It was a nondescript bar in the American Midwest, the sort of place where working men drop in at the end of the day to unwind before they head home. You wouldn't expect to find two senior business executives there, and as I sat in the empty bar at midday I wondered if maybe my contact had given me a bad lead. But then the door opened and a general manager from one of the leading web companies walked in, followed by a senior VP from one of the US's biggest mobile network operators. I hunched down in the shadows of a corner booth and typed notes quietly as they settled in at the bar.
Bartender: What'll you have?
Telecom executive: Michelob Light.
Web executive: I'll have a Sierra Nevada Kellerweis.
Bartender: Keller-what?
Web executive: Um, Michelob Light.
Telecom executive: Thanks for coming. Did you have any trouble finding the place?
Web executive: All I can say is thank God for GPS. I've never even been on the ground before between Denver and New York.
Telecom executive: I wanted to find someplace nondescript, so we wouldn't be seen together. The pressure from the FCC is bad enough already, without someone accusing us of colluding.
Web executive: No worries, my staff thinks I'm paragliding in Mexico this weekend. What's your cover story?
Telecom executive: Sailboat off Montauk.
Web executive: Sweet. So, you wanted to talk about this data capacity problem you have on your network...
Telecom executive: No, it's a data capacity problem we all have. Your websites are flooding our network with trivia. The world's wireless infrastructure is on the verge of collapse because your users have nothing better to do all day than watch videos of a drunk guy buying beer.
Web executive: Welcome to the Internet. The people rule. If you didn't want to play, you shouldn't have run the ads. Remember the promises you made? "Instantly download files. Browse the Web just like at home. Stream HD videos. Laugh at an online video or movie trailer while travelling in the family car."
Telecom executive: That was our marketing guys. They don't always talk to the capacity planners. Besides, who could have known that the marketing campaign would actually work?
Web executive: Don't look at me. I've never done a marketing campaign in my life. I think you should just blame it on A--
Telecom executive: You promised, no using the A-word.
Web executive: Sorry. But I still don't see why this is a problem. Just add some more towers and servers and stuff.
Telecom executive: It's not that simple. The network isn't designed to handle this sort of data, and especially not at these volumes. Right now our biggest problem is backhaul capacity -- the traffic coming from the cell towers to our central servers. But when we fix that, the cell towers themselves will get saturated. Fix the towers and the servers will fall over somewhere. It's like squeezing a balloon. We have to rebuild the whole network. It's incredibly expensive.
Web executive: So? That's what your users pay you for.
Telecom executive: But most of them are on fixed-rate data plans. So when we add capacity, we don't necessarily get additional revenue. It's all expense and no profit. At some point in the not-too-distant future, we'll end up losing money on mobile data.
Web executive: Bummer.
Telecom executive: More like mortal threat. Fortunately, we've figured out how to solve the problem. The top five percent of our users produce about 50% of the network's total traffic. So we're just going to cap their accounts and charge more when they go over.
Web executive: Woah! Hold on, those are our most important customers you're talking about. You can't just shut them down.
Telecom executive: The hell we can't. They're leeches using up the network capacity that everyone else needs.
Web executive: Consumers will never let you impose caps. You told them they had unlimited data plans, that's the expectation you set. You can't go back now and tell them that their plans are limited. They won't understand -- and they won't forgive you.
Telecom executive: First of all, the plans were never really unlimited in the first place. There's always been fine print.
Web executive: Which no one read.
Telecom executive: Off the record, you may have a point. On the record, the fact is that you can retrain users. Look, you grew up in California, right?
Web executive: What does that have to do with anything?
Telecom executive: Once upon a time, there weren't any water meters in California. Now most of the major cities have them, and they'll be required everywhere in a couple of years. Something that was once unlimited became limited, and people learned to conserve.
Web executive: The difference is, I can read my water meter. You make a ton of money when people exceed their minutes or message limits, and you don't warn them before they do it. If you play the same game with Internet traffic, it'll scare people away from using the mobile web -- or worse yet you'll invite in the government. Look what happened with roaming charges in Europe.
Telecom executive: Jeez, don't even think about that. Okay, so we'll need to add some sort of traffic meter so people will know how much data they're using when they load a page.
Web executive: Great, that'll discourage people from using Yahoo.
Telecom executive: Huh?
Web executive: Oops, did I say that out loud?
Telecom executive: Then there's the issue of dealing with websites and apps that misuse the network.
Web executive: Not this again.
Telecom executive: I'm not talking about completely blocking anything, just prioritizing the traffic a little. Surely you agree that 911 calls should get top priority on the network, right?
Web executive: Of course.
Telecom executive: And that voice calls should take priority over data?
Web executive: I don't know about that.
Telecom executive: Oh come on, what good is a telecom network if you can't make calls on it?
Web executive: (sighs) Yeah, okay.
Telecom executive: So then what's wrong with us prioritizing, say, e-mail delivery over video?
Web executive: Because when you start arbitrarily throttling traffic, I can't manage the user experience. My website will work great on Vodafone's network but not on yours, or my site will work fine on some days and not on others. How do you think the customers will feel about that?
Telecom executive: Not as angry as they will be if the entire network falls over. Listen, we're already installing the software to prioritize different sorts of data packets. We could be throttling traffic today and you wouldn't even know it.
Web executive: But people will eventually figure it out. They'll compare notes on which networks work best and they'll migrate to the ones that don't mess with their applications. Heck, we'll help them figure it out. And if that's not enough, there's always the regulatory option. The Republicans are out of office. They can't protect you on net neutrality any more.
Telecom executive: You think you're better at lobbying the government than we are? We've been doing it for 100 years, pal. Besides, we have a right to protect our network.
Web executive: You mean to protect your own services from competition!
Telecom executive: Parasite!
Web executive: Monopolist!
Telecom executive: That's it! It's go time!
They both stood. The telecom guy grabbed a beer bottle and broke it against the bar, while the web guy raised a bar stool over his head. Then the bartender pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at both of them.
Bartender: Enough! I'm sick of listening to you two. Telecom guy, you're crazy if you think people will put up with someone telling them what they can and can't do on the Internet. The Chinese government can't make that stick, and unlike them you have competitors.
Web executive: See? I told you!
Bartender: Shut up, web guy! You keep pretending that the wireless network is infinite when you know it isn't. If you really think user experience is important, you need to start taking the capabilities of the network into account when you design your apps.
Web executive: Hey, he started it.
Telecom executive: I did not!
Bartender: I don't care who started it! Telecom guy, you need to expose some APIs that will let a website know how much capacity is available at a particular moment, so they can adjust their products. And web guy, you need to participate in those standards and use them. Plus you both need to agree on ways to communicate to a user how much bandwidth they're using, so they can make their own decisions on which apps they want to use. That plus tiered pricing will solve your whole problem.
Telecom executive: Signaling capacity too. Don't forget signaling.
Bartender: That's exactly the sort of detail you shouldn't confuse users with. Work it out between yourselves and figure out a simple way to communicate it to users. Okay?
Web executive: I guess.
Telecom executive: Yeah, okay.
Bartender. Good. Now sit down and start over by talking about something you can cooperate on.
Telecom executive: All right. Hey, what's that guy doing in the corner? Is that a netbook?
Web executive: He's a blogger!
Bartender: There's no blogging allowed in here!
Telecom executive and web executive: Get him!
I ran. Fortunately, the bar had a back door. Even more fortunately, the web guy and the telecom guy got into an argument over who would go through the door first, and I was able to make my escape.
So I don't know how the conversation ended. But I do know that I wish that bartender was running the FCC.
Showing posts with label Web. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Web. Show all posts
Opera delivers the Web on world's first mobile WiMax gaming device
Opera Software announced that Korea-based POSBRO has selected the Opera browser for what is labelled the world's first portable WiMax gaming device. The POSBRO G100 takes advantage of the high data speeds offered by WiMax (4G) to deliver online gaming from a portable device. POSBRO used the Opera 9 for Devices SDK to create a compelling Web experience for people using the G100 device.The device
Impact of Amazon Flexible Payments Service: Computing as a utility
The announcement of Amazon FPS made my whole week, on a lot of different levels. I'm excited about the service itself, I'm excited about what it means for the development of web applications, and I'm excited about what it'll eventually do for the mobile data world.
Okay, I'm just excited.
About FPS. Before I talk about what it means, I should give a quick overview of what it is. FPS is a web service, meaning it's a set of online APIs that the creator of a website or web application can use to perform tasks. What FPS does for you is billing -- you can use it to accept payments for something you sell online. Basically, you transmit the customer's info to Amazon, and they take care of the credit check, credit card processing, billing, and so on. They send you the money, less a percentage cut that they take.
That's not at all revolutionary. PayPal and Google Checkout offer the same thing already. Amazon's cut is about the same as PayPal -- about 2% to 3% of your revenue, depending on the amount of business you do, plus 30 cents per transaction. Google is a tad cheaper, plus you get AdSense credits for using it.
(For more information on FPS, there are good articles here and here).
What impressed me about FPS is its flexibility. Amazon says you can set different payment terms for every customer, set up subscriptions and multiple payment schedules, manage a store in which you pass payments from a customer to your suppliers, set up either pre- or post-payment systems, and most importantly you can manage micropayments down to a couple of pennies per transactions (link).
The competing systems either don't offer this at all, or do it badly. I think FPS is a really important change to the competitive situation in payment services. And, because the payment services are all available to any website, that means it's an important change to the whole web platform.
New forms of online business. So far, e-commerce online has been limited mostly to selling things that we could already get through regular stores -- books, clothing, software, etc. One of the main culprits for this was payments. The current credit card system, with its strong discouragement of small transactions, makes it very hard to sell anything priced below a few dollars online. I think the most interesting use of online commerce will be the creation of markets for things that we can't buy through stores today. Most of those things are intellectual property of various sorts, and the natural market for them is a buck or less a copy. So the payment system is a big barrier.
I won't recap my whole argument for minipayments; I wrote about it recently, and you can read it here. Minipayments have already changed the world in music, where Apple's proprietary minipayment system in iTunes has revived the market for music singles, something that was virtually dead in stores. Another example: iStockPhoto has created a market for low-cost stock photography. By creating an easy system of practical minipayments, Amazon FPS will help to enable the creation of lots of iTunes and iStockPhoto equivalents for other products and forms of intellectual property. Think short stories, art, games, and probably a lot of other things we haven't even thought of yet.
I know FPS isn't perfect -- for example, small payments have to be aggregated and then billed in a single larger transaction. But it advances the state of the art dramatically, and more importantly it challenges Google and PayPal to improve their own minipayment handling. That competitive dynamic should eventually result in a truly great minipayment mechanism online, no matter who makes it.
Amazon vs. Google: A contrast in strategies. I think Amazon's approach to web services makes Google look bad. Both companies are taking on PayPal, but Google's approach so far has been pure blunt force -- duplicate PayPal's features, underprice them a bit, and tie it to another Google product (you get AdSense credits for using Google Checkout). Let's see...you compete by duplicating someone else's features, underpricing, and tying back to your dominant product. Does that remind you of a certain company in Redmond?
In contrast, Amazon has been trying to find holes in the infrastructure that nobody has filled yet. Its storage and compute services provided very important infrastructure that helped accelerate the growth of Web 2.0 companies. Although its payment system is not as unique, the emphasis on minipayments is, and I think it too will play an important part in the online ecosystem.
Bottom line: Google is often copying, Amazon innovating. I'd say that I'm disappointed in Google, but actually given their size they would crush everyone else if they were also innovative. So maybe we should be grateful.
What will Amazon do next? Their pattern is clear -- they're picking out things that they know how to do well (because of their retail operation) and turning them into services for other developers. A logical next step would be if they offered developers the infrastructure needed to set up an online store -- order tracking, support request tracking, inventory, displaying merchandise, etc. That would work with their other services, and would put them in a position to start draining business from eBay.
I'd also love to see them offer some sort of unified product and content discovery system. One of the things missing from the online ecosystem is an easy way to find goods and services that are for sale online, and comparison shop between them. You can use search for it, but it's not very well organized, and comparisons are difficult. eBay kind of does that, but you have to be registered as one of their sellers, and eBay does the billing. I'd love to see a looser directory than eBay that doesn't take the payments directly, but just points you to things you can buy.
That's what I thought Google Base would evolve into, but Google hasn't made the move yet, so there's still time for Amazon to seize that territory.
What it means for mobile. You can probably guess what I'm going to say here. The operators consistently charge up to about 50% of revenue for any songs, games, or other content sold through their networks. The mobile software stores like Motricity and Handango charge about the same. Amazon, Google, and PayPal each take about 2-3% of revenue, and that cost is likely to decline due to competition. As the wireless Internet takes hold, how many users will be willing to pay 50% extra just for the pleasure of having a game appear on their Sprint or Verizon bill rather than their Amazon bill?
If an operator bit the bullet now and priced competitively, they might be able to hold onto about 10% of revenue in exchange for the greater convenience of running content purchases through the mobile bill. But a 50% cut is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. There's no way Amazon and friends will be able to resist the temptation to target the mobile web. The question is not if, it's when.
The name of the game is infrastructure. In an open, decentralized computing environment like the Web, the best way for a software company to succeed is to create a control point -- to offer a piece of critical infrastructure that others need, and build a franchise around it.
Google understood that concept with search + advertising, and did well with maps, but has been remarkably inept at creating other strong points. I think that's because, to be blunt, engineering PhDs don't necessarily make the best business strategists. Google, if you want to go to the next level, ya got to hire business people who are as smart as your technical people. And you have to give them some authority.
Microsoft seems to get it, but is still trying to retrofit its applications into services rather than really thinking through what's needed in an online ecosystem. Apple seems to understand, but so far hasn't been interested in opening up its services to others (it could easily have turned iTunes into a content discovery and billing service, long before either Google or Amazon hit the market). Some other big Internet companies, like Yahoo, don't seem to really understand yet that this is the competitive battleground of their future.
Amazon is the one major web company that seems to both understand the situation, and be able to consistently come up with good new services. They already have two strong points (computing services and storage), and payments looks to be the third. If some of the other players don't wake up soon, Amazon's going to end up in an extremely powerful position online.
Okay, I'm just excited.
About FPS. Before I talk about what it means, I should give a quick overview of what it is. FPS is a web service, meaning it's a set of online APIs that the creator of a website or web application can use to perform tasks. What FPS does for you is billing -- you can use it to accept payments for something you sell online. Basically, you transmit the customer's info to Amazon, and they take care of the credit check, credit card processing, billing, and so on. They send you the money, less a percentage cut that they take.
That's not at all revolutionary. PayPal and Google Checkout offer the same thing already. Amazon's cut is about the same as PayPal -- about 2% to 3% of your revenue, depending on the amount of business you do, plus 30 cents per transaction. Google is a tad cheaper, plus you get AdSense credits for using it.
(For more information on FPS, there are good articles here and here).
What impressed me about FPS is its flexibility. Amazon says you can set different payment terms for every customer, set up subscriptions and multiple payment schedules, manage a store in which you pass payments from a customer to your suppliers, set up either pre- or post-payment systems, and most importantly you can manage micropayments down to a couple of pennies per transactions (link).
The competing systems either don't offer this at all, or do it badly. I think FPS is a really important change to the competitive situation in payment services. And, because the payment services are all available to any website, that means it's an important change to the whole web platform.
New forms of online business. So far, e-commerce online has been limited mostly to selling things that we could already get through regular stores -- books, clothing, software, etc. One of the main culprits for this was payments. The current credit card system, with its strong discouragement of small transactions, makes it very hard to sell anything priced below a few dollars online. I think the most interesting use of online commerce will be the creation of markets for things that we can't buy through stores today. Most of those things are intellectual property of various sorts, and the natural market for them is a buck or less a copy. So the payment system is a big barrier.
I won't recap my whole argument for minipayments; I wrote about it recently, and you can read it here. Minipayments have already changed the world in music, where Apple's proprietary minipayment system in iTunes has revived the market for music singles, something that was virtually dead in stores. Another example: iStockPhoto has created a market for low-cost stock photography. By creating an easy system of practical minipayments, Amazon FPS will help to enable the creation of lots of iTunes and iStockPhoto equivalents for other products and forms of intellectual property. Think short stories, art, games, and probably a lot of other things we haven't even thought of yet.
I know FPS isn't perfect -- for example, small payments have to be aggregated and then billed in a single larger transaction. But it advances the state of the art dramatically, and more importantly it challenges Google and PayPal to improve their own minipayment handling. That competitive dynamic should eventually result in a truly great minipayment mechanism online, no matter who makes it.
Amazon vs. Google: A contrast in strategies. I think Amazon's approach to web services makes Google look bad. Both companies are taking on PayPal, but Google's approach so far has been pure blunt force -- duplicate PayPal's features, underprice them a bit, and tie it to another Google product (you get AdSense credits for using Google Checkout). Let's see...you compete by duplicating someone else's features, underpricing, and tying back to your dominant product. Does that remind you of a certain company in Redmond?
In contrast, Amazon has been trying to find holes in the infrastructure that nobody has filled yet. Its storage and compute services provided very important infrastructure that helped accelerate the growth of Web 2.0 companies. Although its payment system is not as unique, the emphasis on minipayments is, and I think it too will play an important part in the online ecosystem.
Bottom line: Google is often copying, Amazon innovating. I'd say that I'm disappointed in Google, but actually given their size they would crush everyone else if they were also innovative. So maybe we should be grateful.
What will Amazon do next? Their pattern is clear -- they're picking out things that they know how to do well (because of their retail operation) and turning them into services for other developers. A logical next step would be if they offered developers the infrastructure needed to set up an online store -- order tracking, support request tracking, inventory, displaying merchandise, etc. That would work with their other services, and would put them in a position to start draining business from eBay.
I'd also love to see them offer some sort of unified product and content discovery system. One of the things missing from the online ecosystem is an easy way to find goods and services that are for sale online, and comparison shop between them. You can use search for it, but it's not very well organized, and comparisons are difficult. eBay kind of does that, but you have to be registered as one of their sellers, and eBay does the billing. I'd love to see a looser directory than eBay that doesn't take the payments directly, but just points you to things you can buy.
That's what I thought Google Base would evolve into, but Google hasn't made the move yet, so there's still time for Amazon to seize that territory.
What it means for mobile. You can probably guess what I'm going to say here. The operators consistently charge up to about 50% of revenue for any songs, games, or other content sold through their networks. The mobile software stores like Motricity and Handango charge about the same. Amazon, Google, and PayPal each take about 2-3% of revenue, and that cost is likely to decline due to competition. As the wireless Internet takes hold, how many users will be willing to pay 50% extra just for the pleasure of having a game appear on their Sprint or Verizon bill rather than their Amazon bill?
If an operator bit the bullet now and priced competitively, they might be able to hold onto about 10% of revenue in exchange for the greater convenience of running content purchases through the mobile bill. But a 50% cut is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. There's no way Amazon and friends will be able to resist the temptation to target the mobile web. The question is not if, it's when.
The name of the game is infrastructure. In an open, decentralized computing environment like the Web, the best way for a software company to succeed is to create a control point -- to offer a piece of critical infrastructure that others need, and build a franchise around it.
Google understood that concept with search + advertising, and did well with maps, but has been remarkably inept at creating other strong points. I think that's because, to be blunt, engineering PhDs don't necessarily make the best business strategists. Google, if you want to go to the next level, ya got to hire business people who are as smart as your technical people. And you have to give them some authority.
Microsoft seems to get it, but is still trying to retrofit its applications into services rather than really thinking through what's needed in an online ecosystem. Apple seems to understand, but so far hasn't been interested in opening up its services to others (it could easily have turned iTunes into a content discovery and billing service, long before either Google or Amazon hit the market). Some other big Internet companies, like Yahoo, don't seem to really understand yet that this is the competitive battleground of their future.
Amazon is the one major web company that seems to both understand the situation, and be able to consistently come up with good new services. They already have two strong points (computing services and storage), and payments looks to be the third. If some of the other players don't wake up soon, Amazon's going to end up in an extremely powerful position online.
What we're learning from Web apps, part 3: Breeding new types of media
The argument over the viability of Web 2.0 applications misses the point -- most of the applications on any new computing platform die. What matters are the innovations and new business models that we learn from them (link).
Last time in this series I discussed what we're learning from Web 2 about managing a community online (link). This time I want to talk about the role the Internet is playing in the creation of new forms of media.
Is the internet a new medium?
I should start with a definition of what a medium is. Webster calls it, "a channel or system of communication, information, or entertainment" (link). I want to build on that a little. To me, a medium is something that moves information and/or entertainment between people. Movies are a medium, newspapers are a medium, oil painting is a medium. So is the telephone call, when you think about it. Each medium has its own distinct usages, economic model, and audience.
A lot of people have written about the Internet and/or the Web as a new "medium." A quick online search will give you thousands of articles and weblog posts on the subject. But there's something funny about the articles -- although they all call the Internet a medium, they define that medium in many different ways. For example...
--The Internet is a medium for mixed-media communication.
--It's a medium for online music broadcasting.
--It's a medium for making politically-motivated attacks. (And an unregulated medium at that. Heaven forbid we should practice unregulated politics.)
--It's "a perfect medium for the sale of software and other digital products."
--It's a medium for interactive, moving content.
--It's a "new medium for business communication."
--It's "a medium of news dissemination."
--It's "a new medium for design."
--It's a new medium for video.
--It's a new medium for communication by individuals.
--It's a new medium for socializing.
I think that in reality the Internet is not a new medium for anything. It's a transport mechanism. It is to data what a road is to eighteen-wheel trucks. And the Web isn't a medium either; it's a set of protocols for accessing and delivering data. To abuse the road analogy, it's the warehouses and truck stops that load, unload, and service the trucks.
The Internet is a meta-medium
When we talk about the Internet as a medium, we're confusing the delivery mechanism with the goods being delivered. This is a crucial distinction, because if you think of the Internet as a medium you won't understand its real power. The Internet is a meta-medium. It's a medium for creating new types of media; a general-purpose mechanism that spews new media as quickly as people can think them up.
And spew it does. As I hope you know if you've been reading this weblog for a while, I am not a fan of hype and overblown predictions. But I think the evidence shows that the Internet is enabling an explosion of new forms of media at a faster rate than ever before in human history. I believe this is one of the most revolutionary effects of the Internet, but we're so close to it that we don't think about it much.
Freeing media from the distribution mechanism
In the past, each new form of media was generally tied to a unique distribution infrastructure, technology base, and economic model. For a new medium to arise, you generally had to create a whole new production and distribution mechanism for it. For example:
Novels required the development of the printing press, a distribution infrastructure consisting of publishers and bookstores, and an economic model in which the reader pays and revenue is shared with the publisher and distribution chain.
Radio serial drama required the invention and sale of millions of radios, the construction of studios and transmitters, the creation of production companies and networks, and an economic model in which advertisers paid for the programs.
Movies required not just the creation of motion picture cameras, but also studios to produce the films, modified theaters to show them, a distribution system to deliver the reels of film, and an economic model in which ticket revenue and in-theater food sales combined to pay for the whole thing.
The huge effort and investment involved in creating these distribution chains severely limited the growth of new forms of media. For example, it took about 20 years from the invention of television and movies until either of them reached broad commercial distribution.
In contrast, new media proliferate on the Internet as fast as people can visit new websites and install plug-ins. (Obviously, this applies only to media that can be distributed electronically. But that still covers a lot.)
This chart gives you an idea of how the pace of change has accelerated.
This chart was based in part on a fantastic media history here.
Some people would say that most of the Internet media types I listed on the right edge of the chart aren't actually new media; that they're just a tweak on existing media. For example, Henry Jenkins argued in a great article for MIT Technology Review that you have to differentiate between media, genres, and delivery technologies (link):
I think he's right from the perspective of classifying things analytically, but if you follow that thinking religiously then it's almost impossible to create a new medium any more, unless smell-o-vision or machine telepathy comes along. I think in practical terms, you have a new medium as soon as you create a substantially different set of audience and business dynamics, because those are the changes that create meaningful new economic opportunities for creative people and businesses.
Here's the test: if you can't take material created for some other medium and replay it unchanged, then I think you've invented a new medium. CDs were not a new medium because they were created and sold in the same way, to the same people, as vinyl LPs. But radio drama was a new medium, because it had its own distinct audience and rules. You couldn't just take a stage play and turn it into a radio drama unmodified.
By this standard, the Internet is spawning new media forms faster than bunnies breed in Australia.
Of course, not all of these new types of media will be successful long-term. But it's exciting to see so much experimentation happening so quickly, and I believe it will have a profound effect on the ways we communicate and entertain ourselves in the years to come.
The revolution in front of you
Okay, so that's the theoretical foundation on what's happening. Let's discuss some examples -- three new forms of media we're creating, the rules and opportunities they create, and what comes next.
Online video
Oh, man. This one's so complex that you could write a book on it. The term "video" includes a huge variety of different things -- music videos, TV shows, animation, movies, video clips from amateurs, even commercials. Each one appears to have a different online audience and different financials.
Some of them have already run through a cycle of excitement and disappointment. For example, some people speak of an "internet animation era" that came and went at the start of the decade (you can read more about the expectations here). Usually the culprit for the disappointment is the failure to find a sustainable business model.
The hottest area in online video today is obviously short clips like the ones you see on YouTube. The ironic thing is that this form of video had virtually no traction prior to the Internet. Meanwhile, movies and TV shows -- which everyone predicted would move onto the Internet quickly -- don't have nearly as much momentum online.
Why YouTube is successful. Using YouTube is like eating potato chips ("crisps" if you live in the UK). When you're bored, it's great to browse short video clips looking for things that are funny or amazing or just plain weird. The brilliant aspects of YouTube (in my opinion) are that the video loads fast (can you imagine eating potato chips if you had to unwrap every chip individually?), and that the YouTube site links you to lots of other related videos, so it's easy to wander. If one video is boring, you're only moments away from something else.
This instant gratification factor turns the rules of traditional video on its head. In traditional video, quality and an immersive experience are king. To suck people into a television program or a movie, you use incredibly high quality images, editing, and sound. (If you want to know how important this is, look at all the enormous amounts of money the industry is spending to move to high-definition broadcasting and higher-capacity DVDs.)
That's why short online video is a different medium. Rather than immersion, the goal is instant gratification.
But how do you make money? The problem with short online video is that no one's sure how to make money from it. You pay to see a movie. You watch ads on television (well, you're supposed to, unless you use TiVo). Many companies are trying to attach commercials to online videos, but the result is often extraordinarily annoying to viewers.
That's not intuitive to the broadcast folks. Depending on what country you're in, to watch free TV you'll typically watch nine to 20 minutes of commercials in order to see an hour of programming (link). That's a ratio of between 15% and 30% commercials.
Apply that same ratio to a short online video, and you're watching a 30 second commercial to see a two minute video clip. Sounds reasonable, right? It's actually borderline intolerable to viewers because it breaks the instant gratification cycle. The whole idea is to beat boredom, not generate it.
Remember, this is a new medium. It has its own rules.
Maybe the answer will be very short ads, but no one knows what's short enough, and if those short ads will even work. Or maybe the answer is putting print ads on the website alongside the video. But unlike search, you don't know what topics a video viewer will be interested in, so it's much harder to target the ads. How will you individually track the demographics of people viewing more than six million separate YouTube clips? You'd basically have to build a database on the individual thoughts and behavior of every Internet user. That, I presume, is why YouTube was a good strategic investment for Google. It's also why I'm deeply skeptical about the high-profile efforts by entertainment companies to create sites competing with YouTube. Without Google's demographic and ad-targeting infrastructure, it will be hard for a competitor to monetize its videos.
And oh by the way, it's not clear that even Google can make this whole video thing work financially.
So let's classify short online video as an emerging medium: Proven audience, unproven economics.
Video in the mobile world. This is the current Flavor of the Month in the mobile data world. (Or maybe it was last month's flavor, and this month is GPS.) Anyway, there are a lot of people predicting that video is going to be very hot in the mobile space.
As was the case with PCs, you have to ask what sort of video you're talking about. The most intuitive use is short video. We know people use mobiles as boredom-busters, and short video is almost custom-made for that. But we run into the same economic problems as we have on PCs, only more so. It's not clear how many commercials people will tolerate in their mobile video.
Broadcast video, viewed on mobiles, is becoming popular in Asia. But by my standard that's not a new medium -- it's just building a television into your phone. And it bypasses the Internet, so it's not relevant to this discussion. (I recently wrote a long article on mobile video; if you missed it you can read it here.)
Virtual Reality as a Medium: Second Life
Most people think of Second Life as a game, or maybe a cult. But my Rubicon colleague Bruce La Fetra recently wrote an article (link) making the case that it's a new medium, and I believe he's right. Think about it. Here's the test of a new medium:
--Facilitates interaction between people. Second Life certainly does that.
--Has its own distinct audience. Double check. That's why some people look at Second Life as a cult.
--Has its own economic model. Triple check. This one even has its own currency.
A virtual meeting place. Second Life is so flexible that it's very hard to say what it'll turn into ultimately. It's already a meeting space for some people, and the upcoming addition of voice should improve that dramatically. Supposedly Cisco is providing pre-built avatars for employees, and a number of tech companies are using it for meetings (check out the slightly breathless but eye-opening article here).
Prototyping the physical world. Another clear use for VR is allowing individuals and corporations to create interactive experiences for others. For example, as Bruce points out, hotels are starting to test lobby layouts using Second Life. Brands like GeekSquad are using Second Life to reach out to customers, giving them another way to engage (read more about it here).
Some of this commentary is so enthusiastic that it reminds me of the commentary we saw in the bubble period. Second Life is definitely a geek playground, but I'm not sure how many "normal" people will want to mess around in virtual reality. We won't know until we try.
Is it a business or a standard? The ultimate business model for Second Life is still up in the air. Land owners pay real dollars for virtual real estate and corporate avatars, giving Linden Lab a revenue stream. However, the company is in the process of open-sourcing its server code. This will make it possible for anyone to create their own "land" without paying Linden Lab, and dramatically increases the likelihood that Second Life's technology will become a generalized standard for virtual reality. That's very healthy for the medium, but leaves Linden Lab without an obvious business model. There's an interesting discussion here.
The process of moving from a captive platform to the base of an open ecosystem is incredibly tricky. I think Linden is right to do it, because otherwise an open standard for virtual reality would have eventually emerged, pushing Second Life completely out of the picture (think of what happened when AOL went up against the Internet). But now Linden will need to find some parts of that open ecosystem where it can provide valued services. I think managing the virtual currency is a good start, but I haven't been able to find any clear statement of what the company's long-term financial model will be; please post a comment if you find one.
So the status of Second Life is similar to that of online video: Definite audience, unclear financials.
Virtual reality and mobile. Virtual reality thrives on large screens and fast processors. I think it's probably safe to say that it'll be limited to PC-sized devices for a long time (at least until we get flexible screens and fuel cells powerful enough to drive high-end graphics processors in a mobile). Until that day, I wouldn't be investing heavily in creating a SecondLife client for Nokia S60.
Feeds
Actually, these are several new media that I have grouped together for convenience: Text feeds, audio feeds, and video feeds. Plus more types of feeds to come.
Different feed types have different audiences. Steve Olechowski of Feedburner gives a great speech summarizing the feed world and what's happening in it. One of the interesting tidbits he gives out is that different types of feeds tend to be dominated by different subjects. Text feeds most commonly focus on technology, while audio feeds are most often about music, social issues, and religion ("Godcasts"). So different forms of communication -- text vs. recorded speech -- attract different types of creators and audiences. I suspect that video feeds are going to be different yet again, although it's probably too early to judge today. You can hear one of Steve's speeches here.
The thing I like about feeds is that they're efficient. Rather than going to a website to read or listen, you can bring the content to you and access it on your terms. A lot of people use online feed readers like Feed Burner, but my favorite is Feed Blitz, which consolidates all your feeds into a single daily e-mail. That lets me scan about a hundred articles a day in a matter of minutes.
Text feed vs. weblogs. One problem with text feeds is that they take readers away from your weblog, meaning they won't see the ads. That creates a lot of concern for weblog authors who rely on advertising. So they do things like putting only article summaries in their feeds, or embedding ads in the feeds, neither of which are popular with feed users.
Olechowski argues that authors shouldn't worry -- that the people who read feeds are different from the people who read websites, so there's little cannibalism. He says that providing a full-text feed from your weblog actually increases visitors to the site, rather than reducing them.
He has an incentive to say that, since his business is distributing feeds. But I think he may also have a point. Let's use Mobile Opportunity as an example: About 80% of the readers coming directly here are referrals from other websites and web searches, not returning readers. I think the general pattern for readers is that they come here from a web search or other link, and if they like the content then they subscribe to the feed. That's why I put extensive introductory information and links to previous articles in the sidebar on the right side of the page. If a web search visitor is interested in the sort of things I write about, I want to make sure they can determine that quickly so they'll either bookmark the page or subscribe to the feed.
The feed readers never see the sidebar, but they don't need it because they know what I've written about before. People who read via feeds have a different set of special needs. Chances are they use a feed reader that consolidates a lot of different feeds, which they then skim quickly. That makes it very important to use self-explanatory headlines for articles, and clear sub-heads within each article so people can skim easily. Web links are a special problem -- because they're colored and underlined, they stand out from the text. But they're not usually the things you want people to skim, because they don't summarize the content. That's why I've started putting links at the ends of sentences, rather than embedding them in the flow of the sentence.
I'm not trying to make money from this site, but if I were, I'd have to think very hard about what sort of ads go on the web page vs. in the feed, and where they get placed.
The bottom line: you write a little differently for a feed than you do for a weblog, and the financial model is subtly different as well. So it's a slightly different medium.
Status of feeds: Text feeds are quite well established, and audio feeds took off rapidly once they were enabled on the iPod. The financial model (to the extent that there is one) appears to be advertising, but I haven't seen a good discussion of the economics of advertising within feeds (please post a comment if you know of one). Presumably Google's recent purchase of FeedBurner is intended to allow them to stream ads into feeds, so we'll probably see more activity there. The dynamics of other types of feeds (video, etc) are still to be determined.
Feeds and the mobile world. Feeds are a spectacular fit for the mobile world; actually a much better fit than browsing. In general browsing is something you do live, while feeds can be fetched in the background, cached on the device, and then read or listened to whenever the user wishes.
A text feed is also much easier to reformat for a small screen. In a lot of ways, it's designed to be reformatted.
If I were working on a mobile data device today, I'd push this feature very hard -- figure out who my target customers are and what feeds they'd be most likely to enjoy, cache the top ten our so automatically, and give a great discovery mechanism so people can easily find more. Feeds are a commodity in that you can get them for free, but easy navigation and discovery of feeds is potentially a very attractive area for innovation.
I know third party developers are already doing this; if I were at a mobile hardware company I'd be making it a standard feature in every device.
What comes next?
What other media are emerging? Many more new forms of media emerging than I've listed here. I'm very interested in your ideas -- what do you think are some others to watch, and what's special about them? One I'd love to investigate more is the rise of casual games -- quickie games, usually based on Flash. Games like this were very popular in the early days of personal computing, and they seem to be making a comeback on the web. You can find some nifty ones on sites like Kongregate (link; check out Fancy Pants).
The transcendent need for a billing mechanism. When I said that the Web is a tool for creating new media, I left out an important detail. It's three-quarters of the tool. We have a great delivery system, and Google is well on its way to dominating the advertising part of the financial model. What's missing is a standard mechanism for people to pay for content that's not supported by advertising. Some types of content work fine with ads, but I think some other types are better when paid for. Novels, short stories, music, and research reports all qualify. Creators and readers would both benefit from a system in which people could easily pay a few dimes or a few dollars directly to the author, but today we generally have to fumble with credit cards and awkward systems like PayPal. And credit card vendors strongly discourage small payments.
Minipayments vs. micropayments. The Web community chewed over this issue and spat it out several years ago. They believe that micropayments are dead, and the subject is closed. You can find examples here and here and here and here. Wikipedia has a nicely balanced discussion of the debate here.
This is one of those cases where the groupthink tendency of the tech industry is a liability. It reminds me of MP3 players before the iPod -- a lot of people have tried something, nobody's gotten it right yet, and therefore it must be impossible. It'll continue to be impossible up until someone does it right, at which time everyone will suddenly agree that it was inevitable.
(Quick aside: Whenever everyone in the tech industry agrees on something, bet against them. A perfect consensus is a sign that healthy questioning has ceased, and there's bound to be a blind spot.)
In this case, I think the blind spot was that people predicted the wrong role and features for micropayments. Some people made it a payment vs. advertising debate (link). It's not -- some types of media are good for advertising, some good for payment. We need both, with a creative tension between them.
Another problem is that some of the advocates of micropayments envisioned a very fine-grained payment system, in which people would pay hundredths of cents for all sorts of content, like the way natural gas or water is metered. That sounded logical, but it didn't work in practice because gas and water are predictable commodities; you don't mind metering because you know exactly what you'll get. You don't know how good a website will be until you've visited it, by which point you have already paid if you're metering. We need larger payments for content that people can preview and read reviews about before they pay. Apple has proved decisively that on the wired Internet a payment system that charges about a buck for discrete chunks of content can indeed succeed.
Call it minipayments.
We desperately need a generalized minipayment system for content on the web. Because people have to trust it, it needs to come from a major vendor, and it should be exposed to developers as a web service so it can grow rapidly. Ideally, it should be tied to a lot of existing content with an easy discovery mechanism (again, like iTunes). Yahoo would be the perfect company to provide this service. Microsoft could do it too. Unfortunately, a lot of companies are focusing a huge amount of their energy on the almost hopeless task of beating Google in search advertising, when the better opportunity is owning a different piece of the infrastructure, one that doesn't have a dominant vendor yet.
Other companies that could do it include Amazon, Apple, eBay, and even Linden Lab. Google could do it too, of course, but it appears to be more interested in stealing PayPal's customers than in building something new.
I'd put this service on the list of computing products I want desperately, right after the info pad. Somebody's going to do it eventually. When they do they'll get a great business franchise, and the explosion of new media on the Web will accelerate even further.
I can't wait.
Next time: The Web as a software development platform.
Last time in this series I discussed what we're learning from Web 2 about managing a community online (link). This time I want to talk about the role the Internet is playing in the creation of new forms of media.
Is the internet a new medium?
I should start with a definition of what a medium is. Webster calls it, "a channel or system of communication, information, or entertainment" (link). I want to build on that a little. To me, a medium is something that moves information and/or entertainment between people. Movies are a medium, newspapers are a medium, oil painting is a medium. So is the telephone call, when you think about it. Each medium has its own distinct usages, economic model, and audience.
A lot of people have written about the Internet and/or the Web as a new "medium." A quick online search will give you thousands of articles and weblog posts on the subject. But there's something funny about the articles -- although they all call the Internet a medium, they define that medium in many different ways. For example...
--The Internet is a medium for mixed-media communication.
--It's a medium for online music broadcasting.
--It's a medium for making politically-motivated attacks. (And an unregulated medium at that. Heaven forbid we should practice unregulated politics.)
--It's "a perfect medium for the sale of software and other digital products."
--It's a medium for interactive, moving content.
--It's a "new medium for business communication."
--It's "a medium of news dissemination."
--It's "a new medium for design."
--It's a new medium for video.
--It's a new medium for communication by individuals.
--It's a new medium for socializing.
I think that in reality the Internet is not a new medium for anything. It's a transport mechanism. It is to data what a road is to eighteen-wheel trucks. And the Web isn't a medium either; it's a set of protocols for accessing and delivering data. To abuse the road analogy, it's the warehouses and truck stops that load, unload, and service the trucks.
The Internet is a meta-medium
When we talk about the Internet as a medium, we're confusing the delivery mechanism with the goods being delivered. This is a crucial distinction, because if you think of the Internet as a medium you won't understand its real power. The Internet is a meta-medium. It's a medium for creating new types of media; a general-purpose mechanism that spews new media as quickly as people can think them up.
And spew it does. As I hope you know if you've been reading this weblog for a while, I am not a fan of hype and overblown predictions. But I think the evidence shows that the Internet is enabling an explosion of new forms of media at a faster rate than ever before in human history. I believe this is one of the most revolutionary effects of the Internet, but we're so close to it that we don't think about it much.
Freeing media from the distribution mechanism
In the past, each new form of media was generally tied to a unique distribution infrastructure, technology base, and economic model. For a new medium to arise, you generally had to create a whole new production and distribution mechanism for it. For example:
Novels required the development of the printing press, a distribution infrastructure consisting of publishers and bookstores, and an economic model in which the reader pays and revenue is shared with the publisher and distribution chain.
Radio serial drama required the invention and sale of millions of radios, the construction of studios and transmitters, the creation of production companies and networks, and an economic model in which advertisers paid for the programs.
Movies required not just the creation of motion picture cameras, but also studios to produce the films, modified theaters to show them, a distribution system to deliver the reels of film, and an economic model in which ticket revenue and in-theater food sales combined to pay for the whole thing.
The huge effort and investment involved in creating these distribution chains severely limited the growth of new forms of media. For example, it took about 20 years from the invention of television and movies until either of them reached broad commercial distribution.
In contrast, new media proliferate on the Internet as fast as people can visit new websites and install plug-ins. (Obviously, this applies only to media that can be distributed electronically. But that still covers a lot.)
This chart gives you an idea of how the pace of change has accelerated.
This chart was based in part on a fantastic media history here.
Some people would say that most of the Internet media types I listed on the right edge of the chart aren't actually new media; that they're just a tweak on existing media. For example, Henry Jenkins argued in a great article for MIT Technology Review that you have to differentiate between media, genres, and delivery technologies (link):
Recorded sound is a medium. Radio drama is a genre. CDs, MP3 files and eight-track cassettes are delivery technologies. Genres and delivery technologies come and go, but media persist as layers within an ever more complicated information and entertainment system.
I think he's right from the perspective of classifying things analytically, but if you follow that thinking religiously then it's almost impossible to create a new medium any more, unless smell-o-vision or machine telepathy comes along. I think in practical terms, you have a new medium as soon as you create a substantially different set of audience and business dynamics, because those are the changes that create meaningful new economic opportunities for creative people and businesses.
Here's the test: if you can't take material created for some other medium and replay it unchanged, then I think you've invented a new medium. CDs were not a new medium because they were created and sold in the same way, to the same people, as vinyl LPs. But radio drama was a new medium, because it had its own distinct audience and rules. You couldn't just take a stage play and turn it into a radio drama unmodified.
By this standard, the Internet is spawning new media forms faster than bunnies breed in Australia.
Of course, not all of these new types of media will be successful long-term. But it's exciting to see so much experimentation happening so quickly, and I believe it will have a profound effect on the ways we communicate and entertain ourselves in the years to come.
The revolution in front of you
Okay, so that's the theoretical foundation on what's happening. Let's discuss some examples -- three new forms of media we're creating, the rules and opportunities they create, and what comes next.
Online video
Oh, man. This one's so complex that you could write a book on it. The term "video" includes a huge variety of different things -- music videos, TV shows, animation, movies, video clips from amateurs, even commercials. Each one appears to have a different online audience and different financials.
Some of them have already run through a cycle of excitement and disappointment. For example, some people speak of an "internet animation era" that came and went at the start of the decade (you can read more about the expectations here). Usually the culprit for the disappointment is the failure to find a sustainable business model.
The hottest area in online video today is obviously short clips like the ones you see on YouTube. The ironic thing is that this form of video had virtually no traction prior to the Internet. Meanwhile, movies and TV shows -- which everyone predicted would move onto the Internet quickly -- don't have nearly as much momentum online.
Why YouTube is successful. Using YouTube is like eating potato chips ("crisps" if you live in the UK). When you're bored, it's great to browse short video clips looking for things that are funny or amazing or just plain weird. The brilliant aspects of YouTube (in my opinion) are that the video loads fast (can you imagine eating potato chips if you had to unwrap every chip individually?), and that the YouTube site links you to lots of other related videos, so it's easy to wander. If one video is boring, you're only moments away from something else.
This instant gratification factor turns the rules of traditional video on its head. In traditional video, quality and an immersive experience are king. To suck people into a television program or a movie, you use incredibly high quality images, editing, and sound. (If you want to know how important this is, look at all the enormous amounts of money the industry is spending to move to high-definition broadcasting and higher-capacity DVDs.)
That's why short online video is a different medium. Rather than immersion, the goal is instant gratification.
But how do you make money? The problem with short online video is that no one's sure how to make money from it. You pay to see a movie. You watch ads on television (well, you're supposed to, unless you use TiVo). Many companies are trying to attach commercials to online videos, but the result is often extraordinarily annoying to viewers.
That's not intuitive to the broadcast folks. Depending on what country you're in, to watch free TV you'll typically watch nine to 20 minutes of commercials in order to see an hour of programming (link). That's a ratio of between 15% and 30% commercials.
Apply that same ratio to a short online video, and you're watching a 30 second commercial to see a two minute video clip. Sounds reasonable, right? It's actually borderline intolerable to viewers because it breaks the instant gratification cycle. The whole idea is to beat boredom, not generate it.
Remember, this is a new medium. It has its own rules.
Maybe the answer will be very short ads, but no one knows what's short enough, and if those short ads will even work. Or maybe the answer is putting print ads on the website alongside the video. But unlike search, you don't know what topics a video viewer will be interested in, so it's much harder to target the ads. How will you individually track the demographics of people viewing more than six million separate YouTube clips? You'd basically have to build a database on the individual thoughts and behavior of every Internet user. That, I presume, is why YouTube was a good strategic investment for Google. It's also why I'm deeply skeptical about the high-profile efforts by entertainment companies to create sites competing with YouTube. Without Google's demographic and ad-targeting infrastructure, it will be hard for a competitor to monetize its videos.
And oh by the way, it's not clear that even Google can make this whole video thing work financially.
So let's classify short online video as an emerging medium: Proven audience, unproven economics.
Video in the mobile world. This is the current Flavor of the Month in the mobile data world. (Or maybe it was last month's flavor, and this month is GPS.) Anyway, there are a lot of people predicting that video is going to be very hot in the mobile space.
As was the case with PCs, you have to ask what sort of video you're talking about. The most intuitive use is short video. We know people use mobiles as boredom-busters, and short video is almost custom-made for that. But we run into the same economic problems as we have on PCs, only more so. It's not clear how many commercials people will tolerate in their mobile video.
Broadcast video, viewed on mobiles, is becoming popular in Asia. But by my standard that's not a new medium -- it's just building a television into your phone. And it bypasses the Internet, so it's not relevant to this discussion. (I recently wrote a long article on mobile video; if you missed it you can read it here.)
Virtual Reality as a Medium: Second Life
Most people think of Second Life as a game, or maybe a cult. But my Rubicon colleague Bruce La Fetra recently wrote an article (link) making the case that it's a new medium, and I believe he's right. Think about it. Here's the test of a new medium:
--Facilitates interaction between people. Second Life certainly does that.
--Has its own distinct audience. Double check. That's why some people look at Second Life as a cult.
--Has its own economic model. Triple check. This one even has its own currency.
A virtual meeting place. Second Life is so flexible that it's very hard to say what it'll turn into ultimately. It's already a meeting space for some people, and the upcoming addition of voice should improve that dramatically. Supposedly Cisco is providing pre-built avatars for employees, and a number of tech companies are using it for meetings (check out the slightly breathless but eye-opening article here).
Second Life is a tool for holding three-dimensional visual conversations...I know some people can't hold a serious business conversation without a pen and paper to draw with; Second Life is made for those people....One day, you'll be able to import sales data from an Oracle database, create a three-dimensional diagram of that data that changes in near-realtime, and hold a meeting of top corporate executives all over the world in Second Life to discuss the results. --Mitch Wagner
Prototyping the physical world. Another clear use for VR is allowing individuals and corporations to create interactive experiences for others. For example, as Bruce points out, hotels are starting to test lobby layouts using Second Life. Brands like GeekSquad are using Second Life to reach out to customers, giving them another way to engage (read more about it here).
Some of this commentary is so enthusiastic that it reminds me of the commentary we saw in the bubble period. Second Life is definitely a geek playground, but I'm not sure how many "normal" people will want to mess around in virtual reality. We won't know until we try.
Is it a business or a standard? The ultimate business model for Second Life is still up in the air. Land owners pay real dollars for virtual real estate and corporate avatars, giving Linden Lab a revenue stream. However, the company is in the process of open-sourcing its server code. This will make it possible for anyone to create their own "land" without paying Linden Lab, and dramatically increases the likelihood that Second Life's technology will become a generalized standard for virtual reality. That's very healthy for the medium, but leaves Linden Lab without an obvious business model. There's an interesting discussion here.
The process of moving from a captive platform to the base of an open ecosystem is incredibly tricky. I think Linden is right to do it, because otherwise an open standard for virtual reality would have eventually emerged, pushing Second Life completely out of the picture (think of what happened when AOL went up against the Internet). But now Linden will need to find some parts of that open ecosystem where it can provide valued services. I think managing the virtual currency is a good start, but I haven't been able to find any clear statement of what the company's long-term financial model will be; please post a comment if you find one.
So the status of Second Life is similar to that of online video: Definite audience, unclear financials.
Virtual reality and mobile. Virtual reality thrives on large screens and fast processors. I think it's probably safe to say that it'll be limited to PC-sized devices for a long time (at least until we get flexible screens and fuel cells powerful enough to drive high-end graphics processors in a mobile). Until that day, I wouldn't be investing heavily in creating a SecondLife client for Nokia S60.
Feeds
Actually, these are several new media that I have grouped together for convenience: Text feeds, audio feeds, and video feeds. Plus more types of feeds to come.
Different feed types have different audiences. Steve Olechowski of Feedburner gives a great speech summarizing the feed world and what's happening in it. One of the interesting tidbits he gives out is that different types of feeds tend to be dominated by different subjects. Text feeds most commonly focus on technology, while audio feeds are most often about music, social issues, and religion ("Godcasts"). So different forms of communication -- text vs. recorded speech -- attract different types of creators and audiences. I suspect that video feeds are going to be different yet again, although it's probably too early to judge today. You can hear one of Steve's speeches here.
The thing I like about feeds is that they're efficient. Rather than going to a website to read or listen, you can bring the content to you and access it on your terms. A lot of people use online feed readers like Feed Burner, but my favorite is Feed Blitz, which consolidates all your feeds into a single daily e-mail. That lets me scan about a hundred articles a day in a matter of minutes.
Text feed vs. weblogs. One problem with text feeds is that they take readers away from your weblog, meaning they won't see the ads. That creates a lot of concern for weblog authors who rely on advertising. So they do things like putting only article summaries in their feeds, or embedding ads in the feeds, neither of which are popular with feed users.
Olechowski argues that authors shouldn't worry -- that the people who read feeds are different from the people who read websites, so there's little cannibalism. He says that providing a full-text feed from your weblog actually increases visitors to the site, rather than reducing them.
He has an incentive to say that, since his business is distributing feeds. But I think he may also have a point. Let's use Mobile Opportunity as an example: About 80% of the readers coming directly here are referrals from other websites and web searches, not returning readers. I think the general pattern for readers is that they come here from a web search or other link, and if they like the content then they subscribe to the feed. That's why I put extensive introductory information and links to previous articles in the sidebar on the right side of the page. If a web search visitor is interested in the sort of things I write about, I want to make sure they can determine that quickly so they'll either bookmark the page or subscribe to the feed.
The feed readers never see the sidebar, but they don't need it because they know what I've written about before. People who read via feeds have a different set of special needs. Chances are they use a feed reader that consolidates a lot of different feeds, which they then skim quickly. That makes it very important to use self-explanatory headlines for articles, and clear sub-heads within each article so people can skim easily. Web links are a special problem -- because they're colored and underlined, they stand out from the text. But they're not usually the things you want people to skim, because they don't summarize the content. That's why I've started putting links at the ends of sentences, rather than embedding them in the flow of the sentence.
I'm not trying to make money from this site, but if I were, I'd have to think very hard about what sort of ads go on the web page vs. in the feed, and where they get placed.
The bottom line: you write a little differently for a feed than you do for a weblog, and the financial model is subtly different as well. So it's a slightly different medium.
Status of feeds: Text feeds are quite well established, and audio feeds took off rapidly once they were enabled on the iPod. The financial model (to the extent that there is one) appears to be advertising, but I haven't seen a good discussion of the economics of advertising within feeds (please post a comment if you know of one). Presumably Google's recent purchase of FeedBurner is intended to allow them to stream ads into feeds, so we'll probably see more activity there. The dynamics of other types of feeds (video, etc) are still to be determined.
Feeds and the mobile world. Feeds are a spectacular fit for the mobile world; actually a much better fit than browsing. In general browsing is something you do live, while feeds can be fetched in the background, cached on the device, and then read or listened to whenever the user wishes.
A text feed is also much easier to reformat for a small screen. In a lot of ways, it's designed to be reformatted.
If I were working on a mobile data device today, I'd push this feature very hard -- figure out who my target customers are and what feeds they'd be most likely to enjoy, cache the top ten our so automatically, and give a great discovery mechanism so people can easily find more. Feeds are a commodity in that you can get them for free, but easy navigation and discovery of feeds is potentially a very attractive area for innovation.
I know third party developers are already doing this; if I were at a mobile hardware company I'd be making it a standard feature in every device.
What comes next?
What other media are emerging? Many more new forms of media emerging than I've listed here. I'm very interested in your ideas -- what do you think are some others to watch, and what's special about them? One I'd love to investigate more is the rise of casual games -- quickie games, usually based on Flash. Games like this were very popular in the early days of personal computing, and they seem to be making a comeback on the web. You can find some nifty ones on sites like Kongregate (link; check out Fancy Pants).
The transcendent need for a billing mechanism. When I said that the Web is a tool for creating new media, I left out an important detail. It's three-quarters of the tool. We have a great delivery system, and Google is well on its way to dominating the advertising part of the financial model. What's missing is a standard mechanism for people to pay for content that's not supported by advertising. Some types of content work fine with ads, but I think some other types are better when paid for. Novels, short stories, music, and research reports all qualify. Creators and readers would both benefit from a system in which people could easily pay a few dimes or a few dollars directly to the author, but today we generally have to fumble with credit cards and awkward systems like PayPal. And credit card vendors strongly discourage small payments.
Minipayments vs. micropayments. The Web community chewed over this issue and spat it out several years ago. They believe that micropayments are dead, and the subject is closed. You can find examples here and here and here and here. Wikipedia has a nicely balanced discussion of the debate here.
This is one of those cases where the groupthink tendency of the tech industry is a liability. It reminds me of MP3 players before the iPod -- a lot of people have tried something, nobody's gotten it right yet, and therefore it must be impossible. It'll continue to be impossible up until someone does it right, at which time everyone will suddenly agree that it was inevitable.
(Quick aside: Whenever everyone in the tech industry agrees on something, bet against them. A perfect consensus is a sign that healthy questioning has ceased, and there's bound to be a blind spot.)
In this case, I think the blind spot was that people predicted the wrong role and features for micropayments. Some people made it a payment vs. advertising debate (link). It's not -- some types of media are good for advertising, some good for payment. We need both, with a creative tension between them.
Another problem is that some of the advocates of micropayments envisioned a very fine-grained payment system, in which people would pay hundredths of cents for all sorts of content, like the way natural gas or water is metered. That sounded logical, but it didn't work in practice because gas and water are predictable commodities; you don't mind metering because you know exactly what you'll get. You don't know how good a website will be until you've visited it, by which point you have already paid if you're metering. We need larger payments for content that people can preview and read reviews about before they pay. Apple has proved decisively that on the wired Internet a payment system that charges about a buck for discrete chunks of content can indeed succeed.
Call it minipayments.
We desperately need a generalized minipayment system for content on the web. Because people have to trust it, it needs to come from a major vendor, and it should be exposed to developers as a web service so it can grow rapidly. Ideally, it should be tied to a lot of existing content with an easy discovery mechanism (again, like iTunes). Yahoo would be the perfect company to provide this service. Microsoft could do it too. Unfortunately, a lot of companies are focusing a huge amount of their energy on the almost hopeless task of beating Google in search advertising, when the better opportunity is owning a different piece of the infrastructure, one that doesn't have a dominant vendor yet.
Other companies that could do it include Amazon, Apple, eBay, and even Linden Lab. Google could do it too, of course, but it appears to be more interested in stealing PayPal's customers than in building something new.
I'd put this service on the list of computing products I want desperately, right after the info pad. Somebody's going to do it eventually. When they do they'll get a great business franchise, and the explosion of new media on the Web will accelerate even further.
I can't wait.
Next time: The Web as a software development platform.
Why Web 2.0 still doesn't cut it for mobile devices
About a year ago, I wrote an article on "why Web 2.0 doesn't cut it for mobile devices." My basic argument was that because wireless web connections are intermittent and unreliable, a completely thin client architecture for applications won't work. (A thin client application is one in which the code for the app stays on a server, and all you have on your PC or mobile device is a little user interface widget. Every time you do something with the web app, your device has to talk to the server. Almost all web 2.0 apps are thin client apps.)
So here I am riding the BART train out of San Francisco, after spending the day at the Web 2 Expo. I'm using a Pantech/Sprint EVDO card in my computer, which gives the rough equivalent of low-speed DSL connectivity all over the city. Even though it cuts my notebook's battery life in half, I still think it's cool as ice cream in July.
Anyway, I'm having a good time working on a couple of blog posts, using the thin client Blogger interface, when the train goes through a tunnel. Guess what, no connection. Then we come out of the tunnel at a station, and my connection comes back for 30 seconds. Quick! Load that page! Then we go back into the tunnel again. And on, and on, and on.
Think of it as Bloggus Interruptus.
I guess I could ding Sprint for failing to extend its network to the subway tunnels, but this sort of problem is ubiquitous around the world for high-speed data networks. They have much less coverage than the voice networks, and that's changing only gradually. Even as we get more coverage, it won't be possible to depend on always having the connection when you need it.
The way mobile web apps need to work is that they download the full app and a copy of your data to your device, so you can work independently. Then in the background, they should sync the data whenever you're connected. That's how RIM's e-mail works, and it's still the state of the art for giving you the illusion of always-on wireless connectivity even though there's no such thing in the real world.
So here I am riding the BART train out of San Francisco, after spending the day at the Web 2 Expo. I'm using a Pantech/Sprint EVDO card in my computer, which gives the rough equivalent of low-speed DSL connectivity all over the city. Even though it cuts my notebook's battery life in half, I still think it's cool as ice cream in July.
Anyway, I'm having a good time working on a couple of blog posts, using the thin client Blogger interface, when the train goes through a tunnel. Guess what, no connection. Then we come out of the tunnel at a station, and my connection comes back for 30 seconds. Quick! Load that page! Then we go back into the tunnel again. And on, and on, and on.
Think of it as Bloggus Interruptus.
I guess I could ding Sprint for failing to extend its network to the subway tunnels, but this sort of problem is ubiquitous around the world for high-speed data networks. They have much less coverage than the voice networks, and that's changing only gradually. Even as we get more coverage, it won't be possible to depend on always having the connection when you need it.
The way mobile web apps need to work is that they download the full app and a copy of your data to your device, so you can work independently. Then in the background, they should sync the data whenever you're connected. That's how RIM's e-mail works, and it's still the state of the art for giving you the illusion of always-on wireless connectivity even though there's no such thing in the real world.
Going to Web 2 Expo
I'm going to Web 2 Expo in San Francisco this week. If you're attending and want to chat, please drop me an e-mail here.
If you're not going, I'll post a note on what I see at the show.
If you're not going, I'll post a note on what I see at the show.
Hollywood's view of the Web: Through a glass, strangely
The LA Times is a wonderful place to watch the entertainment industry try to figure out the Internet. Some issues that aren't a big deal in Silicon Valley fascinate them endlessly, while other things that Silicon Valley thinks are important are completely ignored.
A great example of this process is the newspaper's recap of 2006 on the Web, "Ten moments the web shook the world."
So what made up the deluge, according to the Times? Some highlights:
Snakes on a Plane is described as the first time that the Web took control of the production of a movie. Most folks in the blogosphere viewed Snakes as a cool example of participatory marketing, but if you view it through the eyes of a Hollywood producer, it's a threat to power.
LonelyGirl15. This mysterious personality on MySpace was the subject of endless coverage and speculation in the Times throughout the summer. They analyzed it with the same intensity that many websites reserved for Britney Spears' underwear. I think the idea of someone using the Web to launch an acting career blew their minds.
The rise of celebrity websites. The Times viewed this as the year in which celebrity-focused websites first started to drive (read: debase) the standards of what constitutes a celebrity. People like Paris Hilton (and our gal Britney) proved to be willing to do just about anything to get a little online attention.
The common theme in all of these cases is the loss of power by parts of the traditional entertainment industry: producers, agents, and journalists. For years the Web has been eating away at power structures in lots of industries, but this was apparently the year in which Hollywood first really felt the impact.
The Times asks: "As traditional media interact with new media and vice versa, whose values will infect whom? Will old media arrive like the cavalry on the scene, Good Book in hand, to lift up the Web rabble with the promise of Bedrock Standards and High Production Values? Or when the drawbridge is lowered just a little bit, will the masses simply storm the castle and repaint it electric blue and pink?"
That's easy to answer. I heard the same questions almost 20 years ago when desktop publishing started to challenge the printing industry. The answer is that you'll get both -- the high-standard material will coexist side by side with amateur hour. People will prove to be very accepting of poor production values if the material is compelling in some other way (YouTube already demonstrates this, where we cheerfully watch video of such poor quality that you'd call the cable company and complain if it came over your TV).
There will always be a market for the best productions, but in the future I think it'll be much harder to get away with charging high-quality production prices for shows or movies that aren't truly entertaining, because people will have a cheap alternative. The threat isn't to HBO, it's to the CW.
A great example of this process is the newspaper's recap of 2006 on the Web, "Ten moments the web shook the world."
"This was the year wishful thinking -- that this Internet phenomenon might just go away -- evaporated, and those media companies still standing began to seek anything that might see them through the deluge."
So what made up the deluge, according to the Times? Some highlights:
Snakes on a Plane is described as the first time that the Web took control of the production of a movie. Most folks in the blogosphere viewed Snakes as a cool example of participatory marketing, but if you view it through the eyes of a Hollywood producer, it's a threat to power.
LonelyGirl15. This mysterious personality on MySpace was the subject of endless coverage and speculation in the Times throughout the summer. They analyzed it with the same intensity that many websites reserved for Britney Spears' underwear. I think the idea of someone using the Web to launch an acting career blew their minds.
The rise of celebrity websites. The Times viewed this as the year in which celebrity-focused websites first started to drive (read: debase) the standards of what constitutes a celebrity. People like Paris Hilton (and our gal Britney) proved to be willing to do just about anything to get a little online attention.
The common theme in all of these cases is the loss of power by parts of the traditional entertainment industry: producers, agents, and journalists. For years the Web has been eating away at power structures in lots of industries, but this was apparently the year in which Hollywood first really felt the impact.
The Times asks: "As traditional media interact with new media and vice versa, whose values will infect whom? Will old media arrive like the cavalry on the scene, Good Book in hand, to lift up the Web rabble with the promise of Bedrock Standards and High Production Values? Or when the drawbridge is lowered just a little bit, will the masses simply storm the castle and repaint it electric blue and pink?"
That's easy to answer. I heard the same questions almost 20 years ago when desktop publishing started to challenge the printing industry. The answer is that you'll get both -- the high-standard material will coexist side by side with amateur hour. People will prove to be very accepting of poor production values if the material is compelling in some other way (YouTube already demonstrates this, where we cheerfully watch video of such poor quality that you'd call the cable company and complain if it came over your TV).
There will always be a market for the best productions, but in the future I think it'll be much harder to get away with charging high-quality production prices for shows or movies that aren't truly entertaining, because people will have a cheap alternative. The threat isn't to HBO, it's to the CW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)