Mark Andreessen Analyzes the Facebook Platform
Everyone in the world is already talking about it, but EMI and Apple have just announced that higher quality (256kbps AAC) DRM-free tracks of EMI’s catalog will be available for sale on the iTunes music store for a 30% premium.
This is huge news. As a consumer, I’m pretty happy about it. The existing iTMS offering has been sub-par (marginal bitrate, DRM encumbered) at a price that wasn’t quite attractive enough. As a result most of my music money has still been going for CDs. The improved product is much more attractive to me, at least when I’m only interested in one or two tracks.
I’ll be interested to see if the other labels follow suit on this. I imagine they’ll be happy at the chance to boost their average sales price for dowloadable music.
Update: The premium price only applies to single track purchases. Full album prices remain the same even without DRM and with a higher bit-rate. Sweet!
I picked up an invitation code for Joost over on Jyte last week, and I just took the time to download and install it.
For those who don’t know, Joost is the latest venture from the creators of Skype and Kazaa. Kazaa kicked the music industry in the nuts by providing a decentralized version of Napster. Skype kicked the long distance industry in the nuts by providing easy to use high-quality peer-to-peer internet telephony.
So, that would make Joost a swift kick in the nuts of the cable TV industry. It uses peer-to-peer technology to provide video on demand over the internet. This could make it possible for content producers like HBO to connect with viewers without having to cut in the cable companies (or the cable “networks” for that matter). I’m thrilled at the prospect. I like a lot of HBO programming, but I don’t want to have to deal with the shifty sales tactics of the cable companies in order to get to it, so I end up waiting for things to come out on DVD.
It differs from other P2P distribution of video in a few ways. From the end users point of view, it has the advantage of a slick, learnable user interface that can start playing new video almost instantly.
From the content creators point of view, it has the advantage of allowing them to maintain a degree of control over their content — they decide what gets made available, and how long it remains available. Plus, it looks like there is advertising, which suggests they have a way to get paid.
Of course, as a consumer, I see the ads as a disadvantage. I don’t know how many minutes of ads Joost will ultimately lace their programming with. I do know that network TV devotes almost 20 minutes of every hour to ads. Cable TV is sometimes better, and often worse. I really have better things to do than watching ads. If the price was right, and the programming was decent, I’d pay not to have to see them.
The Joost experience is a mixed bag so far. The installation process is very straightforward and there is basically no configuration, other than signing in to the service once. The UI is a little puzzling, but it doesn’t take long to find all the features, and once you do, it’s pretty easy to remember how to use and find them again. Joost is promising a social experience around TV watching, but so far, I haven’t experienced it. I’ve joined chatrooms for a few of their “channels” and ended up talking to myself because there haven’t been any other users. The video quality is pretty good. Definitely better than YouTube, but generally not as good as a ~360MB/hr XVID, plus, I’ve experienced issues with the stream stuttering or pausing due to network congestion.
Joost could be an interesting test of net neutrality since it depends on infrastructure often provided by competitors (Cable internet) or potential competitors like DSL providers, which are generally phone companies who have their own video ambitions.
The programming on Joost seems decidedly like extended basic cable. Old National Geographic specials, reality shows, niche sporting events, some MTV programming and various independent films. Production qualities are also basic cable-grade, which these days, can be pretty slick. I hope they open it up a little bit and start taking stuff of compelling interest even if the production values are a little more like what two dedicated and talented amateurs can pull off in their spare time.
But hey, you don’t have to take my word for it. I’ve got an invite code or two, so you can check it out for yourself. Just leave me an e-mail address and I’ll send them out, first come, first served.
UPDATE: I’m all out of invites!
I have a little secret. I have grown to hate computers. I hate that most of the activities in my life now take place confined to a screen, keyboard and mouse interacting with 25 year old visual metaphors. I miss working in a darkroom, or dipping a pen in ink.
All day is spent clutching a mouse and pecking at keys. The tactile experience is completely impoverished and everything is so cramped and confined. It’s impossible to stretch out even with a couple of big monitors.
I used to edit papers by printing them out on a continuous strip of old fanfold computer paper and then laying the whole thing out on a big table. It made it so easy to reorganize things. I could draw arrows between paragraphs multiple pages from another as I figured out how to turn a rough draft into a well organized paper. Of course then I had to enter my changes into the computer, but it wasn’t that bad, and it actually helped having all the changes sketched out before I started committing them.
I actually broke out my old sketchbook and bought a set of brush pens to try and get away from the computer. It felt good, but as much as I hate the experience, I was drawn back to my resting place in front of the computer.
Which is all background for why I find this demo by Jeff Han at TED so cool. It’s a big touch sensitive display that responds to multiple touches, which lets you interact with things in a pretty complicated way. Check it out.
I want one, a really big one and I want it last week.
thanks to Chasjr3 & sarahliz for the link.
Rumor has it that You Tube gave a bunch of equity to various large media companies to keep them at bay until a wealthy suitor could be landed. Napster tried to do something similar, but by the time they hit upon the strategy of cutting the media companies in, it was far too late.
If the rumors are true, then the media companies worked the deal in such a way as to screw all the other people who should be getting a piece of the action (like the actors, directors, producers, etc) from the pirated video that made YouTube what it is.
Against enemy tanks, however, electric defenses won’t do much good. And “any armored warfare guy would tell you that the biggest threat to light armored vehicles are heavy armored vehicles” like tanks, said Clark Murdock, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in an e-mail interview.
Talk about your disruptive technologies.
I am not a military expert, but this guy seems to miss the point. Rocket propelled grenades, which “electric armour” is effective against, are cheap and available in large numbers. There is a good chance that any adversary with access to anything beyond 50 year old bolt-action rifles, will be armed with lots of them. They are easy to conceal and carry, so they will be hard to knock out.
Tanks, on the other hand, are expensive, as are, I’d guess, the tungsten and depleated uranium rounds they fire. They will then be relatively scarce, compaired to portable arms. Those that do exist will need to be maintained and fueled, and, perhaps most importantly, they will stick out like a sore thumb, making it easier to mitigate the threat they pose.
RPGs, on the other hand will be difficult to control and difficult to spot until it is too late. It seems to make sense to worry at least as much about protecting a $100k (I’d guess) troop carrier with a dozen or so men in it against a lethal and effective $20 dollar weapon as it does to protect it against a slightly more lethal multi-million dollar weapon.