the exposure of our nameless and faceless peers to the extent that we are willing to go farther online then we would ever go in our real world lives.

It’s almost as if the 20 minutes of fame can be extended online indefinitely. Because the lights never go off online, there is always an audience somewhere for your brand. Even communication has taken on a new meaning online. A new universal language is spoken online. TTYL, BBL, OMG. Your brand, as niche-like as it can possibly be, has an audience somewhere. Because of the diverse nature and universal appeal of everything digital, you can feed the habit, grow your brand and extend it as far as you can, merely by finding your clan. Your pack. Your tribe.

Once you find it, you can be whoever you want to be and market and package yourself, whatever way you want to be perceived; and people, Your people, have no choice but to buy what you are selling, because you have found each other. You’re the brand they were looking for. My only other question would be, How cannibalistic are these tribes?  Do they eat their own? My guess is that there are unspoken and unwritten rules that are played out time and time again. If the rules are violated, regardless of your brand. You can flame out pretty quickly. So my guess is yes, the web does eat its own.

Readwriteweb.com

Posted on by

I totally dig this site  Read/WriteWeb  It is a popular weblog that provides Web Technology news, reviews and analysis. But for some reason, the way they present this info and analysis, is fresh. Maybe it’s because it speaks to the things that I think are more relevant to my space, and our space for that matter, but I think it’s worthy of my readers to check it out. Trust me. They write about where we are going with our technology. How’s that?