Whew, that was fast!
The sale of F***ked Company, noted yesterday, is apparently completed. The site has been acquired by tech blog heavyweight TechCrunch in a "stock for assets transaction."
TechCrunch's Michael Arrington says the time was ripe because "its [sic] clear that we are at the tail end of the current boom" and "by focusing on the negative we will have much more content for the site."
Ugh.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
Albums vs. Singles
Lots of people blame digital downloading for putting the album format on the endangered species list.
If there are only a couple really good songs on the album, the theory goes, why would you pay for the whole album? The record labels are understandably worried by this turn of events, and Apple seems to feel their pain. The company has re-jiggered iTunes' pricing structure to give discounts on album purchases for singles already purchased from that album.
I think that's great. No, really, I do. Discounts are always good, right?
It's just that I find the whole idea of "protecting the album format" to prop up record company profits patently ridiculous. If an album is full of good songs, people will buy it. If it has only a couple of good songs, why should they be forced to buy the dreck just to get the songs they want?
33s took over from 45s back in the '60s when pop music changed and people wanted more than just a song - and a "B" side - from their favorite artists. (LPs always ruled in classical and jazz because they naturally lent themselves to longer forms.)
I still like to listen to whole albums at a time - often on my aging but still sonically wonderful audiophile Rotel RCD-855 single-disc CD player I know, downloads make its musical quality moot. And yes, some songs aren't as strong as others. Still, I like hearing them together. So even when I listen to my digital files, I often listen to them album by album.
But I have a good friend who hasn't done that for years. Back before MP3s, he loaded up his CD-changer with a variety of genres and hit shuffle. Now he's one of the legions who put all their music onto iTunes and shuffle their way through various playlists. I may be wrong, but he seems to have lost all interest in albums, instead downloading only the songs he's interested in.
I guess if discounts are good, choice is better, and it's a wonderful thing that we can choose to buy music the way we like to listen to it.
Now, if they can just get over their addiction to that nasty DRM.
If there are only a couple really good songs on the album, the theory goes, why would you pay for the whole album? The record labels are understandably worried by this turn of events, and Apple seems to feel their pain. The company has re-jiggered iTunes' pricing structure to give discounts on album purchases for singles already purchased from that album.
I think that's great. No, really, I do. Discounts are always good, right?
It's just that I find the whole idea of "protecting the album format" to prop up record company profits patently ridiculous. If an album is full of good songs, people will buy it. If it has only a couple of good songs, why should they be forced to buy the dreck just to get the songs they want?
33s took over from 45s back in the '60s when pop music changed and people wanted more than just a song - and a "B" side - from their favorite artists. (LPs always ruled in classical and jazz because they naturally lent themselves to longer forms.)
I still like to listen to whole albums at a time - often on my aging but still sonically wonderful audiophile Rotel RCD-855 single-disc CD player I know, downloads make its musical quality moot. And yes, some songs aren't as strong as others. Still, I like hearing them together. So even when I listen to my digital files, I often listen to them album by album.
But I have a good friend who hasn't done that for years. Back before MP3s, he loaded up his CD-changer with a variety of genres and hit shuffle. Now he's one of the legions who put all their music onto iTunes and shuffle their way through various playlists. I may be wrong, but he seems to have lost all interest in albums, instead downloading only the songs he's interested in.
I guess if discounts are good, choice is better, and it's a wonderful thing that we can choose to buy music the way we like to listen to it.
Now, if they can just get over their addiction to that nasty DRM.
F***ked Company May Be F***ked
Well, at least it's on the block.
Back in the boom years, I used to visit the F***ked Company site all the time. I even read Peter Kaplans freakin' book!
But somehow it all seems faintly dated in these days of Boom 2.0. In fact, until I heard the site was for sale, I didn't even realize it was still around.
Maybe we've all matured and leaned to take less pleasure in the pain of others, no matter how well deserved. Or maybe we're just too jaded to care.
Who knows, perhaps the sales price will tell the tale.
Back in the boom years, I used to visit the F***ked Company site all the time. I even read Peter Kaplans freakin' book!
But somehow it all seems faintly dated in these days of Boom 2.0. In fact, until I heard the site was for sale, I didn't even realize it was still around.
Maybe we've all matured and leaned to take less pleasure in the pain of others, no matter how well deserved. Or maybe we're just too jaded to care.
Who knows, perhaps the sales price will tell the tale.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Web Readers LESS Fickle?
I have to admit, this story surprised me. According to a new eyetrack study from The Poynter Institute newspaper readers consume more of online stories and they are more likely to finish reading stories online than in print.
Frankly, this flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that online readers skim and don't read, and that they are constantly itching to jump to a new site. After all, the entire Internet is just a click away when you're reading online, and many of us content creators and packagers spend a lot of time working to offer readers contextual links to other content even as they're reading something else.
I have a couple theories on what might be going on here:
1. Because there are so many choices online, readers are more invested in the stories they actually select to read.
2. It can often be a pain to find the jump page in print. Instead, readers might choose to start another story on the original page.
3. In print, stories compete with much larger and often more colorful ads. By comparison, much less screen real estate is devoted to ads. That adds up to less distraction.
The reality, though, is that I don't really know why this happens. I'd love to hear some online usability experts weigh in on this issue.
Jakob Nielsen, are you listening?
When readers chose to read an online story, they usually read an average of 77% of the story, compared to 62% in broadsheets and 57% in tabloids.
In addition, nearly two-thirds of online readers read all of the text of a particular story once they began to read it, the survey revealed. In print, 68% of tabloid readers continued reading a specific story through the jump to another page, while 59% did so in broadsheet reading.
Frankly, this flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that online readers skim and don't read, and that they are constantly itching to jump to a new site. After all, the entire Internet is just a click away when you're reading online, and many of us content creators and packagers spend a lot of time working to offer readers contextual links to other content even as they're reading something else.
I have a couple theories on what might be going on here:
1. Because there are so many choices online, readers are more invested in the stories they actually select to read.
2. It can often be a pain to find the jump page in print. Instead, readers might choose to start another story on the original page.
3. In print, stories compete with much larger and often more colorful ads. By comparison, much less screen real estate is devoted to ads. That adds up to less distraction.
The reality, though, is that I don't really know why this happens. I'd love to hear some online usability experts weigh in on this issue.
Jakob Nielsen, are you listening?
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Sex Sells, Even Virtually
My old buddy Mitch Wagner reports in InformationWeek that the "Amsterdam" sex-business area on Second Life has sold on eBay for $50,000.
According to Mitch:
Seems that sex sells no matter what. Even if it's a virtual sex site in a virtual world. And even if it costs real money.
My only question is how Mitch knew?
According to Mitch:
The overwhelming majority of the shops in Second Life's Amsterdam sell sexual merchandise. And avatars posing as streetwalkers hang around near the train station, openly soliciting cybersex-for-pay with any avatar who stands still for a few minutes and many walking through.
Seems that sex sells no matter what. Even if it's a virtual sex site in a virtual world. And even if it costs real money.
My only question is how Mitch knew?
Infoworld Stops Killing Trees
The ongoing saga of how the online revolution affects journalism took an interesting turn yesterday as longtime tech-industry stalwart InfoWorld announced that it will stop publishing a paper edition and become an online only enterprise (plus live events, of course).
In the announcement, Editor-in-Chief Steve Fox bravely contends that InfoWorld "is not dead," and I'm sure he means it. But the history of this kind of thing is not encouranging. Some 5 years ago, CMP stopped publishing InternetWeek's paper edition, and I ended up in charge of carrying on the Web operation. We did so, and I believe continued to publish useful information for many years. But eventually, lack of interest from CMP corporate, a lack of resources, and lack of traffic let the once significant brand fade away. Go to InternetWeek.com today, and you end up on the ebusiness section page of InformationWeek, which retains its print component.
InfoWorld's own Ed Foster addressed the significance of the move, not just for InfoWorld, but for tech publishing in general. There's less money to go around, Foster says, and much of what there is goes to Google and Craigslist and such. So, like his colleagues in the daily newspaper business, Foster wonders where the money's going to come from to create content in the brave new world of the Internet.
As a professional content creator, among other things, I worry too.
(Full disclosure: way back before the Net bubble, I used to write notebook reviews and other stories for InfoWorld, and I still count as friends many of the folks that work there.)
In the announcement, Editor-in-Chief Steve Fox bravely contends that InfoWorld "is not dead," and I'm sure he means it. But the history of this kind of thing is not encouranging. Some 5 years ago, CMP stopped publishing InternetWeek's paper edition, and I ended up in charge of carrying on the Web operation. We did so, and I believe continued to publish useful information for many years. But eventually, lack of interest from CMP corporate, a lack of resources, and lack of traffic let the once significant brand fade away. Go to InternetWeek.com today, and you end up on the ebusiness section page of InformationWeek, which retains its print component.
InfoWorld's own Ed Foster addressed the significance of the move, not just for InfoWorld, but for tech publishing in general. There's less money to go around, Foster says, and much of what there is goes to Google and Craigslist and such. So, like his colleagues in the daily newspaper business, Foster wonders where the money's going to come from to create content in the brave new world of the Internet.
As a professional content creator, among other things, I worry too.
(Full disclosure: way back before the Net bubble, I used to write notebook reviews and other stories for InfoWorld, and I still count as friends many of the folks that work there.)
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Giants Score Big
San Francisco likes to think of itself as the capital of the technology world. Maybe that's why even the local baseball team tries to position itself on digital cutting edge.
On top of Wi-Fi access for all patrons, this year the Giants added solar panels to their scenic PacBell/SBC/ATT Park. And now comes an enormous HD video scoreboard.
Even though he's a White Sox fan, The Freditor approves of the technology surge at the ballfield. Heck, he approves of HD almost anywhere. But he's just a tad worried that the Giants' giant screen will merely make it easier to see that Barry Bonds just let a lazy fly ball sail over his and that the team is once again losing 6-2.
(Sorry about writing about myself in the third person, but even thinking about professional athletics can really mess with your sense of ego.)
On top of Wi-Fi access for all patrons, this year the Giants added solar panels to their scenic PacBell/SBC/ATT Park. And now comes an enormous HD video scoreboard.
Even though he's a White Sox fan, The Freditor approves of the technology surge at the ballfield. Heck, he approves of HD almost anywhere. But he's just a tad worried that the Giants' giant screen will merely make it easier to see that Barry Bonds just let a lazy fly ball sail over his and that the team is once again losing 6-2.
(Sorry about writing about myself in the third person, but even thinking about professional athletics can really mess with your sense of ego.)
Friday, March 23, 2007
NewTube?
We may be looking at market segregation in online video sites.
Even as YouTube struggles with Viacom's billion-dollar lawsuit over displaying copyrighted material, heavy media hitters News Corp. and NBC Universal are teaming up to create a new advertiser-supported video site primarily devoted to just that sort of professionally created video.
Due this summer, the as yet unnamed new site will hold movies and TV shows, with "most" content available free (the reports were vague on exactly what that means). Users will also be able to upload their own videos, and the reports were also vague on how copyright control will be handled on those clips. (See TechCrunch's notes on the announcement.)
If the new venture flies, we could be looking at a bifurcation (love that word) in the market. YouTube for loopy, user-generated kareoke videos, and other sites for professional media products. That's probably not good for YouTube owners Google.
In related news, Viacom is being sued over telling YouTube to remove a Colbert report parody called Stop The Falsiness. The clip is still up...
And Reuters has a story on Kongregate.com, the YouTube for video games.
Even as YouTube struggles with Viacom's billion-dollar lawsuit over displaying copyrighted material, heavy media hitters News Corp. and NBC Universal are teaming up to create a new advertiser-supported video site primarily devoted to just that sort of professionally created video.
Due this summer, the as yet unnamed new site will hold movies and TV shows, with "most" content available free (the reports were vague on exactly what that means). Users will also be able to upload their own videos, and the reports were also vague on how copyright control will be handled on those clips. (See TechCrunch's notes on the announcement.)
If the new venture flies, we could be looking at a bifurcation (love that word) in the market. YouTube for loopy, user-generated kareoke videos, and other sites for professional media products. That's probably not good for YouTube owners Google.
In related news, Viacom is being sued over telling YouTube to remove a Colbert report parody called Stop The Falsiness. The clip is still up...
And Reuters has a story on Kongregate.com, the YouTube for video games.
Lazarus Responds To Critics
San Francisco columnist Dan Lazarus has responded to bloggers comments about his column calling for newspapers to band together to charge for their online content.
Apparently The Freditor and MediaShift weren't the only ones to take him to task. In fact, he doesn't mention us directly.
More to the point, he still doesn't get it.
For one thing, newspapers' print business is supported by advertising, not by charging for the paper itself. Many newspapers are now distributed free, and even when they do charge they still lose more money on paper distribution then they do on online distribution.
Here's the thing: Online distribution is vastly cheaper and more efficient than chopping down trees, printing up thousands of copies, and delivering them to houses and newsstands. So if the Chronicle thinks it's enough better than the free San Francisco Examiner to charge $.50 a copy, that's fine. If the Chron thinks it's that much better online, too, then it can try and charge there too. If people think it's worth it, then they will pay.
But asking for anti-trust exemption to allow collusion and price fixing is both pathetic and nasty. What's next, forcing Craigslist to charge for its personal ads?
Oh, and here's the best take on the issue, from the Chronicle's consistently hilarious Don Assmussen's Bad Reporter comic.
Apparently The Freditor and MediaShift weren't the only ones to take him to task. In fact, he doesn't mention us directly.
More to the point, he still doesn't get it.
For one thing, newspapers' print business is supported by advertising, not by charging for the paper itself. Many newspapers are now distributed free, and even when they do charge they still lose more money on paper distribution then they do on online distribution.
Here's the thing: Online distribution is vastly cheaper and more efficient than chopping down trees, printing up thousands of copies, and delivering them to houses and newsstands. So if the Chronicle thinks it's enough better than the free San Francisco Examiner to charge $.50 a copy, that's fine. If the Chron thinks it's that much better online, too, then it can try and charge there too. If people think it's worth it, then they will pay.
But asking for anti-trust exemption to allow collusion and price fixing is both pathetic and nasty. What's next, forcing Craigslist to charge for its personal ads?
Oh, and here's the best take on the issue, from the Chronicle's consistently hilarious Don Assmussen's Bad Reporter comic.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
David Byrne Talks Sense To The Record Industry
It's no secret that I'm no fan of the record industry. But I am a big fan of former Talking Heads leader David Byrne.
So I was thrilled with this Reuters story about Mr. Byrne railing against the greedy record companies and Digital Rights Management (DRM).
For the greed factor, Byrne notes that the companies pay the same artist royalties for sales over iTunes as they do for CD sales, even though there are only minimal manufacturing/distribution costs. And he admits that he downloads music "illegally" rather than put up with iTunes' DRM restrictions.
Byrne's sensible suggestions?
1. Have artists work independently of the industry establishment.
2. Use music as a loss leader for tours and merchandise revenue.
3. For promotion, do-it-yourself on YouTube and the like instead of paying millions to make videos for MTV and the like.
Now that's starting to make sense.
Oh, and if you want to take a stand, join Gizmodo's RIAA Boycott for the month of March.
So I was thrilled with this Reuters story about Mr. Byrne railing against the greedy record companies and Digital Rights Management (DRM).
For the greed factor, Byrne notes that the companies pay the same artist royalties for sales over iTunes as they do for CD sales, even though there are only minimal manufacturing/distribution costs. And he admits that he downloads music "illegally" rather than put up with iTunes' DRM restrictions.
Byrne's sensible suggestions?
1. Have artists work independently of the industry establishment.
2. Use music as a loss leader for tours and merchandise revenue.
3. For promotion, do-it-yourself on YouTube and the like instead of paying millions to make videos for MTV and the like.
Now that's starting to make sense.
Oh, and if you want to take a stand, join Gizmodo's RIAA Boycott for the month of March.
More On Online Newspapers
I've posted a lot recently about the controversy over the future of newspapers in the online era. But I'm not the only one. My old friend and former basketball buddy Mark Glaser takes on the issue in his excellent MediaShift blog for PBS.
In his latest post, Mark also takes the SF Chronicle's David Lazarus to task, but ends with a much more positive position, that the Web offers newspapers, and the news industry new opportunities as well as new challenges:
I think he's right in many ways. But I am still worried about the money question. Where is the cash going to come from to pay for this. The new media, as a whole, are not yet bringing in anywhere the bucks that print does (did?). And I don't think they ever will. And that will lead to unforeseen implications for journalism.
In his latest post, Mark also takes the SF Chronicle's David Lazarus to task, but ends with a much more positive position, that the Web offers newspapers, and the news industry new opportunities as well as new challenges:
My argument is not that investigative journalism will jump from newspapers to the web. My argument is that investigative journalism will take place in many mediums, from the web to cable TV to network TV to blogs to any place where people congregate to ask important questions and team up to find answers.
I think he's right in many ways. But I am still worried about the money question. Where is the cash going to come from to pay for this. The new media, as a whole, are not yet bringing in anywhere the bucks that print does (did?). And I don't think they ever will. And that will lead to unforeseen implications for journalism.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Mac vs. PC: The Other Side Of The Story
I love Apple's Mac vs PC commercials. This latest one about Windows Vista may be my all-time favorite.
But these four parodies by Laurie McGuinness are also priceless.
Thanks to Angela Gunn at USA Today's Tech_Space for finding these.
But these four parodies by Laurie McGuinness are also priceless.
Thanks to Angela Gunn at USA Today's Tech_Space for finding these.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Sinbad Is Not Dead
Apparently, Wikipedia had erroneously reported the demise of actor/comedian Sinbad due to a heart attack.
He's still among the living, though, according to the AP.
I'm happy for Mr. David Adkins (Sinbad's real moniker) that he's not dead, but this kind of boo-boo puts Wikipedia's user-generated content in a bad light. Of course, the "legitimate" media gets things wrong sometimes, too.
So let's all just rejoice in the fact that this major, major talent was not snatched away from us prematurely.
He's still among the living, though, according to the AP.
I'm happy for Mr. David Adkins (Sinbad's real moniker) that he's not dead, but this kind of boo-boo puts Wikipedia's user-generated content in a bad light. Of course, the "legitimate" media gets things wrong sometimes, too.
So let's all just rejoice in the fact that this major, major talent was not snatched away from us prematurely.
SF Chronicle Obsesses Over Viacom/YouTube Tussle
Earlier this week, I lambasted San Francisco Chronicle writer David Lazarus for his column proposing that since newspapers couldn't seem to charge for online content on their own, they should band together to do so.
Lazarus wrote his column based on the Viacom/Google lawsuit, and today his colleagues at the Chron are weighing in on the subject of content ownership, copyright, and all that jazz.
Columnist Jon Carroll -- known for writing about his cats as much as anything else -- agreed with my take, pretty much, although he was much nicer about it.
TV columnist John Goodman had a different take. Falling back on the "content is king" idea, he claims that "Hollywood" will rule until Google starts creating content of its own. I'm not so sure. People do care about some user-generated content, the famous Macaca clip, for example. And delivery systems do matter. Just ask the record companies if "owning" the content is doing them much good these days. (They may be too busy suing music lovers to answer, though.)
Heck, I don't know how this is going to play out, but I suspect that it's going to be messy and difficult and uncomfortable for everyone.
Lazarus wrote his column based on the Viacom/Google lawsuit, and today his colleagues at the Chron are weighing in on the subject of content ownership, copyright, and all that jazz.
Columnist Jon Carroll -- known for writing about his cats as much as anything else -- agreed with my take, pretty much, although he was much nicer about it.
TV columnist John Goodman had a different take. Falling back on the "content is king" idea, he claims that "Hollywood" will rule until Google starts creating content of its own. I'm not so sure. People do care about some user-generated content, the famous Macaca clip, for example. And delivery systems do matter. Just ask the record companies if "owning" the content is doing them much good these days. (They may be too busy suing music lovers to answer, though.)
Heck, I don't know how this is going to play out, but I suspect that it's going to be messy and difficult and uncomfortable for everyone.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Cisco Meets With WebEx For $3.2 Billion
Cisco's big-bucks buyout of online meeting service WebEx seems a bit spendy, but continues the networking giant's trend of buying companies that will drive additional network usage -- and thus demand for Cisco products.
If Cisco hopes to use the acquisition to spur growth in new markets -- as CNET News.com's Marguerite Reardon supposes -- it may have overpaid. WebEx reported just $380 million in revenue last year, and a paltry $49 million of net income.
Frankly, I don't see this a watershed event for anyone except WebEx stockholders, who made out like bandits.
If Cisco hopes to use the acquisition to spur growth in new markets -- as CNET News.com's Marguerite Reardon supposes -- it may have overpaid. WebEx reported just $380 million in revenue last year, and a paltry $49 million of net income.
Frankly, I don't see this a watershed event for anyone except WebEx stockholders, who made out like bandits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)