Products aren't revolutionary, get it straight!

The term "revolutionary" is overused.  Changing your form of government from a monarchy to a representative Democracy is revolutionary.  Browsing the Internet from your tablet instead of your PC is not. 

Revolutions are about upheaval not convenience.  Changing your method doesn't change the context.   The core of the word "revolution" is "revolt."  "Evolution" is just another form of "evolve." 

Simply put, revolution and evolution are not interchangeable terms regardless of anything you see in a Microsoft or Apple advertisement.  When you buy an IPAD you're not revolting against anything, not even Microsoft. 

There's nothing wrong with evolving, it's the reason we aren't still beating our clothes on rocks or retiring to a little wooden shack with a moon carved in the door when nature calls. 

Yet the word "revolutionary" gets thrown around quite a bit.  Maybe that's because the so-called developed world has long since moved on from debates over social justice to be replaced by the most popular color of Iphone. 

Perhaps the misuse of the term stems from our fascination with technological doo-dads.  They need do nothing more than change their shape or offer a bigger screen to suddenly find themselves on par with a certain conflict in 1776.

It's more than a question of semantics, it's a potentially dangerous devaluing of the term.  If a regime change is on par with the latest "product" we become desensitized to both.  That's fine for the crap found on late night infomercials but not for events that potentially affect the human condition. 

I'm probably screaming into the wind but it seems obvious that the more we muddy the meaning of what we say the less value our words have. 

Think about that the next time you're browsing the wares at your local best buy or Amazon.com.

New Media is older than you think - Part 2

YouTube is perhaps the most blatant example of the "New Media" hypocrisy. Their motto is "Broadcast Yourself" although it's hard to find on their webpage anymore.  Here's their current claimed reason for being...

Founded in February 2005, YouTube allows billions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.

The real truth is that only thing YouTube cares about since the Google acquisition is becoming the Internet equivalent of NBC. They've invested a few million in a Los Angeles production studio called the "Creation Space" supposedly to support the YouTube community.  What you find in the small print, however, is that you don't get to use it unless you've been "invited."    

To get that golden ticket you need to  have at least 300,000 average views with the first crop of "invitees" being closer to a half million or more.  Check out the bulk of the channels and  you're going to find a lot of crossover from old media interests, entertainment figures and those with a popular following elsewhere. 

Sorry guys, your chances of getting in on the new digs is pretty slim with videos of your new kittens produced with Windows Movie Maker.

By the way, a common thread among successful YouTube channels is a partnership agreement with an even  larger channel. 

Oh yeah, and being a pop star with a record company backing the production of your new "Internet only" video wouldn't hurt either.

So what exactly is this New Media then?  A shortcut for old media billionaires to make more money by spending less on production?

Seems that way which means supporting your tiny channel is not their focus.  In fact since the Google acquisition, the service has become increasingly hostile to small content creators.  The recommendation is to sign up with bigger partners if you want to increase your views. 

That means revenue sharing or basically paying the bigger partner a percentage of your monetized views on top of YouTube's normal cut.  Kind of like a pyramid scheme.  Paying for views, by the way, is something YouTube actively discourages anywhere but partner agreements.  They can't turn a profit outside that structure so they make sure you don't either.

The only thing YouTube is nurturing is its own fortunes.  Don't expect to get a call to reserve your slot in the "Creation Space" if you're not in the less than 1% of YouTubers able to live off your partner income.  It's not going to happen for smaller channels simply because their take isn't lucrative enough for them.

YouTube will reap millions from its relatively paltry investment in facilities and you're going to pay for it with deeper cuts into your monetization.  Even if you never get to use it.  So much for their philanthropic motives.

Why?  Simple, it's a corporate interest and  you're just a consumer of their product.  Your "partner" status just gives them license to hijack your content for their own ends with minimal benefit for you.  So while you spend hours hoping that all that slaving over the perfect upload will go viral, know that YouTube has your back.  Well at least so long as they can turn a profit on you.  Oh yeah and you don't do anything to threaten the sensibilities of their advertisers or even suggest the possibility of a copyright infringement. 

Do either of those and you'll quickly be branded "Not Advertiser Friendly" which at the minimum denies your videos monetization or at worst gets them pulled down.

Sound familiar?  It's the same dynamic that got your favorite show kicked off of network TV and drove innovative cable networks like TechTV into the ground. 

So dry your tears New Media pundits, it's the same old crap in a new package.  Nothing's really changed as the same "old media" gatekeepers are still collecting the tolls.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from engaging in this "New Media" just don't believe everything you hear about it.  It's definitely fun but it's far from free and not as lucrative as it seems so don't quit your day job.   

You can start a blog, post hundreds of videos on YouTube and spam all your Facebook friends with them  and still not earn a dime.  Without the backing of the gatekeepers you may as well post your blogs on telephone poles.  Just remember the "New Media" isn't all that new so take it with a grain of salt.  Most of the hype you're hearing is the same kind of noise you get from an "Internet Millions" infomercial. 

              

New Media is older than you think - Part 1

The Internet is delusional. More precisely, people who see it as something other than a shill for corporate interests are delusional. I suppose that means I'm raining on somebody's parade but then again, I've never thought Felicia Day was that big of a deal. The promise of "New Media" was broken the day the term was coined.

So it should be no surprise when you suddenly find your creative expression cut short by some mysterious mechanism that's denied your 15 minutes of fame.

 I've watched a lot of misty eyed podcast pundits proclaiming the impending doom of the "old" media model and the rise of the "New Media" model. They postulate on how all those silly old men in their corporate towers are powerless to prevent the tidal wave of content in this brave new media world. Surely the tables are turning and the rise of entertainment by mob rule will conquer the day.

They fondly recall short lived television shows that to their minds were unfairly struck down only to find rebirth in a new medium. A feat not possible without the promise of the... Internet!

 I guess they forgot about that whole thing with VCR's and DVD box sets. Oh yeah, and the fact that 90% of television programming couldn't draw 1000 views in a YouTube channel anyway. Worse, YouTube probably wouldn't let them monetize it due to some BS about "commercial use rights".
What they fail to mention is that the "rebirth" found its conception with an sympathetic ear who had control of the content. And why not, they had nothing to lose by offering up these "lost gems" on the web. All the better if they could squeeze a few more bucks out that old crap too.

So it goes with most of the New Media superstars as well. Most of whom started with more than just a laptop and a webcam.

People like to point to podcasting and YouTube as the best examples of new media. Look behind the curtains of the most popular "visionary" media offerings, however, and you find a deep bench of old media. 

Take the example of Leo Laporte's TWIT netcast (podcast) network. Built on decades of broadcast experience on radio and television as America's favorite tech pundit, Laporte's TWIT it is the wet dream of anyone with a YouTube channel. With over 20 shows built around technology related topics from social media to law it's frequently held up as the example of successful "New Media."

The part that gets glossed over is that without Laporte's "Old Media" gravitas and a few handpicked hosts from his TechTV days, TWIT would be just another hobbyist channel on YouTube. Not surprisingly, the collective TWIT resume is heavy in traditional media as well as technology luminaries like Steve Gibson, Bob Heil and Alex Lindsay. Not exactly the kind of talent easily accessible to the average podcaster trying to make their way in the world.

There's nothing wrong with leveraging your strengths but you can't hold TWIT up as a pure example of New Media precisely because of them. It's existence is entirely reliant on leveraging old media concepts if not its on-air personalities.

I mean, really now, TWIT would literally have to start airing "This week in gym socks" and "The Social Terrorist Today" to fail with their talent lineup.

While tightly controlled, TWIT still relies on advertising and audience metrics for a revenue stream. Programming that doesn't meet a revenue threshold no matter how popular can find itself cancelled, which isn't exactly a new idea. We're still being asked to vote with our wallets instead of our interests. Even popular hosts organically grown from this "New Media" that run afoul of "old media" hierarchies can quickly find themselves out on the cold.

Perhaps the most vivid example was the ousting of a rising star on the TWIT network in 2011. Erik Lanigan came fresh out of college and worked for TWIT as an editor before beginning the rise to the ranks of a show host after Laporte recognized his talent. Toward the end he gained a loyal following and was reportedly being groomed to substitute for Laporte on his weekend "Tech Guy" syndicated radio show.

From available information Lanigan wasn't receiving adequate support for his fledgling overnight show not to mention a paycheck in general. It culminated in a chat conversation where he admitted as much. Viewers of the live broadcast were none the wiser, however, with even Laporte struggling to find anything derogatory in the show's recorded video. It appears Lanigans sin, was to admit that he wasn't being fairly treated by TWIT management to chatroom friends.

Laporte's commentary on the subject was probably the most emblematic of old media icons when in response to questions about Lanigan's firing he said, "I had to kiss a lot of butt in the first 20 years, that's why I'm here...You kiss butt in media for a long ass time"

Isn't this the core issue of old media that the New Media is supposed to correct? Isn't the rule that the quality of the content should supersede ego or advertiser metric? So the old maxim of brown nosing to the top is part of the new revolution in media? It calls into question if New Media outlets are really the incubators of fresh ideas or just a new medium for the old guard to monetize.

Part 2

                  

Apple revs up expectations for the latest IPAD.

Article first published as Apple Revs Up Expectations for the Latest iPad on Technorati.

I wrote an article last week in my Digital Dynamic Blog entitled, "It's Crazy".  I aimed it squarely at this week's IPAD launch and the media frenzy that accompanied it.  Seems I was right as we were treated to an avalanche of media attention and outlandish marketing sound bites.  Of course Apple's CEO Tim Cook wrung a bit more anticipation out of the crowd by first announcing the new 1080P Apple TV box before getting to the star of the show.   The new IPAD which is curiously just called, IPAD (not IPAD3 or IPAD HD) has the following specifications.

2048 x 1536 (3.1 million pixels) Retina display.

A5X processor, quad-core graphics

5 MP camera on the back

HD (1080p) video capture

Voice dictation (not SIRI by the way)

4G LTE capability For the IPAD LTE (73 mbps on LTE).

Wireless hotspot capability

10 hour battery life, 9 hours on 4G.

9.4mm thick, 1.4lbs.

Compatible  mobile carriers; Rogers, Telus and Bell in Canada, At&T and Verizon in the U.S.

Price Wi-Fi iPad: 16 GB ($499), 32 GB ($599), 64 GB ($699)

Price Wi-Fi + 4G: 16 GB ($629), 32 GB ($729), 64 GB ($829)

IPAD2 pricing will also drop by $100.

Availability: March 16th in the U.S. and Canada

During the event, Tim Cook boasted of more IPAD sales in the 4th quarter of 2011 than any makers PC sales.  That's a dubious statement considering most people don't use tablets the same way they use a pc especially when there's heavy lifting to be done.  While technically accurate, the statement holds no more distinction than asserting that more paperclips were sold in the same quarter than the total number of IPADS ever produced. 

The advent of the tablet is a welcome utility for many but just as your corner convenience store is not a threat to the supermarket the tablet is no threat to the pc.  Unfortunately, Ultrabook pc makers feel it is  leading at least one manufacturer, Acer to aim for a $499 price point.  This after admitting they currently make no profit at the current $799 price.   Considering a pc in any form factor will by its very nature will have more functionality than a tablet it seems a pointless goal.  More so when you consider that the top end of the IPAD food chain offers little more than a nice display and LTE connectivity at a $829 price point.  

Tablets have their place but limitations of storage, dependency on network connectivity for basic functionality and limited performance compared to even entry level PC's makes them more of a compliment than replacement for pc's.  That also calls into question the Apple price premium especially if you don't normally utilize their ecosystem.  Cooler heads suggest selecting devices based on your needs instead of marketing hype.