Media Bands

For most of media history, the creation of a full media package has had to involve many professional people. Whether it was a book (or other forms of printed content), a recording (or other forms of audio content) or a movie (or other forms of video content), the production of media goods have traditionally involved multiple people, starting with the basic creator, continuing with his or her editors, and ending with the packagers who put finishing ancillary touches to the product.

Over the years, many such structures crystallized, providing gainful employment to all those involved in the content creation chain. This portion of media creation was then followed by a supply chain surrounding the complete packaging, marketing, sales, and distribution (and not always in that order) of media pieces.

In the early 1990s, with the rise of the Internet and development of web based media, many outfits started emulating the traditional models surrounding media creation, focusing only on the fact that distribution costs were lower than they were for traditional media. So people talked about online magazines, online TV shows, etc… attempting to replicate the old business templates on this new world.

In each case, an interesting phenomenon developed: the packaged output became the brands that were known, with the vast majority of the people who created that media brand being largely unknown. For example, a publication like Time magazine or Business Week would be recognized as a popular media brand but few of the people who wrote, edited, and generally packaged it were as well known. With the rise of television and movies, some sub-brands started emerging, with actors and directors getting more recognized and becoming more important as brands that the studios or channels that were carrying their latest offerings. As such, individual talent started getting some level of recognition, and it became possible to build brands around an an individual.

With the rise of the web and the lowering in the cost of media production and distribution, whether it is for printed media (blogs), video (YouTube), or audio (MySpace, LastFM, Pandora), it became possible to establish virtual teams that quickly banded for an individual effort and disbanded once that effort was completed. So individuals started getting more noticed, with certain blogs being single-man or single-woman operations and building new brands around that person (in this context, TNL.net qualifies as my own personal brand but could be considered as a sub-brand of Tristan Louis, which is spread across a wider audience).

Media Brands

Meanwhile, certain forms of media brands emerged organically because of the input of thousands or millions of individuals who contributed their effort for free. Think, for example, of the mostly anonymous contributors that wrote and edited most of wikipedia. I would call this category of people bands. The name on top (Wikipedia) can continue to exist with or without the current contributors as new contributors can come in to replace the ones who have left.

In a way, the people who have not established themselves as individual brands run the risk of being forced in an out from under other brands. A writer for Bloomberg today can easily be a writer for Business Week or Fortune tomorrow (this is precisely why Bloomberg became a content creation powerhouse by surprise as no one paid attention to who was creating the content).

Challenges

Depending on the side you are on, new issues are about to arise. On the media band side, the contest for supply and demand is going to get worth. Non-internet media brands are generally packed with tens or hundreds of people producing a very glossy, very professional package most of the time. By contrast, internet media is produced in an unfinished form, updating stories as they go along with feedback from other sources as well as from the people who read or view the content. In the battle between individual contributors, an equilibrium eventually arises, sorting the truth out thanks to the balance of input from different parties. This means that the process of editing is no longer in the hands of editors but it becomes a collaborative effort from everyone touching the media product at hand.

On the other side of the spectrum, the media brands now have to compete with a larger set of brands. As distribution costs move close to zero and the established structure of media creation can be replaced by a participatory model where the brand is mainly involved in the business of curating input from its consumer/producer, the rise of individual curators as individual brands is reshaping the competitive landscape. When a single individual can reach hundreds of thousands of people on a regular basis merely by writing and sharing in public, the economics of brand stardom start falling apart.

With content creation and content curation now getting so close to each other that they will soon embrace and form a new model of media, created in a much cheaper fashion, in partnership between the media initiator and his/her audience-communicators, traditional media organizations will have to get focused on creating media that is not only to be consumed but that cannot exist without active participation from its consumers/creators.

Shows like “America’s Idol” or “Britain’s Got Talent” are starting to present this media band approach, while wikipedia has already demonstrated it works in new gathering and efforts around user-generated content in journalism, whether it is of an entertainment nature (eg. Gawker) or investigative one (eg. the undoing of George Allen or the Walter Reade Hospital scandals being covered by bloggers until mainstream kicked in).

And now, I will turn it to you, my media band, to help me build on this scaffolding of a concept.

The many faces of subsidized media

Do you buy the media you consume or is the media you consume subsidized in some way?

For the most part, one could argue that, in the United States, media is subsidized. When mentioning that word, most people will think of government subsidies but, while such subsidies exist in countries like the UK (eg. the BBC) or France (eg. France 24), the subsidies tend to come from more commercial sources.

We will look into that type of subsidies a bit later but let’s first look at one form that people seldom consider as a subsidy: advertising.

In the USA, such subsidies come in the form of advertising, which often represents the largest part of the revenue pie for newspapers, magazines, television, radio, or web media. The cost of a particular item is generally lower than one could find in Europe and consumer behavior treats such media accordingly, as a potentially disposable consumer good to which little value is given. This creates a particularly tricky situation for most media outlet as they are seeing their advertising margin erode, the result of greater efficiencies and return on investment presented by web media.

Genesis of low ad rates

In a way, such wound is self-inflicted. Once upon a time, in the early days of the commercial web (a bit over a decade ago), traditional media looked down on the new media. They treated it as something of little value and many of the larger media outlets decided to toss their online space as a freebie in exchange for richer ad buys in traditional media. Of course, they continued to apply the same ROI metrics to this emergent form of media, forcing many of the online components of larger corporations to figure out way to make their cost structure more efficient while presenting advertisers with a better value than their offline brethens.

I remember finding myself in several meetings, when working either as a full-time employee or consultant to media outlets small and large, in meetings where traditional media salespeople would “toss in online for free.” Eventually, advertisers started demanding online media and continued asking for lower costs on it, creating a prisoner’s dilemma scenario for most media organization as they all knew that the ads could go to their competitors if they didn’t acquiesce to the deal. Online media was now seen as inexpensive and, save for a few publishers who argued based on the merit of delivering a narrow but highly targeted audience, cost remained low while inventory continued to be very high.

Then came Google, which not only showed that online media could stay cheap but could also be offered on a performance basis, leaving advertisers with close to a dollar’s worth of value for every dollar they spend, something that just wasn’t true in the offline space. It was then only natural that the price pressures that had driven online media down be applied to all media.

This is slowly sending media organization into a death spiral as low ad costs force a reduction in costs associated with producing media content, which results in a lowered interest in that content from consumers. Those consumer have eyeballs which the media companies are trying to sell to advertisers and when those go away, it puts even further pressure on media cost. I call this the ad rate death spiral:

Why ad rates keep going down

And that’s the first problem with the current crop of ad-subsidized media: the model is just not sustainable because the cost of production for most media can never go to zero.

So where does that leave most media organization?

Advocacy Media

One option is to go with a different subsidy source. For example, some organizations could get rid of the pretense of impartiality and look to get subsidized to advocate a particular viewpoint or philosophy. In Europe, for example, many publications receive substantial parts of their funding from political parties. They are propaganda tools of those parties used to further the party’s agenda. While they are not fully subsidized by those parties, they are known to present a viewpoint that’s in line with the party’s ideals.

While many would argue that this could not work in the United States, there are substantial precedent to highlight that this, in fact, is an avenue that more media organizations could explore. The federalist papers, for example, were largely embracing a set of ideals from a limited constituency and were largely funded by those who espoused the ideals presented. In fact, one could argue that most newspapers have, at one time or other, been tools of certain political forces. To carry such alliances on their sleeve might actually result in a more diverse and balanced set of stories.

Non-Core Media

A different solution is to look at media as an non-core adjunct to a corporation, there to give the corporation a sheen as a corporate citizen that does good. Where it not for its pre-existing history as media company, one could argue that the Washington Post is now such a corporation, as it derives better margins from the services it offers through its Kaplan test preparation organization than it does from its news and media operation. The issue one could find with such balance is that it works as long as the shareholders are happy with the idea of a non-financially optimal media operation. This situation does not seem like a sustainable model in the long run because it could expose such corporation to the chances of a take-over or change in ownership control through acquisition. No family, no matter how much of the corporation stock they control, is so virtuous that it might not break at a certain price point, as was witnessed with the takeover of Dow Jones.

Paid Media

Another route would be to change the public they serve completely by embracing their consumer as the people they sell to.

The reason I create that distinction is that currently, most media is not looking at their consumers as the customers they are serving. In advertising, the actual customers of media companies are the ad agencies and ad buyers, with the media consumer being the goods sold and the content being there solely as a way to deliver more eyeballs to the advertisers. By moving to consumer-focused media, organizations could radically redefine the relationship they have with the people who consume their content, treating them as customers instead of products.

Of course, the model may not work for everyone as it requires a change in the way the media product is marketed. When shifting to “paid media” where the consumers pays a fair value for the media they consume, the product position has to be one of value to the consumer. Bloomberg can deliver such value to the people who pay thousands of dollars yearly for access to their product because the content is of value to those consumers. NPR tries to position its programming as being a lifestyle choice by its consumers, asking them in pledge drives to join the NPR tribe by paying for some of the programming (but let’s not fool ourselves, NPR is more of a hybrid model as its “supporters” can include large corporations that contribute to show their “social responsibility”).

Consumer Reports is another example of such “paid media” as are smaller publications like Lapham’s Quarterly, for example.

What are the challenges?

The challenge presented by the paid media model is one of how much? How much can one charge and how much can one cover. And this comes back to the question of content value to the consumer. Certain tribes can exist but how does one cover the “important” stories? Is that something that can only be done via advocacy type media? Or is there a different model that mixes parts of subsidies with higher paid models?

The Valley: Detroit for Technology

The claim center around the fact that New York is not keeping up with technology because the technology industry in New York is not moving as fast as it is in the silicon valley. And so, I’d fully grant that it’s true. In fact, New York is also not keeping up with the car industry because Detroit seems to be doing a better job of that and has been since the 1940s. Sure, it has a tower named the Chrysler building but let’s face it, Detroit is producing many more cars than New York. In fact, Detroit’s impact on the car industry is much larger than that of New York.

Reading the previous paragraph, you might be thinking that it’s a very silly analogy. And it is there not only for effect but also to point out that any comparison of New York to the Valley is based on a flawed assumption. The assumption is that such comparison can have merit. For the last 40 years, Silicon Valley has been a single industry area: the technology industry. Most major technology innovations have come from the valley (with the exception of software licensing, which came from a place a bit north of that: Seattle).

So, as New York is not and will never be the leader in the car industry, nor will it ever be a leader in the technology field. I’m just hoping that the valley will never suffer the same fate as the epicenter of the car industry is feeling right now. Being based on a single industry, in the long, is a pretty scary concept and the lack of diversity can sometimes be fatal.

New York: Diverse by choice?

Interestingly, it is New York’s diversity is part of what has made it more resilient than most cities in the United States and the increase of one industry over another is what generally hurts it. The rise of the financial world as a substantial employer in New York has hurt the tax base and lowered the employment opportunities in the city. The bubble and subsequent explosion of the real estate market in the late 1980s and early 1990s did the same thing to the city, lowering property values to the point where real estate was cheap enough for 20somethings like myself and others to think about starting new companies, giving rise to what came to be known as Silicon Alley.

Embedded in New York’s success is the abandonment of industries: New York could have been the nation’s capital but Madison, a quintessential New Yorker sent the US government further south in exchange for control of the economy. New York could have been the center of the movie industry (most of the early movies were made in New York) but that title went to Los Angeles, where real estate was cheap. New York was, for a few decade, the center of the advertising world but the title ended up getting shared with Chicago and London.

The truth is that New York creates industries, takes a portion of them, and lets others become single industry towns:

• US Government: Started in New York, now in DC
• Oil: Consolidated in New York (Rockefeller), now centered around Houston
• Steel: Consolidated in New York (Carnegie), now centered around Pittsburgh
• Media: Started in New York, Movies (and some TV) now in Los Angeles, Radio diffused, print
• Advertising: Started in New York, now shared with Chicago and others

The result is that each brings something new, including new tensions and conflicts as one industry tries to dominate the others or establish a place of prominence for the heart of New Yorkers. However, in each case, they end up being put back in their place and shown that diversity is what makes New York what it is and that rule from a single industry would hurt the very fabric of what made it one of the truly global centers.

The exception: Money

But New York understands that two things make the world go round: Money and influence. Ever since the political leadership was taken out of town, New York has defined itself as a city based on commerce (one could argue that even before the revolution, New York was always about commerce, something that becomes evident when you realize that the dutch sided with the British when they realized that it could hurt their economic interest to not do so and did so again during the revolutionary war when it became clear that war could be profitable business).

Due to both geographical advantage and the foresight of its administrators, New York became the first port in the country and, in the process, became the place where trading and financial management were done. The country came to New York for money and New York dispensed its money to the country. During the robber barons era, this lead to New York helping consolidate industries and create monopolies. When those were dismantled, New York held on to the financing aspects of those industries, even if the other portions went away. Through that, it gained control.

So while the valley is leading in tech, the financial aspects relating to financing all those technology efforts are still based in New York. Yes, most of the tech VCs are sitting on Sand Hills but the truth is that their funds are generally funded outside the valley. Of course, it makes no more sense to argue that the valley is behind New York on funding technology than it does to argue that New York is behind the valley on tech innovation. Each has developed a long history and set of capabilities around one area so such comparisons are moot.

The crash and what next?

With the rise of increasingly complex financial instruments in the last few years, it is true that a lot of programmers ended up being hired by Wall Street. However, the other thing that is true is that such phenomenon has been a hallmark of Wall Street since the 1980s. Yet, a portion of the Internet industry did grow in New York in the 1990s. And to be honest, a similar phenomenon happened in the most current (aka Web 2.0) cycle.

The big difference is in the way Internet people in New York and Silicon Valley comport themselves. Because New York is so diverse, our local media is not as focused on what happens in the tech scene as the local media is when it comes to the valley. And because our tech scene is generally quieter, it also tends to be more insular than the valley scene: people who innovate on financial applications in the Internet space may not necessarily rub shoulders with people who innovate in the media space relating to the internet or people who innovate in the commercial space on the Internet.

In fact, the closest thing to a center, as far as the Internet crowd is concerned in New York, is the New York Tech Meetup, which meets once a month, as it has done for many years now. Each month, 5-10 local start-ups get  a chance to showcase their wares. Small companies like Etsy, delicious, fotolog, kickapps, or thumbplay (and many others) have all demoed at an event organized using technology provided by local company Meetup.

But truth be told, none of them really advertises their affiliation with New York that much because, to a large extent, that affiliation is insignificant. They do not define themselves based on WHERE they are but rather based on WHAT they do.

And, almost more importantly, none of those companies were created by people from the financial industry. The techies in the financial world are happy in their sphere and few actually cross path with those in the internet space. Different groups, different industries, different people.

So will the collapse of many Wall street firms mean the beginning of an exodus from the financial tech community towards startups? I doubt it: there is little cultural fit, and there are still ample opportunities on either side. People who are naturally drawn to finance-related type of computing will find positions in that field, even if its remains more competitive; and people who are looking to launch start ups will continue to do so.

New York will continue to have a tech community that is smaller than Silicon Valley’s and, truth be told, that’s just fine. Because each have advantages and disadvantages but ultimately, each can serve as the host to the next big thing, no matter whether they are based on El Camino Real or on the L line.

The Kindle Lawsuit

In my last entry, I pointed to the case of Justin Gawronski, who was mentioned almost as an aside in the New York Times article about Amazon deleting legally purchased and downloaded content from their users’ Kindle devices. At the time, I suspected that the deletion of annotations could eventually lead to lawsuits:

Beyond the irony of Amazon throwing a book like Nineteen Eighty Four down the memory hole (a large incinerator in that book), Amazon’s action raise troubling questions as to the ability of online providers to remove content they have not created. I leave it to legal scholar to assess whether Amazon could actually be considered to have infringed on the intellectual property rights of people whose annotations were removed along with the books.

Today, news comes out that this student is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Amazon, making this the first legal case to test what a cloud-based provider can and cannot do with legitimately purchased content. The complaint uses language similar to what I talked about:

2. With an uncanny knack for irony, Amazon recently remotely deleted any traces of
certain electronic copies of George Orwell’s “1984” and “Animal Farm” from customers’
Kindles and iPhones, thereby sending these books down Orwell’s so-called “memory hole.”

[...]

16. On or about July 16 and 17, 2009, Amazon withdrew from sale certain e-books,
including George Orwell’s “1984” and “Animal Farm.” Amazon then remotely deleted these ebooks
from purchasers’ Kindles and iPhones. In doing so, Amazon not only deleted the e-books,
but also rendered useless any electronic notes and annotations that consumers had made within
these e-books because the notes were no longer tied to the referenced or highlighted text.

While I had initially thought that the content was deleted, it turns out that the annotations are still available on the device, albeit without any context to them, which is what the lawsuit is now testing:

54. Plaintiff Gawronski and the Big Brother Work-Product Subclass suffered
damages because they created content on their Kindles within the purchased content that
Amazon deleted.

Most surprising is that the lawsuit did not look at Amazon’s infringement of its customer’s rights under the first sale doctrine. The first sale doctrine, which has been in place since the beginning of the 20th century, basically states that purchases can transfer a lawfully acquired copy of a copyrighted work without requiring permission from the copyright holder. Many people interpret this to mean that:

the copyright holder’s rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the “first sale rule” or “exhaustion rule.”

It could be argued that, by taking the book away from its users, Amazon has controlled the ownership of a particular copy that had already been sold, even though no additional copy was made. It was surprising to not see the lawsuit also incorporating this point as it is probably one of the larger legal infrigements Amazon could be charged with when it comes to that incident.

The Apple Store and iPhone community

Meanwhile, while there are no legal rumblings yet around Apple’s treatment of its development community. With every incident of an app being denied access, it appears that a few more developers decide that, while the platform is exciting to use, developing for the iPhone is not worth the trouble. If it were one case, that could be considered a disgruntled developer; if it were two, that could also be ignored; but with every new incident, it appears another developer or group of developer decides that they’d rather not develop for the platform.

When I was in journalism school, we were told that when there is a high similarity between three different events in a very short time, we ought to pay closer attention as it could be a trend. When that similarity pops over and over again, as in the case of the iPhone development community, it seems like a slow grumble is turning into something more potent.

But of course, one could argue that such grumbles are really nothing to worry about, as long as Apple can continue growing its user base. After all, the company makes more money selling devices that it does from the revenue generated by the app store.

True to some extent but that particular issue starts falling on its face when one considers two important facts:

1. Selling applications through the App Store is probably a more profitable business (as costs associated to the sale, as represented by a percentage of the revenue is probably lower than it would be on hardware).
2. Prominent users are starting to complain loudly.

Of course, none of this is going to single handedly stop the growth of the iPhone but what is increasingly appearing is that Apple is having a potential communication challenge on its hands. A single disgruntled developer or disgruntled user cannot bring the product down but a continuous stream of complaints starts creating the appearance of wrong-doing, potentially undermining the long term success of the offering.

Apple is still thought of by the majority of the people as a cool company (as Google and Microsoft once were), a shinning beacon highlighting the power of innovation and capitalism. As it grows marketshare, what was once considered OK as a way to help the company compete against larger players (the aforementioned Microsoft) is increasingly being considered as arrogant and evil.

What does it all mean?

Of course, at this point, if you’re still reading, you’re probably wondering how this is an example of a new hope. The new hope is arising out of the fact that a largely quiet population is now starting to fight back against the over-reach of large corporations into what level of controls such corporations will be able to excert. In the case of Amazon, the class action has the potential of redefining what a company can and cannot do with a purchase device. Such decision could also establish some precedents as to the use of kill-switches in electronic devices (or invertly, give large corporations more power and legally codify the level of control they have been afforded).

In the public arena, the push-back Apple is encountering from both its developer and early adopter communities could help establish new boundaries as to what is and isn’t accepted in terms of controlling access through online gateways (in the case of Apple, that gateway is the App store but one could argue that the social rules established around the App store could eventually extend to the kind of perception around what is and isn’t acceptable in terms of consumer ISPs blocking internet sites).

With each event, the online community is also establishing some precedent as to what will be considered acceptable in an environment where all data is stored not a user’s machine but on some remote corporate server.

In each of these individual cases, awareness is raised and with every other skirmish, more people become aware of the issues at stake. It is my belief that, as more people become aware, more people will require less corporate control and more individual control. And that gives me hope.

Update: The government is now looking into Apple’s removal of Google Voice related apps from their App store. This is getting interesting.

The Kindle Incident

For readers who may not know this, Amazon unveiled an interesting electronic reader called the Kindle, allowing people who bought it to legally purchase electronic copies of books. Along the way, Amazon also opened up a program allowing small publishers to publish books directly into their marketplace.

However, it appears that Amazon’s own quality control seemed to fail when it came to establishing ownership of the intellectual property uploaded to its site when two titles by George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four and Animal Farm, were uploaded and sold by a rogue bookaneer.

Subsequently discovering that it had sold e-books for which the publisher did not have rights, Amazon issued refunds to its customers and removed the books from the user’s device. Where it gets a little gray in terms of what they did is that, along with the removal of the books, they also removed any annotation users already had made, thus erasing content that was created ON the device if not FOR the device. The New York Times story on the deletion listed the following:

Justin Gawronski, a 17-year-old from the Detroit area, was reading “1984” on his Kindle for a summer assignment and lost all his notes and annotations when the file vanished. “They didn’t just take a book back, they stole my work,” he said.

Beyond the irony of Amazon throwing a book like Nineteen Eighty Four down the memory hole (a large incinerator in that book), Amazon’s action raise troubling questions as to the ability of online providers to remove content they have not created. I leave it to legal scholar to assess whether Amazon could actually be considered to have infringed on the intellectual property rights of people whose annotations were removed along with the books.

Amazon was justified in protecting the copyright holders for the infringing books but where it went wrong is when it over-reached by deleting content that was created by its customers. In that particular case, one could argue that Amazon was responsible for censorship. The company will need to change its systems and policies to ensure that it does not impede the customer’s experience. While it currently has only removed a couple of titles along with annotations, the company should ensure that it keep annotations separate so that any further title removal does not destroy user generated content. An extra nice move would be if the company were to replace the titles with their legal equivalent. The common should also be a lot more thorough in verifying intellectual property claims before offering titles, especially since they control every piece of the delivery chain from the intellectual property holder to the reader.

AT&T and 4chan.org

In a somewhat related incident, AT&T had a recent run-in with one of the most influential (and that does not necessarily mean good) entity on the internet: the 4chan.org community. 4chan is primarily and image and discussion board and word started to spread that AT&T customers had lost accesses to its images over the weekend. After a substantial amount of noise in several online forums, AT&T claimed that it had blocked the site because it was suffering from a denial of service attack from it.

What is interesting here is that AT&T acted without prior notice and blocked a site without providing any information upfront as to the reason for blocking the site. While AT&T stopped blocking the site as the result of a concerted effort by its fans, the founder of 4chan hit the nail on the head when he said (emphasis is mine):

In the end, this wasn’t a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T’s part. Whoever pulled the trigger on blackholing the site probably didn’t anticipate [nor intend] the consequences of doing so. We’re glad to see this short-lived debacle has prompted renewed interest and debate over net neutrality and internet censorship—two very important issues that don’t get nearly enough attention—so perhaps this was all just a blessing in disguise.

Net Neutrality is the basic idea that any broadband provider should offer access to the internet without any limitations as to what kind of content can be accessed and here we have an example of an ISP selectively blocking a site. While the AT&T example is only the most recent one to come to light, it appears that this is a phenomenon that could become more common as internet service providers decide what kind of content takes too much bandwidth or for other reasons.

In the past, such censorship would have meant that a provider censoring access were to be considered as a publisher. In 1995, with Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy, the supreme court of the United States held that online services which were removing content from their online forums could be considered as publishers and therefore held liable for any content they gave users access to. Since then, Lobbyists in the telecom industry have ensured that such decision would no longer be applicable by getting the US Congress to amend the US code and reverse the Supreme Court decision.

The Urge to kill(switch)

About a year ago, a storm arose around rumors that Apple’s iPhone devices were sporting code that could disable applications running on them. The existence of such code, also known as a kill switch, was later confirmed by Steve Jobs:

Jobs confirmed that iPhones routinely check an Apple Web site that could, in theory, trigger the removal of the undesirable software from the devices.

He told the paper that Apple needed the capability in case it inadvertently allowed a malicious program to be distributed to iPhones through the App Store.

Once again, we see here a company with the best of intentions (protecting people from malicious programs) with its finger on a button that could be very scary if misuse. It is worth noting that Apple is not uniquely in this position as Google fessed up to having similar code embedded in Android-based phones:

Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement … in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion

And while one may think that such devices are limited to high end cell phones catering to a limited community, it appears that such devices are now becoming more common in children computers, cheap laptops, and even cars. And while many will claim that the solution to this is to open up source code, the Mozilla foundation itself has admitted to the appearance of such kill switch in the popular Firefox browser.

So kill switches are there for the best of intentions but how does one define those?

Apple and the App Store

The same kind of issue arises out of the treatment of applications to enter the Apple Application Store. A month doesn’t seem to pass by without another example of a developer seeing Apple remove his/her programs from their store.

The latest example is that of a developer who apparently committed the crime of offering an application that allowed iPhone users to use Google Voice, a Voice over IP program. And apparently, similar applications were subsequently removed from the Apple App Store.

While no official word has been given as to whether the fact that application were potentially representing a threat to the business model of Apple’s exclusive partners in the telecom industry, it doesn’t seem to be too much of a stretch to think so.

Can such intention be considered in the best interest of the end user? or in the best interest of the device manufacturer? And can such intention be changed retroactively, leveraging the presence of an existing kill switch?

Questions about the future?

In a previous entry, I’ve argued that we were moving to an economy where goods tended to be rented rather than bought. Embedded in what I was trying to communicate there was the question around what ownership actually means.

If an external party can control when or how you can use a device or decide on what you can or cannot see, or select what programs you can install on it, are you still owning it?

And while today’s corporate interventions are based on the best of intentions, what about tomorrow’s? or the next day’s? Will those intentions still sync up with yours?

Traditionally, the model or rent vs. own has been one that most consumers and companies have mostly considered when it came to real estate (and traditionally, people have looked at renting real estate as more normal than owning, with the possible exception of the last couple of decades, during which real estate ownership appeared more attractive). But today, that concept seems to be increasingly extending to other arenas.

Netflix

For example, Netflix has build a very solid model around renting movies over the Internet. True enough, many people will mention that rental of media dates back to the early days of the video store and were a substantial component in the rise of companies like Blockbuster (born Blockbuster Video). True also that said companies have been falling on hard times lately. But the substantial difference between what Netflix offers and the traditional rental model is focused on convenience: one could argue that Netflix’s original business model was largely centered around the distribution of physical media (the DVDs themselves) but I would argue that the true success of Netflix will be due largely to its digital distribution model, allowing for instant distribution of movies and TV shows with the click of a few buttons. The instant (and the emphasis here needs to be put on instant) access to a large media collection can easily call into question the concept of owning similar content in a physical form: What is the advantage of having a physical copy of a movie sitting on your shelf, collecting dust most of the time, when the same movie is available at the touch of a remote control button from the Internet?

However, the challenge in such concept is that once someone stops paying Netflix, the access to said collection disappears. An owned movie is paid for upfront and can be watched time and time again by a consumer but a rented one can only be watched as long as one keeps paying the owner renting party.

Apple

With Apple’s recent move to sell music tracks without any digital rights management features on it, one could safely assume that Apple is not in the rental business. Apple’s move was largely a response to Amazon’s own marketing around selling DRM-Free music but it is interesting to note that, while the restrictions on music went away, the same was not true of similar restrictions around music videos, movies, and TV shows. The lock-in that appears here is similar to that which exist with Netflix in that if you decide to end your relationship with Apple, the media you bought will stop working. Under such restricted mode, can one really assume that he/she owns the media he/she purchased?

Similarly, Apple is renting out, in partnership with telecommunication vendors like AT&T, an ingenious device called the iPhone. The reason I would call it a rental model is that use of the device is limited by the partners to people who have paid the initial fee and continue to pay a fee to the telecommunication provider on a regular basis. It is a model that exists for most phone providers, as devices tend to be tied to a specific vendor. Once again, people will highlight that it is possible to get rid of that lock-in with software but I will counter that doing so is a violation of the contract terms of the device, voiding warranty and your agreement with Apple. To claim otherwise would be similar to saying that everyone has access to as much money as they want, as long as they are willing to rob banks. (In the interest of disclosure, I should highlight here that I own an iPhone which is not connected to the “authorized provider”.)

Going a little further, Apple gets to lock-in who can and cannot play on an iPhone, only allowing developers who submit themselves to Apple’s whim and offering what is sometimes only temporary access to the userbase as release of every update to a product still has to go through Apple’s review. In other words, Apple gives developers temporary access to the iPhone user base, an access it can choose to revoke at any time.

The Amazon Kindle

All this conversation bring us to Amazon and a couple of its products, starting with the Kindle, which serves as the incentive for writing this lenghthy post. The Kindle, much like the iPhone is a pretty impressive device, bringing several technologies (always on device, e-ink) out of the labs and into more mainstream consumption. And like the iPhone, it has both fans and detractors. And once again, the Kindle offers an interesting kind of lock-in, allowing you to read titles purchased on the kindle (or through the iPhone kindle software) but allowing you access for only as long as you keep a relationship with Amazon. Where the model moves to rental is around magazines and newspapers: you may purchase subscriptions but, should your Kindle be completely full as a result of your subscription, you may loose access to the back issues you “own”.

But Amazon’s move to a rental model is not just around the kindle device. On the consumer end, Amazon now play in the same spaces as Apple and Netflix, renting out or selling digital versions of movies, TV shows, and music.

Renting at the Enterprise Level

In other example of the evolving trend moving from the consumer to the enterprise space, Amazon is now renting itself, or rather portions of its own operating capacity, to anyone willing to pay a fee. Its infrastructure (storage, computing, and databases ) are all available to organizations who are willing to put their application on top of Amazon’s own servers. Amazon offers similar solutions for payment services, and goes as far as providing space in their warehouses along with complete pick, pack and ship capabilities.

The infrastructure component is part of a trend in which enterprise vendors are now providing data center capabilities on a per data transaction costing model. For many Chief Technical or Chief Information Officer, it changes the basic questions around data center from a “Build vs. Buy” to “Build vs. Buy vs. Rent”.

In the process, it also changes the dynamics of how a business can be built as a substantial portion of a company’s activities can now be outsourced to outside players (I’ll go into more details around the enterprise related issues in my next post)

Is it all bad?

If you read this far, you might assume that, by this point, I’m going to claim that this is all about the over-reach of DRM and that it is all a horrible thing.

I’m not.

What I am trying to highlight here is that the experience around internet driven goods is changing. As connectivity speeds increase, the ability to access any movie/TV show/video/ music clip/ books / magazines / etc is going to have a substantial impact on our relationship to said goods (in a fashion similar to the type of relationship kids now have to music, assuming that music on the Internet ought to be free of restrictions, while at the same time assuming that mobile phone ringtones are something one ought to pay for).

The change in our relationship to media forces us to reassess the value of the physical good. In the case of our household, we have made a leap of faith, assuming that the content of certain DVDs will always be available online from one rental provider or another. The reason for that approach is that the experience of watching such thing on our TV using an internet connected video player is not diminished by the lack of a physical medium. Living in a more constrained space (in Manhattan, space is always at a premium), the physicality of a DVD box is actually an impediment to the experience of the medium. As a result, the internet connectivity, and the rental model, appears to make much more sense than the physical ownership of DVD boxes.

In the same way, the value of a CD collection is in what’s on the CD rather than the plastic container it’s in. Much of the value of the physical container of music has decreased: in the past, LPs were designed and the wraping of the LP was almost has important to the experience as the music itself. However, as CDs reduced the size of the cases, and music production companies spend less time on designing custom boxes, physical CDs became more of a commodity, with the music on them being the only thing that truly distinguished one CD from another.

But what about books, magazines, and newspapers?

To a large extent, I would venture that the relationship we have with magazines or newspapers is different from that of a book. When I first saw the Kindle, I was not attracted to it because I could read books on it but rather because I might be able to subscribe to newspapers or magazines. The clear line falls in the arena of experience: with a few exceptions, magazines and newspapers are read and then discarded. The ephemeral nature of that experience archetype seems to make such relationship a prime candidate for digitization: Once again, the convenience of something like a Kindle seems to trump the experience of having to fold a newspaper in a crowded subway or the guilt associated with recycling large amount of newsprint or magazines on a regular basis: because the intrisic value of newspapers or magazines is as conveyors of temporal information that now appears to be archivable and retrieveable online, the need for ownership of that data appears to be lowered.

Books, on the other hand, are a different issue. Reference books may lend themselves to a good digitizable model (O’Reilly, for example, has had success with its Safari offering, as have encyclopedias like Brittanica and the OED) but fiction books may be in a different class. The book as object may be falling into the same class as those ancient LPs, being designed as a full object rather than just its content and rental of such good (though people will mention that books have been something you can borrow from a library for a long time) may take longer to break through as the advantage of reading such a book on a Kindle is not necessarily higher than that of a physical good. I may be romantic in my thinking, attaching to books not only the content and the packaging but its experience in a greater space, as each book I own has, in itself, a number of memories attached, in the form of sand from a beach where it was read, or wrinkles from being carried on a trip or fold marking and writings from a particular era. In those rare cases, the books serve as containers for more than the stories they held when first presented on a bookshelf or through the online presentation they had: they are containers of a full experience and that, at this point, is not yet something that any digital device (whether it is a kindle or other) has yet been able to reproduce.

So the first prediction I will make is a purely personal one and more of a promise than a prediction: 2009 will be a year when more new postings will emerge from TNL.net.

Macro-economics

I do not share the optimism of many other people in the technology field when it comes to macro-economic factors and their impact on the technology field. My view is that the first half of 2009 will be much worse than the last half of 2008 and that the second half of the year will, at best, look like the first half of last year.

I suspect that the financial picture will get more constrained over the next fiew months as banks start feeling the impact of a consumer-led credit card crisis as individuals try to save their houses by maxing out the credit card instead and eventually reach the end of the credit limit, unable to repay.

In the broader economy, the current credit crunch will continue to have an impact on all industry and I suspect this will lead to large companies first encouraging voluntary layoffs, followed by further job cuts. This will translate into a larger impact on the retail sector, which is still larger than it ought to be under the current condition. Expect more consolidation in retail, with some large players closing shop altogether.

Start-ups

I don’t think it’s very hard to predict a wave of start-up failures this year. However, this will not be anywhere near as bad as it was during the first dotcom bubble because the current crash is not seeing inflated VC investments as its core. The level of investments in web 2.0 companies never reached the excesses we saw during web 1.0 so I suspect that many start-ups will float away with more of a wimper than a bang.

Established Web Players

Some of the more established web 1.0 companies will have a rough year.

I would not be surprised to see Yahoo no longer running as an independent firm by year end. My suspicion is that it will either be combined with AOL as part of a complex transaction that will spin AOL out of Time-Warner and combine with Yahoo (a combination that I suspect will leave all involved hopeful for the best at the start of the transaction and disenchanted with the result by year end) or, should the stock price drop lower, I would not be overly surprised if Rupert Murdoch were to swoop in and pick it up to combine Yahoo with other News Corp. Interactive properties (including MySpace).

eBay is another company that will have a rough year in 2009. Much attention will be paid to it as Meg Whitman, the company’s former CEO makes a gubernatorial bid in California and many will point to her leadership there as either an example of success or failure, depending on which side of the political spectrum they stand on. Meanwhile, eBay’s auction business will continue to crater and more of its revenue will come from its PayPal and Skype subsidiaries.

Amazon will survive the retail downturn and may actually emerge as a winner in the category. As more retail consolidates, Amazon’s rich data-mining abilities are making it the Wal-Mart of the online world and I expect it to see growth in the retail space as smaller players fall off by the wayside. Furthermore, its diversification, with the company also offering some of its infrastructure via web services for a low fee will pay off as more startups will move their operations to the Amazon cloud as part of some cost savings efforts.

Meanwhile, Microsoft will continue to sputter along in the online space, possibly picking up the search business from Yahoo but ultimately ending the year without any significant gains in the online space. Hopefully, by then they will have released Windows 7, which may undo some of the reputational damage the company suffered after the release of Windows Vista.

In the next entry, we’ll look at the media space and how those macro-economic changes will have an impact on that.

Then, I picked up the same info from the Apple store offerings for the MacBook today:

So looking at this, the comparison in terms of a price drop, since we’re talking about features, would probably have to be around the 2.4 GHz version since it’s the only version that appears on both pages (the MacBook didn’t have any 2.0 GHz or 2.1 GHz version.)

However, here is the first problem with the statement. The 2.4Ghz MacBook version offered today is $1599 and the 2.4 Ghz MacBook Pro version offered yesterday was $1999. That’s only a $400 price drop.

Using the same advanced “check the Google cache” methodology, I pulled up the technical specification list for the MacBook Pro as it appeared on Apple’s site yesterday. It looked like this:

I then pulled up the similar data from today’s specifications for the MacBook. The idea here is to get a fair assessment, based on Apple’s words yesterday and today, about whether one really gets the same value for less.

So let’s take a quick run down through the features of each devices, since Steve Jobs asked us to keep thinking of today’s MacBook offering as equivalent to yesterday’s MacBook Pro, based on the data provided by Apple itself:

So by the look of it,it’s not an exact match. The screen of the old MacBook Pro is, of course, larger, which accounts for it being heavier and bigger. But other features seem to have disappeared: The 2 firewire ports are gone, as is the ExpressCard slot; So is the antiglare screen (with glossy available as an option instead of a default) and the DVI port. Oh, and the supported screen resolution goes from a top of 1440 by 900 to 1280 by 800.

On the plus side, the multi-touch pad is a glassy button-less one, a new video card is available, as is a larger hard drive (50 more Gb to use) and a speedier motherboard is available. Also, it appears that the battery is now a 45-watt-hour one instead of a 60-watt one so I suspect that there are some power enhancements in this new machine.

Are the two machines similar? No. However, each of them has pluses and minuses and they are only $400 apart which, considering some of the things that have been dropped and added, seems to point to a machine that, assuming depreciation, is probably in line, price-wise, with the earlier one.

Having gotten that data, I then tried to understand the percentage of fluctuation as far as the high and low values for a given day and then for the close of day. I’ve bolded the values that are over 1 percent of fluctuation for a given day.

From this, a few interesting points come up:

• It seems that market swings of over 1 percent are not that uncommon these days. For the observed period of a month, the market closed with a change of over 1 percent for 19 days compared to 5 under 1 percent.
• Since Lehman went under, a swing of less than 1 percent only happened twice, both times on Wednesdays (September 24th and October 1st)
• Significant swings (over 4 percent in either direction for top or low) seem to be becoming more common with 7 of the last 24 trading sessions seeing such swings.

So all this activity begs the question: is high volatility the new normal?

In order to figure that out, I averaged out the percentage of change for the recorded period and then tried to compare that to the volatility since the Lehman failure (with September 15th being the first trading day after the news became official). The results looks as follows:

I would love for readers to check my math here as it seems that there’s a pretty stunning change (38%) in the overall open to close change in price since the Lehman crisis happens, which makes me wonder whether this is only a temporary period or whether we are going to have to get more used to the concept of large swings in the market.

Anyway one slices it, however, it’s pretty clear that we are looking at a market that is largely panicking and it seems that one cannot deduct any trends (either up or down) from what we are now witnessing. Yes, it’s true that the market has dropped over 10 percent in the weeks following the Lehman bankruptcy, but all this at a time when we’ve seen the market drop almost 7 percent on one day to be followed by an almost 5 percent gain the next day.

I am by no mean a financial wizard, so I’d love some of my more economically astute readers to explain (or provide another area that needs to be explored) whether any of this data holds any value to better understanding what is currently happening.

A few months ago, I started getting the feeling that we are in the process of moving into a post-boomer era, and highlighted some of my thoughts on the subject. This was a surprising change of pace to my readers, who are generally more used to my studying things with technology as my focus lense but it was the beginning of an evolution in my thinking.

As the first rumbles of the economic crisis started appearing a couple of years ago (HSBC, my employer at the time, was one of the first companies to aggressively write off bad loans), I started wondering whether the crisis in the mortgage space was only the beginning and thinking that the credit card crisis was probably going to dwarf the mortgage crisis if it ever happened.

At the time, however, I had been so focused on looking at the world with a technology focus that I was failing to find the words to really describe what I was witnessing. My gut was telling me that this was a big turn but I neither had the audience nor the vocabulary to express my thoughts in a clear fashion.

Furthermore, not being a citizen yet, I felt that it might be presumptuous of me to point to the ills of a country that was hosting me as a guest, a country that had offered me so much opportunity. So I kept quiet.

But I now believe that it’s time to attempt to highlight a few things that do not appear to be part of the debate surrounding how to deal with the current crisis. And since I have the luck of dealing with readers who generally are much smarter than I am (and many of them much more powerful than most people), I thought that maybe, just maybe, I could get some of the basic discussion started here, spreading a meme around the concept of a culture crash.

In this particular case, I think the issue is around the destructive culture of credit America has been cultivating with the rise of the post-WW2 generations. I am not saying baby boomers because they are only part of the problem, as my own generation ( Generation X) and the following one, are also involved in the same destructive addiction to credit.

At issue is the concept that over-extending oneself is a good idea. It may be because I am coming from a foreign country, or it may be for other entirely different reasons but I have always had an aversion to credit. When I took my first mortgage, I worked hard to try to repay more of the principal than was requested by the bank. My concept was simple: I thought that if I could repay my loans early, I’d give away less as interest and could then use that interest to pay myself. It turned out to be a smart move but I have no idea as to how I came around to that conclusion. The funny thing is that I had discovered the concept of, to put it in terms that are now being used by every pundit, “liquidity is king.”

Whether it is credit cards, mortgages, or other forms of loans (student loans, car loans, etc…), I’ve always been suspicious of the idea that one could spend more than they had. I was aware of the concept of assets but ultimately, I felt that assets should be, for the most part, tangible. And a bank account with cash in it is about as tangible as things get.

Living in the USA, however, I have always been surprised by how much of a credit culture the country has. When asking for a mortgage, I had to fight my bank to get a “lower” mortgage amount because they felt I was asking for too little. The idea of lowering the risk (both mine and the bank’s) of financial default seemed to go counter to many in the go-go run-up of stock prices in the dotcom era, following by the go-go run up of real estabe prices in the recent housing bubble. Sure, I didn’t spend a lot of time jetting around the world on a lot of vacations as I toiled to ensure that my mortgage was paid off (and it took me a few years to do so)  but I discovered that many of the people who had run up their bills based on the promise of paper fortunes represented by their dotcom options were the same people who were financially wiped out when those paper gains evaporated.

The same phenomenon seems to have repeated itself with the housing crisis, as people refinanced their houses to take cash out and traded those houses as investment vehicles up until the point where the virtual gains they had made in the run-up on prices evaporated.

The similarities between the dotcom crash and the housing crash are a little eerie and, with the benefit of having gone through one of those crisis, I am now starting to gain perspective on the other one.

Meanwhile, the risk of dangerous investment securities (the so-called structured investment vehicles) seem to have been balanced by taking a few bad loans and mixing them with good ones. The problem was that these mixes got increasingly complex and, as I was talking to a friend of mine involved in developing some of those products, my gut feel got stronger. The thing in my discussion with said person (who shall remain anonymous in order to protect the guilty parties) was that “no one really understands many of those investment products anymore.” It felt a bit like a house of cards to me but once again, I figured that I didn’t really know enough to talk smartly about it.

Until this current crisis.

Students of history are familiar with the concept of a run on the bank. As I was reading up on such issues as part of my preparation for a speech, I started thinking about how brittle our economic system really is. Ultimately, most of the financial markets are based on people’s perception of value and, if that perception changes, the whole thing can unravel pretty quickly.

I think we are now at the tipping point of a major shift in the perception of what a good financial decision is. Wall Street may be the most impacted by this for now but I suspect that it will spread relatively quickly (my gut tells me the perception will be generalized globally within the next 3-12 months). The change is coming from the fact that growth may no longer be considered as valuable as tangible assets.

During the dotcom days, I received a couple of crash courses in perception management. The first one was going from VC to VC with a plan trying to raise around a million US dollars for a start-up. The company was slated to be profitable within 2 years and would grow at 15-20 percent afterward, per our projections. To say that our financing efforts were not going well was an understatement. The moment of realization came when, in another disastrous meeting, a VC told us “you’re asking for a million dollars, and will only give us 15-20 growth after the initial couple of years. Your plan lacks ambition.” The whole time, we had been basing our plan on realistic achievable numbers and I failed to understand why we were considered to not be ambitious. Things got worse and, in a fit of desperation, my business partners over-rode my decision of conservative growth based on solid revenue and created a projection set based on year on year tripling of the business, starting with an initial investment valuing the company in the 15-20 million dollar range. I thought were were going to be laughed out of the room by the first VC we presented this but something truly scary happened: not only did the VCs like it, but some of the people who had previously given us a soft no were now banging on our door, trying to get into the round. Of course, we took a first round, and a few more afterward, and enjoyed a nice liquidity event that achieved a nice profit for the initial investors. The company continued on air until the dotcom crash, which it didn’t survive as a going concern.

The lesson here is that VC investment, IPOs, the housing bubble, etc… all have one thing in common: they are based on the idea of future payout, due to year on year growth that is often based on numbers that are wishful thinking in the best of cases ( and outright fraud in the worst cases, as we have learned from Enron and Worldcom)

I think this concept is now hitting the wall. The problem is that it has yet to be replaced by something else as we are moving through the irrational stage that generally marks the end of every great cultural movement. So the operative word is “sell, sell, sell” and confidence has shaken some of the mightiest institutions on Wall street as it will shake up other institutions soon.

On Wall street, they are now well aware of that reality and some of the cooler heads are realizing there may be some ways to profit from the stampede by acquiring assets at fire sale prices.

However, I’d venture that both the panic and the cool reaction are relatively contained right now. Contained to people in the financial industry, the media (who have never seen a crisis they can’t hype), and the reacting investors.

A few days ago, I was at a party in the tech community, and the happy atmosphere reminded me of the euphoria I had experience in the late 1990s, only a few months before the dotcom bubble went crashing down. As I travel in the murky waters between Wall Street and the technology world, I was shocked by the contrast between the panic I was witnessing in the financial space, and the relentless optimism I encountered in the tech space. The assumption that the crisis is contained to Wall Street was well engrained (and may yet change as more people see their 401k go down) but I started wondering about the disconnect. When presented with the issue, one person pointed out that a lot of people would go to grad school, as had happened after the last dotcom bubble and the only thing I could think of, upon that remark was “and where will they get their student loans from?”

Once again, I was getting stuck in the credit mindset and it made me uneasy but it came from the realization that credit is a core basis for the current US economy.

What I suspect is now going to happen, after the credit culture crash, is a move to core value, with people working hard to save up in order to buy things in cash. Actually, I hope that that is the case because any other option only seems to provide a short term band-aid to a major problem. If we fail to take the opportunity to move beyond the credit mindset, the next crisis will make this one look as easy to deal with as the dotcom crash currently looks to us: a big deal for a few people but ultimately something we can get past.

And I’m afraid that we will continue to spiral down the road of an ever increasing amount of debt until such time as there is no other thing to do but crash the culture in order to reset it.