Archive for the 'Technology' Category

On Jan. 4, 2008, in his article “Death of DRM Could Weaken iTunes, Boost iPod” Dave Kravetz of Wired wrote:

“The report that Sony BMG is moving to DRM-free downloads represents the music industry’s white-flag concession that its copyright-protection scheme created a powerhouse in Apple’s iTunes Store while failing to combat piracy.” Wot!

Happily, we couldn’t agree more. Punks hate DRM, if not out of principle then simply how poorly attempts at “digital rights management” have been executed.

But besides just failing to combat piracy, DRM has also been a total fiasco for record companies in terms of PR devaluation.

Keeping with the Sony BMG example, a few of you may recall that not far down the memory hole, in October 2005, there was quite a row over the “rootkit” shenanigans perpetrated by the naughty and positively Orwellian Sony.

Installing hidden software on customers’ computers that open up security holes on your system, slow down your computer, or cause it to crash??

Talk about bad PR karma.

And the back lash was tremendous in the wake of Mark Russinovich’s (appropriately dated) October 31, 2005 blog post “Sony, Rootkits and Digital Rights Management Gone Too Far” In the end, citizen journo Russinovich showed Sony his own version of “digital rights management” and gave them a digi-journali-tal smackdown.

And while many of us may be cheering the DRM death knell being sounded, it remains to be seen if Sony-like companies have learned from their mistakes. There’s already talk of the next stage in the evolution of this intellectual property trend at Wired—a/k/a watermarking.

And as we bid a not-so-fond farewell to DRM, we close with a parting question for all the: “Was all the bad press really worth it?”

Answer to be seen.

Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, that brilliant and precocious 23 year-old who has grown the social networking website to a paper value of $15biilion, posted on his blog yesterday an apology to Facebook users for the way its advertising program, Beacon, was clumsily introduced.

He writes: “About a month ago, we released a new feature called Beacon to try to help people share information with their friends about things they do on the web. We’ve made a lot of mistakes building this feature, but we’ve made even more with how we’ve handled them. We simply did a bad job with this release, and I apologize for it.”

The mistakes he is referring were that Beacon alerted Facebook users’ network of friends when they bought something on other websites, such as Overstock.com and Fandango.com, without giving them an easy way to opt out. The idea behind Beacon is interesting - that people learning what their friends are buying acts as an implicit recommendation for those items - but the fact that it was being done for them by someone else without their involvement, wasn’t so cool. It’s like me fishing in your trash can for your store receipts (you haven’t spotted me yet have you?) and then telling other people what you’ve bought. Not illegal, but certainly a bit creepy.

Mr. Zuckerberg had to be reminded by Facebook users that they didn’t want their privacy abused in this way before he did anything about it, but now he’s contrite so I guess that’s all fine. But, how much damage has he done to the reputation of Facebook as an “open platform,” I wonder? And next time the website is valued, how much less might it be worth as a result?

Here is an editorial written by a college student who is one of four winners of this Fall Semester’s Weekender College Edition contest, and which brilliantly encapsulates what it means to be a young adult consumer in the new media lansape. This and the other three winning entrants can be seen on www.cynopsis.com

“An Open Letter From The On-Demand Generation:
by Michael Krepack, Senior/New York University, Major: Entertainment, Media & Technology

We, the On-Demand Generation, would like to respectfully inform you that the future of TV is here. No longer will we be bullied into watching TV on your time. Welcome to a new era: “Appointment TV” is now “Instant TV.”

We’re well aware that today’s media landscape is rapidly changing, but for those of us in the On-Demand Generation our lifeblood necessitates consuming content in myriad platforms. We read The New York Times online; we scan YouTube for the latest viral videos; we download music from the iTunes Store. We require one thing: instant gratification.

Yet, you insist on distributing content the old fashion way (especially you, the five major broadcasting networks, you’re on notice). Granted, you have begun to embrace new media (mobisodes anyone?) and made some inroads in distributing your TV shows online (and, from what we garner from the WGA strike, at a financial loss), but you’re selling us short.

While you toil developing the right platform to deliver your content (as if there has to be one correct method), the era of “Primetime TV” has vanished just as fast as Viva Laughlin! Until we take over as gatekeepers, we request you give us what we want, when we want it. How about embracing, instead of admonishing time-shifted viewing?

As we shy further away from the TV dinner programming schedule, take a page out of the Pay-TV playbook - repurpose your shows on an on-demand platform. Create a world where each broadcast channel has its own on-demand channel where full episodes of shows appear alongside made-for-demand programming.

In terms of a revenue source, why not charge a monthly premium for subscribers? Then again, you could make it free and tack-on commercials in the same vain you do now for shows online (just air them in HD, please).

This new interactive TV connects you with us. Directly. Adapt or lose. The On-Demand Generation is here to stay. Armed with our DVRs, iPods and Slingboxes we are loud, proud and always tuned on.

Sincerely Yours,
The On-Demand Generation
Sent Via iPhone, while watching TV on the iPhone”

It’s amazing what a bit of consumer outcry and healthy competition will do.

First Apple decides to reverse its previous decision on letting third party developers create applications for its new iPhone. At launch, Steve Jobs said it was a closed shop, but more recently, after a bit of consumer criticism on his stance, he have them the green light to develop at will.

And earlier this week a consortium led by Google announced plans to launch the OpenSocial social networking platform, enabling professional and amateur developers to create applications that can be used on all of the participating platforms. As of today these include Google’s Orkut (it’s big in Brazil, apparently), LinkedIn, Salesforce.com, Ning, Hi5, Friendster (I thought they were friendless and had now folded, but I guess I was wrong), Viadeo, Oracle and - announced today - the big kahuna of them all, MySpace. This is of course in response to the success that Facebook has had since it opened up its own platform earlier this year to third party developers, helping build its numbers of subscribers to 50 million.

But the biggest shake-up of them all is going to be in mobile. In a couple of week’s time Google will reveal its plans to launch software that will be “open,” so allowing developers to create services that take advantage of Google’s applications - using GPS to find a store on a GoogleMap, for instance. Google has been talking to phone manufacturers as well as to the service providers here and in Europe, although the (dis)likes of Verizon and ATT&T clearly hate the thought that they won’t be able to control what their customers can access through their networks (so if we’re a Verizon subscriber and want music on our handsets we have to take their V-CAST service).

If this duopoly doesn’t want to play ball, Google has an ace up its sleeve - it will almost certainly try and set up its own network and will bid in next January’s Government auction of the wireless spectrum. The winning bid is likely to be around $15billion, and with over $200billion in the bank it’s a price big G can well afford.

So, Apple, Verizon, ATT&T and all other corporations desperate to wall in your customers, read the signs. And learn the lessons of AOL when it too tried to tie subscribers into its own set of ‘approved services’ - subscribers who then left in their millions once they realized there was a better life outside the corporate confines.

Tom Anderson and Chris DeWolfe must be pretty upset today. The two founders of monster social networking site MySpace had sold it lock stock and barrel to NewsCorp for $580million in 2005. Just a few months later all of that investment and more ($900million to be precise) was recouped through a deal with Google in which it would became search engine partner for MySpace. And now Rupert Murdoch is considering swapping it for a 25% stake in Yahoo!

At the time, the deal seemed sweet: so sweet, in fact, that many observers thought Murdoch must have lost his wrinkled mind to pay that sum of money for MySpace. But then, in early 2006, Google (yes, THEM again) snapped up upstart online video site, YouTube, for $1.6billion, and its two founders, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, found themselves a few hundred million dollars richer.

The MySpace duo fumed.

No wonder they took umbrage and started to think they’d been ripped off by wily old Aussie, Murdoch. MySpace had far higher numbers of subscribers than that Johnny-come-lately YouTube and a business model that was bringing in real cash, not just column inches. So, in June this year, Anderson and DeWolfe decided to ask Rupert for more cash in compensation - to the (name that) tune of $12.5million a year each - to stay on after their contracts expired! Murdoch has counter-offered with $7.5million each for two years and, as far as I know, the discussions are still going on.

But, hot off the press (and long awaited) news about a deal between Microsoft Corp and Facebook must be making the two MySpace founders more bitter still. Today Microsoft said it was paying $240million for a 1.6% stake in Facebook - a site a mere four years old that again has way fewer users than MySpace - valuing it at around $15billion (or 25 times the amount MySpace was sold for). Grrr! And Mark Zuckerberg, the 23-year old founder of Facebook, frees up some cash for a bit of money for pocket money (to buy a Lear Jet, for instance) while staying firmly in control. GRRRRRRR!!!!

The moral of the tale? There is none. Murdoch is a shrewd dude who saw the potential of MySpace and snapped it up as the, what now looks to be, bargain of the century. Mark Zuckerberg is half a century (53 years!) younger and is every bit as savvy. And DeWolfe and Anderson made it big, but perhaps sold out too early (easy to say in hindsight). So, sorry Tom and Chris. Buy me some Cristal and I’ll help you commiserate.