A troglodyte gets a Smartphone

I don't understand you people.  You stand there all day long scratching on your little 4 inch screens and think you're getting something done.  I just don't see the attraction.

Everything  evolves and I suppose I have to as well.  I work in technology and the way I used to do things just isn't possible anymore.  I've resisted the onslaught of the mobile revolution and for the most part I've found my convictions justified.  In short, mobile devices are about as intuitive as disarming a bomb.  One false move and everything blows up.

Here's an example of one such "intuitive" user interface.  On my phone if you dial a call and it connects the screen turns off.  This prevents the inadvertent "Butt dial" that could be caused if your face made contact with the screen during your conversation  That's fine except for those times when you really need that keypad  to be there.  Say, when you're deep into your voicemail setup or stuck in your bank's 34 levels of menu options where you just  must "press the # key." 

You have to press the power button and then fight the phone as it keeps trying to shut off the screen.  Does great things for my productivity.  Don't even get me started on the weird alien symbols that are  about as intuitive as a European road sign.

There's so much pain involved but I must persevere.  I knew this was coming and even borrowed a friend's deactivated Droid Bionic to get used to the way the interface works.  Unfortunately, the time spent didn't do much to prepare me for what was to follow. 

As i slowly navigated through my "pop" culture shock, questions swarmed my tiny Paleolithic brain...

 Where the hell are my apps?     What's the difference between an App and a Widget?   Is my phone really using Wi-Fi or am I going to get a $500 bill for data overages?  Why do I have to sign up for Gmail just to get an app to tell me if I'm going to get that $500 bill?        I agreed to what?           Why did my phone shut itself off?           Why do they call it a "Play" store if I'm not having any fun?

YAAAAAAAAAAAA!  ME WANT SMASH BEEPY PLASTIC THING!

There was one point where I became so frustrated that I had to put the phone back in its little white box.  Otherwise it was going to end up in pieces on the floor after a sudden violent impact with a nearby wall.

I have a low tolerance for BS...

Now this isn't the first time I've been "Forced" to deal with a Smartphone.  I've had to work with every generation of Iphone and a few Android phones but never had to live with one or more to the point, pay for the consequences. 

None of them have ever proved to be as intuitive as the commercials make them out to be.  Is Apple easier to figure out than Android? Sure but that's not saying much.   That's like deciding whether to be burned at the stake or drowned. 

Maybe I'll get used to it but I've already figured out how to turn off the 4G radio for Internet functionality and removed a blinding array of apps whose only purpose appears to be to provide me that $500 data charge.  And no, I didn't customize my ringtone...

As for you mobile media mavens...

If you believe that you can have a full, rich visual experience with that tiny spec of screen real estate on your Smartphone you are undeniably insane. Sorry to break it to you but someone had to tell you before you started having conversations with the voices in your head.

Even with the supposedly "generous" 4.3 inch screen on my phone, reading web pages is painful, Watching videos is quite simply a disappointment.  Navigation is a joy (not) with my ample digits (fingers) and often an exercise in frustration.  Yes I know about gestures and pinches and all they do is make everything worse. 

Voice control  is just a band-aid.  Well, aside from the amusement  found in how badly it mangles the English language. Try saying your email address to Google Voice and see what you get, hilarious.

Well, at least I didn't pay much for this technological abomination.  I have a refurbished HTC EVO 4G from Ting that cost me just over $100 and all I want to do with it is make calls and occasionally use it as a hotspot when I'm on a client site with no Internet access.  That's it. 

I could care less about videos, apps, email or anything else.  I don't even browse the Internet on the phone because it's pointless for reasons I've already mentioned.  Even installing  apps, the core activity of any self-respecting phone geek,  is a chore.  Forget that tiny screen,  I just go to the Google Play store and set up the whole process from there.   At least that option is intuitive.  Too bad I had to go to a website on my PC to enjoy it.

On-screen keyboards?  Predictive or not they still, in a word..."suck."  Sorry folks,  I'm a touch typist so this whole culture of hunt and peck makes me wretch.    Let's not forget that I have fingers the size of hot dogs.

I was trained to control text without having to look at my fingers especially considering their unattractive aesthetics.

In short, I'll grudgingly use this thing the way I need to use it but it might as well be a Wi-Fi dongle with a keypad.   I'm amazed how gullible and accepting consumers are.  Confusing user interfaces, Horrible control surfaces and design about as intuitive as Rorschach test.

The marketing departments have won the war.  They've convinced consumers that counterintuitive is the new ergonomics.   

In short they're selling BS and like I said, I have a low tolerance for it.  That tech pundits call these devices "computers" is laughable.  A Smartphone isn't a computer, it's a device.  Using a Smartphone like a computer is like having to drive a car using two steering wheels and four brake pedals. 

Oh well, I have to go make sure my updates are using Wi-FI instead of 4G now....

Consider your perception

Perception...

It's an interesting word and about as ambiguous as they come.  If you've ever heard the old phrase about "rose colored glasses" then you've got the general idea.  Our perceptions color our world and help form our personal biases. 

Let's try an example.

Say you're sitting at a table at your favorite lunch spot when a rather large burly man walks through the door.  He's dressed in biker gear, has a few tattoos and looks like he's been on the road for days.  Other than his appearance he offers no clue to his intentions outside of the possible desire to have lunch.

What's the first thing that comes to your mind?  For most  it would probably be a little fear followed by a mental note to find a new lunch spot.  In the end our opinion probably leans toward a less than favorable view of our hungry friend. 

So what if I told you our burly biker guy was actually an esteemed Superior Court judge who happens to be a motorcycle enthusiast...

Your perceptions are affected by societal norms and anything that goes against them causes us alarm.  Depending on how conservative or liberal your social views are will have a direct relationship to your world view.

The problem with perception is that it's based on faulty logic.  We first apply whatever we accept as societal norms, then our own personal biases and with very little additional information render judgment.  And that's where it gets dangerous. 

Marketing is all about perception whether it's trying to convince you that Coke tastes better than Pepsi or one political view is superior to another.    Create a popular enough advertising campaign and you can effect a change in what society finds acceptable with virtually no credible information to support it.

Remember the Romney presidential campaign and all the rhetoric that swirled around about the "takers?"  Into that group went anyone deemed unworthy due to their reliance on public assistance of any kind.  The circumstance that landed you in that position was irrelevant, only the perception mattered.  For the true believers it was black and white and anything in a gray area was considered black. 

Create a label and you're on your way to influencing perception.  Repeat the label enough and it gains power even if it contains no substance.  So if a message could be crafted to sway public opinion against those branded with your new label you could disenfranchise an entire swath of the population.   Especially useful in silencing groups that expose the flaws in your point of view.

Our lives are cluttered with irrelevant noise.  Even the news isn't particularly informative anymore since it's become an entertainment medium.  Entire nations may be plagued by hunger and disease.  Civil rights curtailed by corporate influence and the efforts of many now benefit a privileged few. 

Hey, who cares?  None of that is as interesting as the latest celebrity gossip or news about an upcoming mobile device.  Rampant consumerism and distilled information rule the day.  Our perception of normal has been co-opted and corrupted with nonsense and it extends to more than just our consumer habits.

And there's the danger.  It's easier to consume than to deliberate, especially with so many seemingly important demands for your attention.  We allow someone else's version of reality to dictate our own without even realizing it. 

So the next time you make a snap judgment take a moment to really consider where your opinion comes from.  You may find a truly uncomfortable truth.  One that could alter your perception.

It's about the content

In this age of digital media  the experts will tell you it's all about the content.  After almost two decades the novelty of the Internet has worn off and what was revolutionary is now the mundane.  Truth be told,  nobody promotes themselves as being online anymore, it's just expected that you are.   

And it seems everybody is.  From your grandmother to multinational corporations the Internet is awash in content.  It happened fast, so fast that traditional media can't keep up with the pace.  Content is no longer limited to a newspaper on your doorstep, a movie in a theater or a program on television.  A fact that the NBC Universals and Disney's of the world can't stand. 

In the 80's the advent of the VCR sent the Motion picture industry into a panic with then MPAA president Jack Valenti proclaiming, "Their (VCR manufacturers) only single mission, their primary mission is to copy coyrighted material that belongs to other people."

 The late 90's saw the music industry decrying the evils of digital music players.  Most notably the case of the RIAA versus DIamond Multimedia.  The RIAA asserted that the simple act of copying music to an MP3 player like the Diamond Rio even when restricted to personal use was a violation of copyright.  Fortunately the courts found it wasn't but the decision wasn't based on a rapidly outmoded copyright law but rather what comprised a recording device.

Succeeding years found both organizations  repeatedly claiming that new consumer friendly technologies threatened the fortunes of the entire entertainment industry. 

Of course history shows that it hasn't but not before decades of legislation had weakened consumer rights and made the whole concept of copyright law deliberately ambiguous. 

The result is an entertainment industry who views the public first as thieves and second as customers.  The concept of "Fair Use" frequently finds itself at odds with the entertainment industry who views any use not explicitly controlled by them as an infringement of copyright. 

For the uninitiated the doctrine of Fair Use is not so much a right (at least in the U.S.) as it is a defense when accused of copyright violation.  It's basically a four step criteria to measure whether use of copyrighted work is eligible for exemption from copyright law.  Generally the rule is that Fair Use applies to non-commercial or educational uses or commercial uses that can be shown to not diminish the original work.  There's more than enough room for interpretation, however, and that's frequently decided in favor of the copyright holder.

Which translates to a virtual flip of the coin any time your use of alleged copyrighted material strays into new territory. 

For example, upload a family holiday video to YouTube and you could find yourself on the receiving end of a copyright complaint if ol' Blue Eyes(Frank Sinatra) happens to be belting out  Silent Night in the background.  Even if you make the video private and accessible only to your family and not the general public you can still be considered in violation of copyright.

What's the definition of original content anyway?

 You may do a weekly video podcast but if anything in your video displays an element someone claims as copyrighted material you've suddenly lost your right to monetization under YouTube's rules at the least.   At the worst you can find your video removed and receive a "copyright strike." Too many of those and YouTube will close your account.

More than just an annoyance the entertainment industry has engaged in legal intimidation in an effort to protect an outdated content model.  Is there really a threat to a copyright holder's interest if someone uses a clip from their content in an entirely unrelated work?

What if you just want to make fun of copyrighted but publicly available content?  If so is it considered a parody or a satire?  Hint: One is covered by "Fair Use" the other isn't.   Most people don't even know there's  a difference but under copyright law there is. 

Even the alleged "New Media" succumbs to the pressure of the old guard.  When the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)was signed into law in 1998 savvy ISP's lobbied for some degree of immunity by way of the "safe harbor."

They saw a future rife with litigation for simply operating a medium and wanted no part of it.  Safe Harbor holds ISP's and later content hosting services like YouTube  harmless in any copyright infringement claim.  So long as they don't actively participate in the infringement they get a pass.  Unfortunately content creators who run afoul of the DMCA have no such protections and have to rely on Fair Use defenses.

Now a bewildered public is forced to learn about words like "transformative"," derivative" and "Fair Use." 

And to think that all you wanted to do was to share a holiday memory with grandma on YouTube.

These are questions we shouldn't have to answer in a creative society.  The history of mankind is built upon the creative output of those that came before.  Without the wheel, for instance, there would be no automobiles  and transportation on the whole would be a very different if not inefficient proposition.

So should someone have patented the concept of a cylindrical object for the purpose of rotating around an axis ?   Perhaps but it should never have been expected to exist in perpetuity.  If such a patent existed it's entirely possible, for example, that we'd be controlling the direction of our cars with levers instead of that familiar direction control device we know as a steering wheel. 

The holder of the patent (or copyright) could prevent any use not explicitly under their control which would include anything that resembled or made reference to the wheel product.

That sounds ridiculous but is exactly what is happening with copyright law now.  No reasonable person would deny anyone the right to profit from their efforts .  The problem arises when protection of those rights subverts the very innovation that copyright sought to protect. 

Even if you never run afoul of someone else's copyright you still suffer the consequences. 

Why, for example, in an age of almost instantaneous access to information do we still have artificial limits placed on how we consume media?  The entertainment industry would argue that there's a minimum period of time necessary to protect their revenue potential.

That argument ignores the revenue potential afforded by alternate modes of content delivery.  A friend of mine recently posed a question to me.  He said, " Why do I have to wait months for a new movie to be available somewhere other than a movie theater?"

You know, I have to agree.  He brought up the fact that many people have home theater systems that could offer an excellent viewing experience.  To me, I'd rather see a new movie in the theater and I'm sure I'm not alone.  Nonetheless, I shouldn't be denied the option.

Seeing a movie in a theater is a "premium" experience and I'm willing to pay more for it.  However,  I'm not willing to support a business model rooted in the middle of the last century to get it.  There was a time when the only way to see a  first run movie was at a theater.  That's hasn't been the case for a decade now.  It's not about the technology it's about revenue.

There are very few cases where a 50 year old business model is relevant to contemporary markets but the industry doesn't it see it that way.

In some cases new entertainment content will go straight to online sources like YouTube, direct to DVD or even services like NetFlix.  So with alternate delivery mechanisms available do we really need so many theaters?

Should we be limiting our entertainment options based on nothing more than propping up an industry that refuses to respond to a new market dynamic?

I'd rather have a few really great theaters offering a superior experience than a lesser one from a business model that's groaning under its own weight. 

Remember we're still  talking about restricting content here.  In some cases, your content if someone deems it a threat to their copyright.  We're also talking about restricting your choices.  The least of which is your opportunity to use content  any way you wish

I've never been a fan of change for its own sake but when it comes to copyrights I don't have to betray that rule because change desperately needs to happen.

                            

Politics as Product

Article first published as Politics as Product on Technorati.

Never has there been such a splendid example that we as a society are severely afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder.  This flavor of ADD  is far from the inattentive child nervously fidgeting in his classroom, however.  

No, this is an affliction of the first world dominated by the churn of  consumerism.   It expresses itself in everything from fad to fashion and increasingly to critical thinking as well.

We in the first world have become so conditioned to reacting to a marketing message that we require no further information to make a decision.  We make the choice based on the promotion we most easily identify with.  No further deliberation is entertained. 

We've come to expect all of our information to be packaged in this way.  Politics enjoy no immunity.

Our impatience is reflected in the flood of campaign ads that have plagued our airwaves for the past year.  Probably the most obvious example is the current U.S. presidential race.  To date, both candidates for president have raised over 2 Billion dollars for their campaigns with approximately 1.5 billion of that spent thus far. 

Half truths, errors of omission and inflated context are the tools of political persuasion and they easily translate to the world of marketing.  Politics promotes the image by obscuring the product. 

FedEx Office Print Online Large order 20% Discount

We choose our leaders with less care than our favorite sports team.  That's by design and the reason why political positions are largely parroted from political propaganda.  Politicians know voters have a low tolerance for long-winded technical arguments.  Instead they choose a popular position with their base and relentlessly repeat the same message regardless of its veracity.

Remember the Go-Daddy commercials?  In 30 seconds we knew who they were but only because we were constantly exposed to scantily clad models that appealed to a core demographic.   How many of us tried them based on a subconscious reaction to those ads instead of their reputation?

It works just as well for politics as it does for web hosting.   Think about where you get your political news.  Is it C-Span or are you more interested in the packaged offerings of Fox News or MSNBC?

Let's look at a current hot button political issue as an example...

Is it really the fault of a sitting president that the worst economic downturn since the depression of 1929 is still affecting the economy?

It is if you ignore the boring technical argument that it took a decade and a world war to bring the U.S. out of the great depression.   

Unfortunately, our short attention spans won't allow the retort.  We crave instant gratification and sway toward the product that promises it.  Ironically, If challenged we frequently justify our position based on that same marketing construct.  It's circular logic which dovetails nicely with our distaste for depth.

Perhaps it's time to examine how informed we really are.