Wednesday, January 05, 2005
« Microsoft has a marketing machine? | Main | Beta of Microsoft AntiSpyware software a... »

I was going to post this on my personal blog, but it occurred to me that it is technical enough in nature to fit here. 

EPIC is a flash video (which has been out for a while now) that portrays the future of media. It is scary, but interesting. Moreover it is thought provoking.

Certainly the web/blog/wiki thing has driven down the value of professional writing. Magazines (and vendors such as Microsoft) are paying less and less for content. Why should they pay when tons of people will produce content for free? Why should advertisers go with established publishers when some blogs outstrip them in readership?

Book sales are down. Even factoring in the dot-bust and the Bush-era recession of the past few years, book sales are down from where they should be. Who needs to buy a book when you can get so much online for free through a quick google search.

It is easy to look at Epic from a technology perspective, but it is the larger social perspective that I find interesting and troubling. And the social effects are real and there's active debate.

Take the controversy over wikipedia.org for example - the encyclopedia business is under siege by who? Us. Anyone with a fact can share it with the world, without going through a formal company or process. Without any opportunity for anyone to make money on it. On one hand this is good, but on the other it is bad. Who’s going to fund archeological research? Who’s going to do the hard parts of finding facts? For free?

In the technology space, many of us blog things – including me. In many cases these are things that might have been paid articles prior to blogging, but now we gleefully put them on the web for free. That's fun for a while, and is good for notoriety, but in the long run it isn't sustainable.

Several people (friends or acquaintances of mine in both the Microsoft and Java spaces) recently have indicated that they are done writing - books, articles - they are done. This is troublesome. Is Atlas shrugging? Will the content of the future consist merely of the myriad voices of mundane souls?

Epic portrays at least one alternative, where it is at least possible for an author to get paid for their craft. Whether that is a realistic model doesn't matter as much as the fact that some model must be found.

Because we're not talking about just technical authors. We're talking about fiction. We're talking about music, and eventually movies. How will content creators get paid to do their work when random people do it for free? Will true artists bother? Do we care? Perhaps the people doing it for free are as good or better?

Perhaps they are just good enough, which is even scarier. That, after all, is the primary sin people ascribe to Microsoft. That they aren't the best, but rather are just good enough – leaving us stuck living in a “good enough“ world rather than a really kick ass world.

I don't necessarily buy that viewpoint on Microsoft. Having used various flavors of Linux I don’t see that as the “kick-ass world” I’m personally looking for anyway. But it is easy to look at reality TV and see where everything could sink to that level.

Epic raises serious questions that only time will answer...

Wednesday, January 05, 2005 5:27:48 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [6]  | 

Wednesday, January 05, 2005 5:55:54 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I think reality TV is the "reset" button on entertainment. Now that the mainstream American consumer is actually enjoying "entertainment" with the lowest budgets around, it is my opinion that the bar has been lowered so much that people like myself and my wife can make content about the "real" "reality" and people will like it, as well.

After this reality TV garbage (my opinion), anything will be better.

I agree with you that we need to find a model to pay people for the work they do.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005 6:07:26 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
My wife is involved with a group that makes movies. It turns out there's quite a lot of people out there making their own movies, "TV shows" and so forth. While few of them have high production value, some are quite good. And most of them have better writing than much _actual_ TV out there.

And they all do it for free, on a lark. While they aren't competition for TV yet, it seems to me that they will be as their experience (and thus production quality) improves and as TV sinks lower and lower.

Unless you are right, and reality TV is as low as it is going to get.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:38:43 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Wikipedia - an encyclopedia created by the people for free. Oh, and without all of the strict, impartial fact-checking that goes along with editing written works. People have hijacked Wikipedia in the past, so what makes me want to trust what someone has written because it costs nothing? I can buy Microsoft Encarta for what, $50? At least it has to hold itself up to being somewhat impartial.

You're looking on the bright side of things, whereas I'm taking the pessimistic point of view. One of the best ways to screw up software is to cut and paste the first thing Google turns up and if it works use it without understanding it. The thing that makes blogs so appealing, the ability to post easily and quickly, is also its biggest downfall in quality (in general). Lowering the entry costs to publish has lowered the quality in the short term. Not sure about the long term.
Thursday, January 06, 2005 12:00:38 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Darrell, I think you misunderstand my point.

If free, unedited and unfiltered content destroys content written, edited and checked by professionals then we will indeed have lost something very important. As a professional author, this concerns me greatly - as I'm sure it concerns serious novelists, researcher scientists, musicians and so forth.

On the other hand, having an avenue by which talented people can publish really great content that would otherwise be blocked by a stolid publishing industry is also good. I know people who produce awesome fiction, but it doesn't fit into neat categories and so is hard/impossible to get published. This new Internet offers them a way to share their work. For free, which is sad, but better that than to have the talent go totally to waste.

Regardless, microeconomics are what they are. The fact is that free content could very easily destroy paid content. Blogs could destroy media, replacing journalism with a global "opinion page".

EPIC portrays a possible solution, though I am skeptical. It is a solution based on popularity, not on being accurate. During the US presidential election we saw how people gravitate toward blogs that say what they want to hear. Sometimes factual, sometimes not quite - but they were popular and thus would be paid in an EPIC world.

It is difficult to see the future, to know how this will turn out. But there's no denying that the current state of the Internet is having a direct, negative impact on professional content generation. What that means in the long-run only time will tell.
Thursday, January 06, 2005 10:01:08 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Great post. Thanks for providing it for free. ;)

I used to download C64 games from bbs with a 1200 baud modem and archive on many floppy discs. A couple of years back I got a DVD-rom with just about every C64 program ever made on it. The fact that I was holding so much code, art, blood, sweat and tear in my hand on just one optical disc made quite an impact on me.

The pack-rat in me would love to burn tons of copies of dvds onto dvd-r discs. Why bother when I can wait 15 years and get 15000 movies on one disc.

Things are getting strange and going to get much stranger. I'm loving it!

Ian
Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:14:56 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
RIP NY Times. Nothing wrong with that. It certainly is not the final authority on anything for me. googlezon/epic is about as threatening as microsoft was made out to be in the ie/netscape war. Remember: aol bought netscape and killed it. ie became the king of the browsers. the worst had happened. Three years later, with firefox, ie has become an embarrassment to microsoft. Epic is threatening the same way that microsoft was threatening -- that is -- the threat is apparent. On the other hand, the NY Times as been a source of real mischief for many decades. Thats the great thing about the web. No one controlls it. When it is actually under top down control, by a time-warner, then I'll start to get concerned. Otherwise, the ny times is dead long live anything else.

Incidently, I believe that the reason that the publishing industry is begin beaten up by the web is becuase there is a lot of high quality information available on the web, quality which can be recognized by the reader, and the publishing industry simply cant compete. The notion that we need a basic books or ny times -- i.e. a mainstream publishing house -- to protect us from misleading information is absolute hogwash. I have read enough publisher endorsed misinformation to turn my hair white.

Oddly enough, the mode of compensation of the author is a major determinent of my trust in a particular writer. You could say that richard turner's blog is professional writing sponsored by microsoft. In my opinion, it shows. Turner is not free to say anything he likes about soa. I'm not saying he is disingenuous. But, when I read his blog, I must not forget the constraints on him. Likewise, I cannot read a magazine article that carries advertising without understanding that there is advertising revenue at stake.

Likewise, you derive revenue from professional writing, and are directly impacted by the health of the computer publishing industry. You may well think that a downturn in the publishing industry is a bad thing, but you're sitting on a conflict of interest, and simply cannot expect or be expect to be unbiased on this.

Thats the one thing about this technology that I love. No one, not microsoft, wrox, sun, etc., can assume control over it, as happens in almost all other industries. I believe that if microsoft stopped moving, it would be dead in 5 years. That's why it is not threatening to me. It is also why it is a great company. BTW, think about ie6 and firefox if you want an example of what would happen to microsoft if it stopped moving for any length of time. It would take a nuclear holocost to dislodge Ford. It would take about 3-5 years to dislodge microsoft. Well, the old publishing industry is like Ford. The New York times has had far too much control over people's minds for far too long. Its time for a change. I dont see how epic could replace the ny times. If microsoft is fragile, google is far more so.
John Brown
Comments are closed.