A friend left a message on my answering machine last night. He had been getting caught up in Slashdot, and ran across the flurry of postings earlier this week on long-in-coming fruit of motorola and apple's partnership to develop a cell phone that can play back music from Apple's iTunes music store.
His question was a simple one, which is the title of this entry, Why? What's the big deal?
I am not as interested in speculating about this upcoming device, as I am in examining why it is that there is so much interest in this product.
First, I think people are mostly not happy with their cell phones. They use them, and manage perhaps to figure out a few things that their phones can do. But clearly, there is a lot of functionality in most cell phones that people ignore -- either because there is little need, or more importantly, because the functionality is buried in a bad user interface or implementation.
The expectation is that Apple will wave a magic wand and fix this; they will create a cell phone that has the same UI magic as the iPod. There were plenty of mp3 players on the market before the iPod. However, it was Apple that gave users the whole package; not just a good mp3 player, but an excellent desktop tool to manage content. In comparing the iPod to Dell's DJ for instance, the DJ is not a bad MP3 player at all. However, the software that ships with the Dell DJ, MusicMatch, was quite buggy and harder to use than iTunes. It took a potentially good user experience and made it frustrating. I continually find it surprising that portable media player manufacturers fail to recognize that.
Secondly, an iPod phone shifts control on content away from the wireless provider to the owner and other content providers. Wireless providers would like to control the ability to move data and applications to and from the phone, because it is a potential revenue stream for them. An iPod phone would of course sync to iTunes, and a user's music library. This cuts out the wireless provider from providing their own music service.
The third reason has to with status. This I think is of limited value, but it is the sense that an Apple phone will somehow be more special than other phones on the market. The iPod's snowball success is only partially related to the fact that Apple has delivered a superior product; it is also the buzz generated that spills over to people who spend very little time worrying about OGG-Vorbis support, etc. Apple's iPod has achieved iconic status, and the expectation is perhaps that Apple's iTunes phone will achieve something similar.
I really don't what this device will look or behave like when we see it. My expectations are that it will be a somewhat conventional Motorola phone with a somewhat nicer interface, hardware and software wise, and integrated music player support. It will have a card slot so that users can add more storage. It will support all the formats that Apple's iPod supports -- specifically, the Photo iPod's support for enhanced Podcasts and images. Beyond that -- who knows.
My guess is that will will know more by the end of the day on the 7th of September.
--hal
Friday, September 02, 2005
Monday, August 29, 2005
Learning Wrong
I am back in school, still shopping around for a master's program. I think a lot about a Master of Arts degree. Currently I am signed up for a overview course on Technical Instruction, which has it's roots in things like shop, industrial training and even computer training. I think it will help me with my job, and may give me more perspective on how people learn.
We have to write a research paper during this semester, and I think I may have already picked my subject. It's titled "Learning Wrong: blah blah blah" -- okay, seriously haven't fleshed it all out yet.
Essentially, it has to do with how to approach technology and how it can be utilized. In training on how to use a lathe -- there is a specific set of learning objectives, some of which are necessary to prevent ruining the equipment or the person using it.
However, when technology is being created so quickly that it is hard to define a "right way" to use it, interesting things happen. I recommend watching this video, even if you don't care about or even despise electronic music. Also, a warning -- you have to deal with a few minutes of blah blah blah pseudo-academic talk before you get to the story itself. It is a story that any teacher that uses technology should hear.
Nate Harrison discusses a music device made by Roland that was designed to take the place of a bass player for practice. It used an interface that was completely foreign to it's intended audience, which were guitar players. The manual included lessons on how to use the device, and admonitions to not give up. Still, it was hard for some to use, and it was taken off the market after mediocre sales.
Fast forward 10 years, and people with little money but a lot of creativity are finding these things in pawn shops, etc. Not knowing a "right" way to use the device, new ways are invented to use it as a composition tool. It helps fuel a whole sub-genre of music. It is a irony that software that is a model of the device has been available for a while (Rebirth), but chooses to have it use the same interface as the physical box onscreen, with multiple knobs and an arcane interface.
We have to see technology for what it is at times. It is a creation of us, and it can be shaped by us. Part of creation is defying reason, to break through to a new reason. Sometimes we only see opportunities that we are trained to see.
This may not necessarily mean a free-for-all, because a instructor may have already tried many of these approaches themselves. They can act as a guide, but may have to let students find their own logic. At the same time, setting up an environment of possibilities to be explored can mean that they have to accept that the outcome may be different than expected.
Usually, I am a lot more clear about what I have to say here. I need to think this through more. I think there is a lesson that can be learned from the TB-303.
--hal
We have to write a research paper during this semester, and I think I may have already picked my subject. It's titled "Learning Wrong: blah blah blah" -- okay, seriously haven't fleshed it all out yet.
Essentially, it has to do with how to approach technology and how it can be utilized. In training on how to use a lathe -- there is a specific set of learning objectives, some of which are necessary to prevent ruining the equipment or the person using it.
However, when technology is being created so quickly that it is hard to define a "right way" to use it, interesting things happen. I recommend watching this video, even if you don't care about or even despise electronic music. Also, a warning -- you have to deal with a few minutes of blah blah blah pseudo-academic talk before you get to the story itself. It is a story that any teacher that uses technology should hear.
Nate Harrison discusses a music device made by Roland that was designed to take the place of a bass player for practice. It used an interface that was completely foreign to it's intended audience, which were guitar players. The manual included lessons on how to use the device, and admonitions to not give up. Still, it was hard for some to use, and it was taken off the market after mediocre sales.
Fast forward 10 years, and people with little money but a lot of creativity are finding these things in pawn shops, etc. Not knowing a "right" way to use the device, new ways are invented to use it as a composition tool. It helps fuel a whole sub-genre of music. It is a irony that software that is a model of the device has been available for a while (Rebirth), but chooses to have it use the same interface as the physical box onscreen, with multiple knobs and an arcane interface.
We have to see technology for what it is at times. It is a creation of us, and it can be shaped by us. Part of creation is defying reason, to break through to a new reason. Sometimes we only see opportunities that we are trained to see.
This may not necessarily mean a free-for-all, because a instructor may have already tried many of these approaches themselves. They can act as a guide, but may have to let students find their own logic. At the same time, setting up an environment of possibilities to be explored can mean that they have to accept that the outcome may be different than expected.
Usually, I am a lot more clear about what I have to say here. I need to think this through more. I think there is a lesson that can be learned from the TB-303.
--hal
Thursday, August 11, 2005
DRM DRM DRM
Just a little whiff of brimstone here......remember, the Catholics have it right, there are multiple levels of hell.
Electronic content vs. Books. I won't go there. Each has it's advantages. I would prefer for book publishers to make both available, and indeed, that is what some publishers have done.
My gut reaction is that DRM is a bad thing (more on that later) but we may be stuck with it for a while. Bear with me here.
Perhaps DRM is not necessarily bad, but we are working from an extreme position right now. I have focused a lot on digital media (video, audio, software) DRM, because this is the area in which it most likely to be commonplace.
As an example, if we had a video/audio DRM that allowed people to make copies, but didn't let them edit, would that be acceptable? For advertising supported video and audio content -- I would say absolutely. It would not break a business model where content is advertising supported, but would also not prevent users from doing what they are able to do now with older technology, which is record a show onto VHS tape, and share it with their friends. If you want the version without commercials, you could buy that as well.
Now -- let's think what this would mean for advertisers. P2P would suddenly be much better than regular broadcast. Advertisers would like it, because more potential viewers would see their ads, although certainly you could skip through them. Perhaps do what europeans have done, which is put ads at the beginning and end of a program, interspersed with brief cartoons to keep viewer's interest.
However, companies don't often see it that way. Let's enter the strange world of the Sony PSP for a moment.
This is a very powerful consumer media playback device and game system that is sold at a reasonable cost, perhaps for right around what it costs Sony to make it. This is because Sony will make it's money on software that runs on the device.
But......it has a memory card slot, so it could be that developers could write their own software to run on this device. So, Sony has to add software to prevent that from happening. Which is promptly broken by an active developer community. Which is then fixed by Sony. Which is then broken again.
So -- we have a device that someone purchases, but if they use it in a way that the manufacturer doesn't want to them to use it, they may be in violation of their end user agreement. Hunh? Yes........it may be that when you break the seal on your Sony PSP, and turn it on, that you are greeted with a request to agree to not to use software to circumvent copy protection software on the device, and unauthorized software execution may constitute a violation of that agreement. Will anyone get prosecuted for this? Of course not.
But, it does mean that we have entered an era where something that we buy may not entirely be ours to do whatever we want with it. If this sounds far-fetched, it is not. Someone has indeed been prosecuted for selling hardware that circumvented the DRM on Microsoft's Xbox in Australia. They were not necessarily advocating piracy (although there are plenty of cases where people where justifiably prosecuted for doing just that).
The irony for Sony is that they make it easy for consumers to put other types of content on their PSP -- pictures, MP3's, even movies. They even shipped a new firmware update (the PSP has 802.11b, and can be upgraded over the network) which fixed holes in their copy protection, but also gave users a nice web browser, and support for better video codecs (h264 mpeg-4, to be exact). It is almost as if one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
We are upset about DRM because it takes away abilities that we previously had. The textbook example is easy to get upset about, because we have had books for hundreds of years. For a long time knowledge access was a class thing (are you wealthy enough to own books), but the public library changed that, the printing press changed that. Now the internet has turned publishing upside down, as the very business/distribution model is challenged by one that has much fewer impediments.
So we live in strange times right now. Pushing back against extreme DRM positions by not buying, seeking out solutions that are more reasonable is a good start. To some extent, the marketplace will decide. There were music download services before Apple, but Apple took a more moderate approach to DRM than anyone else, and tied it to a great user experience. It is my feeling that book publishers have not done that yet.
Electronic content vs. Books. I won't go there. Each has it's advantages. I would prefer for book publishers to make both available, and indeed, that is what some publishers have done.
My gut reaction is that DRM is a bad thing (more on that later) but we may be stuck with it for a while. Bear with me here.
Perhaps DRM is not necessarily bad, but we are working from an extreme position right now. I have focused a lot on digital media (video, audio, software) DRM, because this is the area in which it most likely to be commonplace.
As an example, if we had a video/audio DRM that allowed people to make copies, but didn't let them edit, would that be acceptable? For advertising supported video and audio content -- I would say absolutely. It would not break a business model where content is advertising supported, but would also not prevent users from doing what they are able to do now with older technology, which is record a show onto VHS tape, and share it with their friends. If you want the version without commercials, you could buy that as well.
Now -- let's think what this would mean for advertisers. P2P would suddenly be much better than regular broadcast. Advertisers would like it, because more potential viewers would see their ads, although certainly you could skip through them. Perhaps do what europeans have done, which is put ads at the beginning and end of a program, interspersed with brief cartoons to keep viewer's interest.
However, companies don't often see it that way. Let's enter the strange world of the Sony PSP for a moment.
This is a very powerful consumer media playback device and game system that is sold at a reasonable cost, perhaps for right around what it costs Sony to make it. This is because Sony will make it's money on software that runs on the device.
But......it has a memory card slot, so it could be that developers could write their own software to run on this device. So, Sony has to add software to prevent that from happening. Which is promptly broken by an active developer community. Which is then fixed by Sony. Which is then broken again.
So -- we have a device that someone purchases, but if they use it in a way that the manufacturer doesn't want to them to use it, they may be in violation of their end user agreement. Hunh? Yes........it may be that when you break the seal on your Sony PSP, and turn it on, that you are greeted with a request to agree to not to use software to circumvent copy protection software on the device, and unauthorized software execution may constitute a violation of that agreement. Will anyone get prosecuted for this? Of course not.
But, it does mean that we have entered an era where something that we buy may not entirely be ours to do whatever we want with it. If this sounds far-fetched, it is not. Someone has indeed been prosecuted for selling hardware that circumvented the DRM on Microsoft's Xbox in Australia. They were not necessarily advocating piracy (although there are plenty of cases where people where justifiably prosecuted for doing just that).
The irony for Sony is that they make it easy for consumers to put other types of content on their PSP -- pictures, MP3's, even movies. They even shipped a new firmware update (the PSP has 802.11b, and can be upgraded over the network) which fixed holes in their copy protection, but also gave users a nice web browser, and support for better video codecs (h264 mpeg-4, to be exact). It is almost as if one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
We are upset about DRM because it takes away abilities that we previously had. The textbook example is easy to get upset about, because we have had books for hundreds of years. For a long time knowledge access was a class thing (are you wealthy enough to own books), but the public library changed that, the printing press changed that. Now the internet has turned publishing upside down, as the very business/distribution model is challenged by one that has much fewer impediments.
So we live in strange times right now. Pushing back against extreme DRM positions by not buying, seeking out solutions that are more reasonable is a good start. To some extent, the marketplace will decide. There were music download services before Apple, but Apple took a more moderate approach to DRM than anyone else, and tied it to a great user experience. It is my feeling that book publishers have not done that yet.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Dead Books
Remember a month or two back, about the public school that decided to move to all electronic content via laptops? One of the comments that was generated was that the "book publishers wouldn't like this".
Far from it. I am betting that the book publishers were in fact a part of the deal.
Academic book publishers have been busy reinventing themselves over the last few years. I remember meeting with a faculty member on a project we had both worked on, where the publisher was interested in bundling our content with their book. I kind of felt that things were backwards, as our imagery was of better quality than what is contained in most text books.
Book publishers are now into lots of things, such as competency testing for students using their content. The biggest proponent of room clickers? Book publishers who seek to bundle their courseware content with instant assessment systems.
The reason is not just to remain relevant "in this electronic age", it also to figure out ways to make more money on the content that they own. The problem with books is that they don't spoil. For the most part, content in a Harbrace from 15 years ago is still relevant, although the order of the pages may be shuffled from one year to the next.
The ultimate solution is to abandon books and go to electronic publishing means. It cost less for the publisher, but of course over the long term may cost more for schools, because you can add DRM, which in one small step changes the way we treat published content in a major way. With the onset of high resolution digital ink devices (such as Sony's Librie), it's possible to have an experience that offers many of the advantages of a book, but the ability to prevent people from viewing the content they paid for, after the expiration date has passed.
--hal
Far from it. I am betting that the book publishers were in fact a part of the deal.
Academic book publishers have been busy reinventing themselves over the last few years. I remember meeting with a faculty member on a project we had both worked on, where the publisher was interested in bundling our content with their book. I kind of felt that things were backwards, as our imagery was of better quality than what is contained in most text books.
Book publishers are now into lots of things, such as competency testing for students using their content. The biggest proponent of room clickers? Book publishers who seek to bundle their courseware content with instant assessment systems.
The reason is not just to remain relevant "in this electronic age", it also to figure out ways to make more money on the content that they own. The problem with books is that they don't spoil. For the most part, content in a Harbrace from 15 years ago is still relevant, although the order of the pages may be shuffled from one year to the next.
The ultimate solution is to abandon books and go to electronic publishing means. It cost less for the publisher, but of course over the long term may cost more for schools, because you can add DRM, which in one small step changes the way we treat published content in a major way. With the onset of high resolution digital ink devices (such as Sony's Librie), it's possible to have an experience that offers many of the advantages of a book, but the ability to prevent people from viewing the content they paid for, after the expiration date has passed.
--hal
Monday, July 25, 2005
Konfabulator and Widgets - Secret Revolution
Konfabulator's sale to Yahoo could be seen as a happy ending to a story about a little software company that had it's best idea appropriated by a larger company, but still came out fine. I ran Konfabulator for a while on my Mac, and while I barely make use of Dashboard now, I have to admit it is a handy thing to have.
The thing that strikes me about Dashboard and Konfabulator is that both have all the markings of a little revolution, similar to what happened with Flash. Flash started life as a very simple but nifty vector animation program, grew a whole API, and is become a geniune development platform. Now we have kid's edutainment devices that run Flash.
Yahoo! bought Konfabulator because they wanted more ways for their audience to be able to use their services. That includes, for now, Windows and Macs.
These applications take what was once web delivered data, and breaks it out into sub applications that work on the desktop. It breaks out of the browser dominated paradigm (the internet is more than a web browser). Just like the struggle with the desktop OS transition to mobile devices, the widget neatly breaks that up for the user, and at the same time offers additional opportunities for Yahoo.
What strikes me about widgets is how perfect they are for mobile applications, network delivered or not. They are simple and focused (at their best). They do one thing well. The best ones are lightweight, not sucking lots of resources in the background. They use fairly common technology, so anyone can play -- just a little xml, javascript and perhaps just a little magic.
I have to wonder about this. I have to wonder if Yahoo saw something beyond the desktop widgets, and saw an opportunity to take their data resources in a totally new direction.
The thing that strikes me about Dashboard and Konfabulator is that both have all the markings of a little revolution, similar to what happened with Flash. Flash started life as a very simple but nifty vector animation program, grew a whole API, and is become a geniune development platform. Now we have kid's edutainment devices that run Flash.
Yahoo! bought Konfabulator because they wanted more ways for their audience to be able to use their services. That includes, for now, Windows and Macs.
These applications take what was once web delivered data, and breaks it out into sub applications that work on the desktop. It breaks out of the browser dominated paradigm (the internet is more than a web browser). Just like the struggle with the desktop OS transition to mobile devices, the widget neatly breaks that up for the user, and at the same time offers additional opportunities for Yahoo.
What strikes me about widgets is how perfect they are for mobile applications, network delivered or not. They are simple and focused (at their best). They do one thing well. The best ones are lightweight, not sucking lots of resources in the background. They use fairly common technology, so anyone can play -- just a little xml, javascript and perhaps just a little magic.
I have to wonder about this. I have to wonder if Yahoo saw something beyond the desktop widgets, and saw an opportunity to take their data resources in a totally new direction.
I'm back
Back after a hiatus. I finished my part on a chapter on QT based Learning Objects (took a week) and afterwards took a break. Hope you missed me ;-)
Lots to catch up on........
Lots to catch up on........
Monday, July 04, 2005
CBC on the 4th
I have just spent the weekend doing domestic things around the house. One of the things that I did was catch up on watching the CBC.
The CBC puts their nightly newscasts online for people to watch. I wish they didn't use RealMedia to encode with (I would prefer mpeg-4), but the quality is surprisingly good. So, I actually make it a point to watch the evening news in Canada, although it is a day behind.
I should explain that I am not Canadian. My parents are not Canadian. I have only been to Canada a few times. I live in the southern US, so it's not a quick hop over the border.
Why I watch the news in Canada is for many reasons. The main reason is that I often do not have time to watch the US evening news here. Secondary is war coverage. Finally, there is the simple reason that I think it's the right way to do it.
I can imagine a time soon where one of the traditional broadcast networks here makes the leap. I just popped into a few broadcast sites (which I never do otherwise). I found ABC News "World News Tonight".
Well -- just what the doctor ordered! The ability to watch the evening news when I want. I click on the link, get a request to download a smil file, which I load into RealPlayer. It loads a window, and another window, then finally a big window that offers to let my try ABC News On Demand, for only $4.95 a month.
I close that window, and discover another behind it that looks like the web page that launched this little adventure. One half of this window is advertising. I click on the link again, and it spawns the three same windows. I then figure out that the smallest of the three is the one that actually will launch the stream, and ignore the other two. I click the link......and finally get an error that I must be having network difficulties.
Let's ignore the technical problems. After all, I am using a Mac, and using FireFox as my web browser. Maybe that is it.
Instead, let's look at the contrast. CBC: Click on link, watch video. ABCNews: Click on link, get three pop-up windows full of advertising, one of which is advertising for their own live streaming news service.
The CBC broadcast does include ads, but they are non-obtrusive to me. Here in the US, our broadcast news is advertising supported to the point where the advertising is as important as the news. Certainly this little example makes that clear to me.
Even the PBS's online efforts are weak. Some stations such as WGBH in Boston used to offer some of their programming (and I think even a live stream) at some point in the past, but not now. Just a few podcasts.
Are we at the twilight of news coverage that has a vestige of impartiality, that is not consumed by commercial interests? At least it appears that way when we look at the internet.
Or maybe it is something else, and that broadcasting as we know it is trapped by it's technology and implementation. It costs money to run a broadcast station. It cost much less money to just stream content.
In any case, I am pondering this on our 4th. Who will originate those streams? Will the government be involved, either as a regulating entity (shudder) or as a participant? What can we learn from what the CBC, and it's parent model, the BBC, does?
The reason I focus on this is that while there is much focus on podcasting, and the romantic idea of a lone voice in front of a mike, the reality is that what we want is to hear the professionals talk. The smart guys. The ones who can produce content that is clever and well done. The broadcasters know how to do this, but they seem to be late to the party.
Happy 4th.
The CBC puts their nightly newscasts online for people to watch. I wish they didn't use RealMedia to encode with (I would prefer mpeg-4), but the quality is surprisingly good. So, I actually make it a point to watch the evening news in Canada, although it is a day behind.
I should explain that I am not Canadian. My parents are not Canadian. I have only been to Canada a few times. I live in the southern US, so it's not a quick hop over the border.
Why I watch the news in Canada is for many reasons. The main reason is that I often do not have time to watch the US evening news here. Secondary is war coverage. Finally, there is the simple reason that I think it's the right way to do it.
I can imagine a time soon where one of the traditional broadcast networks here makes the leap. I just popped into a few broadcast sites (which I never do otherwise). I found ABC News "World News Tonight".
Well -- just what the doctor ordered! The ability to watch the evening news when I want. I click on the link, get a request to download a smil file, which I load into RealPlayer. It loads a window, and another window, then finally a big window that offers to let my try ABC News On Demand, for only $4.95 a month.
I close that window, and discover another behind it that looks like the web page that launched this little adventure. One half of this window is advertising. I click on the link again, and it spawns the three same windows. I then figure out that the smallest of the three is the one that actually will launch the stream, and ignore the other two. I click the link......and finally get an error that I must be having network difficulties.
Let's ignore the technical problems. After all, I am using a Mac, and using FireFox as my web browser. Maybe that is it.
Instead, let's look at the contrast. CBC: Click on link, watch video. ABCNews: Click on link, get three pop-up windows full of advertising, one of which is advertising for their own live streaming news service.
The CBC broadcast does include ads, but they are non-obtrusive to me. Here in the US, our broadcast news is advertising supported to the point where the advertising is as important as the news. Certainly this little example makes that clear to me.
Even the PBS's online efforts are weak. Some stations such as WGBH in Boston used to offer some of their programming (and I think even a live stream) at some point in the past, but not now. Just a few podcasts.
Are we at the twilight of news coverage that has a vestige of impartiality, that is not consumed by commercial interests? At least it appears that way when we look at the internet.
Or maybe it is something else, and that broadcasting as we know it is trapped by it's technology and implementation. It costs money to run a broadcast station. It cost much less money to just stream content.
In any case, I am pondering this on our 4th. Who will originate those streams? Will the government be involved, either as a regulating entity (shudder) or as a participant? What can we learn from what the CBC, and it's parent model, the BBC, does?
The reason I focus on this is that while there is much focus on podcasting, and the romantic idea of a lone voice in front of a mike, the reality is that what we want is to hear the professionals talk. The smart guys. The ones who can produce content that is clever and well done. The broadcasters know how to do this, but they seem to be late to the party.
Happy 4th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)