jump to navigation

Does the Kindle Fire Threaten iPad Tablet Market? 2011/09/28

Posted by nydawg in Information Technology (IT), Intellectual Property, Media.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

For nearly a year, people have been hoping for some type of competition to Apple’s iPad.  Well, this news release may be the next in a series of possibilities, but since it comes from Amazon, it may hold some promise.  Personally, I don’t think it really is an iPad killer, but  I think time will tell if there really is a “market” for tablet computers.  In the meantime, though, this new technology will provide another example of a cloud computer which forces consumers (or end users) to rely on locked-in cloud storage to access their information. Though I don’t totally buy into the hype that Kindle Fire will compare favorably with the iPad, some (like Ars Technica) do. . . .

“Amazon’s Kindle Fire is likely to be the first successful tablet not sold by Apple, and there are several good reasons for it: the low price of $199, the convenient, portable size of 7 inches, and a rich catalog of books, movies and music offered through Amazon’s Web-based services. But Amazon’s smartest move was to avoid the fatal temptation of creating an iPad clone. ”

If you check out the comments section, you’ll see that a better comparison may be between the Kindle Fire and the Barnes and Noble Color Nook. . . . .  Ultimately, I think that one of the biggest differences is (obviously) size!  Though my interactions with iPads have been limited to a handful, I think the 10″ screen is better suited to reading full-page essays and articles and etc.  On my own eReader/Tablet (by Entourage), I find it annoying to read small print and try to zoom in and then move forward and etc.  But that’s what you get with a 7″ screen (or two).  Alas, I don’t think the Kindle Fire is a dead on arrival, because unlike the iPad, it may allow end users to access Flash videos and retrieve content from the Amazon Cloud. . .   On the other hand, though, the price is cheap ($200), and a Kindle eReader now sells for only $79! So in the long-tun, as an appliance to access content stored on the Cloud, this may work out well for Amazon, as long as they don’t lose too much money on each loss-leader sold, and can make it back on licensing fees.

And one last consideration is the E Ink technology (“As its engineers explain it, “electronic ink is a straightforward fusion of chemistry, physics and electronics to create this new material.” “) which was so good for battery-life.  With this new color tablet option, it will be interesting to see how long batteries last– especially when playing Flash videos.  Oh, and one other thing, like the iPad, the Fire does NOT have a USB port either!  Meanwhile, somewhere in Redmond, WA, Bill Gates weeps!

Three Screens and a Cloud: Netflix’s Qwikster, Facebook & Amazon 2011/09/23

Posted by nydawg in Copyright, Curating, Digital Archives, Digital Archiving, Information Literacy, Information Technology (IT), Intellectual Property, Media.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

One of the most pressing and intimidating challenges digital archivists face today, is the fact that there is so much content offered in so many quick-changing distribution formats and accessible on short-lived storage media.  I found that the easiest way to describe this is “Three screens and a cloud” or as former Microsoft head Ray Ozzie put it: “how we consume IT is really shifting from a machine-centric viewpoint to what we refer to as three screens and a cloud:  the phone, the PC, and the TV ultimately, and how we deliver value to them.” [i would change that to IP, but hey, I’m not CEO of Microsoft.]

So as archivists who are concerned with the distribution and accessibility of our digital assets, it is important to ask early, “What format or what media will be required and who is the targeted end user on what appliance?”  In other words, you probably don’t want to send a hi-def Blu-Ray digital video stream meant for a big screen tv to a tiny smartphone!  Or you probably don’t want to stream a FlashVideo version to an iPad user.

But, on the other hand, archivists may not need to archive or preserve (for long-term functions) every possible variation of each format version (for smartphone or netbook (iPad) or television).   By articulating what is really needed, archivists can streamline processes and avoid making mountains where molehills are sufficient.  Archivists who can see the forest for the trees will be able to describe fewer assets more completely so that specific needles can be found within the haystacks.

This leads me to the real groundshifting news stories that happened this week.  The first one is that NetFlix is splitting its DVDs-by-mail service from its streaming.  According to Huffington Post: “In a post on The Netflix Blog that went up Sunday night, the company’s CEO, Reed Hastings, announced that Netflix would split its DVD-by-mail service and its streaming-video service into two companies. The new DVD-only company, called “Qwikster,” will be completely separate from the streaming business. Hastings also expressed contrition for the way the company rolled out its recent price hike, which alienated many customers. . . . “It is clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we lacked respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and streaming, and the price changes. That was certainly not our intent, and I offer my sincere apology.”

Well, obviously, many people are up in arms and think this is the biggest boneheaded marketing move since Coke introduced New Coke! The NY Times’s David Pogue does a pretty good job of getting his gander up as he parses the Netflix apology without fully acknowledging the economics of the “streaming” game.  I won’t get too much into the legal issues (which I don’t fully understand), but I do remember when I was working in “streaming media” as Senior Encoder at SonicNet (and Streamland), licensing costs and marketing dollars generally shift from one medium (vhs, CD or radio) to another (DVD, streaming media or satellite radio).   It seems inevitable that NetFlix realizes, as Blockbuster did years ago, that physical media will soon be obsolete, . . .  so they’re trying to split themselves in order to have different licensing deals with different stakeholders and end users. . . . . and Blockbuster, long-ago doomed, seeks to get in on the action too!

But ultimately, “An issue that both Netflix and Dish face, even when they don’t want to admit it, is the inconsistency of broadband connectivity across the United States.”

Another huge news story from this week was at f8 where Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced major Facebook renovations. ““Millions of people curate stories of their lives on Facebook every day and have no way to share them once they fall off your profile page…we have been working on ‘timeline’ all year…it’s the story of your life and completely new way to express yourself.  “It has three pieces: all your stories, your apps and a new way to express who you are.”  Zuckerberg said he wanted people to be able to share “their entire lives” on Facebook and have “total control” over how their content appeared online.”

Zuckerberg “also announced a series of partnerships with music, media and games companies –including Spotify, Netflix, Zynga [the maker of Farmville] and The Washington Post.”  So this brings us back to the idea of Netflix which  “announced it is integrating its video streaming service with Facebook — allowing users to watch videos on either site and see what people on their friends lists are viewing.  It will be available in 44 countries except in Netflix’s biggest market — the United States, because of the 1998 Video Privacy Protection Act that prohibits the disclosure of video sales or rental records, the company explained.”

So what does this all mean for “Three Screens and a Cloud?”  Well, it’s important to remember that “Netflix is the biggest driver of U.S. Internet traffic, according to one study. As Internet service providers begin capping or tiering their data plans, that could cause consumers to watch fewer streaming videos on Netflix, analysts say.”  So as phone companies begin capping data plans for distribution (streaming), then another part of the archival equation is the storage medium. . . . and, as many people know, the battle is in the Clouds!

From Scroll to Screen and Back: Vendor Lock-In and eBooks 2011/09/04

Posted by nydawg in Best Practices, Digital Archives, Digital Humanities, Digital Preservation, Information Literacy, Information Technology (IT).
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

I saw an interesting article in the NYTimes titled “From Scroll to Screen” which looks at the transition in print media over the last two thousand years.  While the author is specifically looking at the transition from books to eBooks, he declares, “The last time a change of this magnitude occurred was circa 1450, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type. But if you go back further there’s a more helpful precedent for what’s going on. Starting in the first century A.D., Western readers discarded the scroll in favor of the codex — the bound book as we know it today.”

Like many archivists and librarians, I am also highly interested in how this transition will work in the future.  Last year I read William Powers‘ excellent Hamlet’s Blackberry which led me to new ways of thinking about media and different formats used to carry data and information between different stakeholders across time and space. . . .

So this article in the NYTimes by book critic Lev Grossman caught my interest when discussing how one format replaces the previous:  “In the classical world, the scroll was the book format of choice and the state of the art in information technology. Essentially it was a long, rolled-up piece of paper or parchment. To read a scroll you gradually unrolled it, exposing a bit of the text at a time; when you were done you had to roll it back up the right way, not unlike that other obsolete medium, the VHS tape.”

He goes on to explain how those scrolls were items of prestige, probably because of the “scarcity” of scroll-creators.  “Scrolls were the prestige format, used for important works only: sacred texts, legal documents, history, literature. To compile a shopping list or do their algebra, citizens of the ancient world wrote on wax-covered wooden tablets using the pointy end of a stick called a stylus. Tablets were for disposable text — the stylus also had a flat end, which you used to squash and scrape the wax flat when you were done. At some point someone had the very clever idea of stringing a few tablets together in a bundle. Eventually the bundled tablets were replaced with leaves of parchment and thus, probably, was born the codex. But nobody realized what a good idea it was until a very interesting group of people with some very radical ideas adopted it for their own purposes. Nowadays those people are known as Christians, and they used the codex as a way of distributing the Bible.”

And anyone who has ever tried to compare two or more passages in a book  on an ereader, you may be interested to read: “The codex also came with a fringe benefit: It created a very different reading experience. With a codex, for the first time, you could jump to any point in a text instantly, nonlinearly.”   This doesn’t quite work as easily in the tablet or eReader age, but stay tuned, as I imagine at some point they will improve on the technology.   “If the fable of the scroll and codex has a moral, this is it. We usually associate digital technology with nonlinearity, the forking paths that Web surfers beat through the Internet’s underbrush as they click from link to link. But e-books and nonlinearity don’t turn out to be very compatible.

So as we move from the tried and trusted durable medium of the codex and hard-cover book (even if printed on cheap paper) to the electronic tablet (early versions, soon-to-be-obsolete operating systems, playing outdated versions), our content management expertise and digital asset curator skills should become more valuable as new technologies eveolve and media formats become obsolete and disposable and our culture is at-risk.

But our hands are tied.   Even to address the pressing concerns of eBooks and eReaders and tablets, archivists are left out in the cold.  We dare not say anything about the vendor lock-in regarding Kindle’s proprietary formats, because they are Amazon’s Intellectual Property.  We cannot say anything about vendor lock-out in regards to Apple’s iPad tablet not playing (hot) Flash videos (see Steve Jobs “Thoughts on Flash”), and causing problems when accessing Fedora through its Flash application.  We cannot even mention the fact that iPads do not have any support for portable SD card and USB 2.0 external drives.  In other words, if you want to get information on (or off) your iPad, you probably have to email or upload it. . .  😦

So what can we do?  Or, more clearly, what should a digital archivist know to catalog and describe when working with born-digital materials?!  Well, of course there’s so much (not everything entirely relevant though!), but at the very least, better format (not just medium, but format, and maybe codec) descriptions can create better strategies leading to better plans, processes and best practices.  And keep your damn books!

I’ll admit that I finally broke down and bought an eReader.  Since I was going to be travelling to Chicago for the SAA, there were many articles I wanted to read and think about in advance, so for the last few months I was searching for the right one.  Of course, I was quite wary of Kindles because of the proprietary format and wasn’t sure how well it would read PDFS (or if it could), but friends suggested the Digital Reader or Sony eReader, and at least one friend suggested checking out the Nook from Barnes and Noble.

I wasn’t really sure what I wanted, and I ddn’t really care that much.  Basically, anything that would let me read PDFs, most of which I would download from the internet or specifically, the Society of American Archivists‘ (SAA), American Archivist journal.  Of course, I also found some excellent reads on Project Gutenberg and Internet Archive (where, btw, they’re preserving physical books!).  I’m really interested in the e-ink technology, so that was one factor, and the other factor was that I didn’t want to pay more than $130.  (Another factor, on which I thought I would have to compromise was that I wanted an eReader with two screens that would open like a book.)

Well, as you might expect, my research was not leading me to any answers, and I had almost decided to just go with one or the other (whichever was cheapest), and know it would be a temporary solution, until I can afford to buy a nice tablet computer . . . . .But then one day, I got an email offer from Woot for a one-day only clearance sale of all 2-screen dualbook (eReader & Tablet) from Entourage Pocket Edge!!  So I picked that up and I love it. . .. (Yes, there’s problems, but for reading pdfs and drawing on a journal or annotating pdfs and surfing the web on the tablet side, and etc. )   Maybe I’ll write more on it later, but for now, I hope you’ll just give a long thought about what we’ll lose if we give up functional non-linearity in our published works! (and I don’t mean Digital Humanities people with their datamining techniques..)

There’s an eBook Lock-In War Going On 2011/08/13

Posted by nydawg in Digital Archives, Information Technology (IT), Intellectual Property.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Many friends of nydawg are well aware of previous discussions we’ve had about vendor lock-in with Kindle texts, so this may not be “news” per sec, but it is worth a little consideration in light of the fact that Amazon was      “The fight has largely gone on behind the scenes – the most obvious consumer-visible part of it has been the fluctuating prices for ebooks. Now it threatens to burst into full public view, with a class-action lawsuit filed in CA this week alleging that ebook publishers colluded (illegally) with Apple to fix the prices of ebooks.

The simple view of things – as presented in the suit – is that Amazon was working to force e-book prices down and the publishers decided they didn’t want to play ball. In fact it’s a complex situation revolving around who gets to set the prices for ebooks and whether or not a publisher will be locked in to a model or technology.  Initially, the retailer (Amazon) set the prices we would pay for ebooks as they do with physical books. Publishers charge the retailer a price but the retailer had the freedom to charge more or less than that price. In order to encourage adoption of its Kindle and to boost the nascent ebook industry, Amazon priced the ebooks low – often well below hardcover and even paperback prices. ”   Read about the “copyfight” here: http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2011/08/12/theres_an_ebook_war_going_on.php

and this all reminds us of a story earlier in the year when The NYTimes announced “e-Books Outsell Print Books”:

“Since April 1, Amazon sold 105 books for its Kindle e-reader for every 100 hardcover and paperback books, including books without Kindle versions and excluding free e-books.  “We had high hopes that this would happen eventually, but we never imagined it would happen this quickly,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, in a statement. “We’ve been selling print books for 15 years and Kindle books for less than four years.”  But people should not exile their bookshelves to storage quite yet, many analysts warned. Over all,
e-books account for about 14 % of general consumer fiction & nonfiction books sold, according to Forrester Research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/technology/20amazon.html 

or do you remember from 2009 when Wired covered “Amazon’s E-Book Strategy Re-Kindles Debate on Open Standards” : While many salivated over this week’s arrival of “theiPod of the book world,” supporters of open e-book standards are opining anew that the Kindle’s proprietary format is not only bad for readers but, in the long run, probably for Amazon as well.

Either Amazon will succeed in locking people in, at which point it will become a kind of mashup of the worst elements of the Recording Industry Association of America, Microsoft and the mafia, or they’ll fail,” said Cory Doctorow, open source advocate, science-fiction author and co-editor of Boing Boing.   The issue isn’t about DRM protections on the books, but on Amazon’s decision to create — and now perpetuate — a non-portable format that a) denies readers the ability to read e-books they buy from the company on another device and b) books they might buy from an e-books competitor on the Kindle.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/02/amazons-e-books/

Apple iTunes & Amazon Own 80% of Paid Digital-Download Market 2010/12/22

Posted by nydawg in Archives, Copyright, Digital Archives, Intellectual Property.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment
ipad

It's Hip 2B Square

“After several years of explosive growth, sales of individual song downloads have slowed. With just over 1 billion tracks sold so far this year, the industry wide tally is up 0.3% from the same point in 2009, according to trade magazine Billboard.

But digital album sales continue to grow robustly, even as CD sales plummet. Sales of the discs have declined 20% this year, while digital album downloads have grown 13%, to over 75 million. (Vinyl record sales are growing at a similar rate, but with just 2.4 million sold this year, the format remains marginal from a commercial perspective.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870407380457602391388953…

Ars Technica: “Amazon was so good at pushing its “Daily Deal” promotions (deeply discounted albums of hot bands) that Apple apparently felt threatened by it—an anonymous music industry exec said earlier this year that Apple was stepping up pressure on artists to
avoid Amazon’s music promotions, lest they lose their valuable marketing support from iTunes.”
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/12/apple-owns-66-of-online-mus…

Of course people using Amazon Kindles are already well-aware of vendor lock-in through encryption, so this will probably become an issue for Amazon & Apple users in the near-term through the long-term.  (crickets . . . crickets   .    .     .   still waiting)

dk
###