This TED Talk is over two years old, yet still feels very relevant today. In just eighteen minutes Lawrence Lessig manages to masterfully crystallize the impact of the democratization of the tools of content creation and its distribution on the way we communicate. Or more specifically, how today’s “kids” are communicating. As the title of this video suggests, this presentation is about how copyright law lacks the common sense to allow the reuse and distribution of digital content for non-commercial use.
As presentations go, this one is just ... awesome. I love the fast pace of his slides and their simplicity. And his narrative just pulls you in.
A few weeks ago FriendFeed co-founder Paul Buchheit responded to the public’s concern about where things are going with FriendFeed.
There was a lot of chatter about the future of FriendFeed this weekend. The short answer is that the team is working on a couple of longer-term projects that will help bring FriendFeedy goodness to the larger world. Transformation is not the end. Consider this the chrysalis stage — if all goes well, a beautiful butterfly will emerge :-D
I, for one, am interested in seeing where they are taking the service.
After the initial hype died down a lot of the talk has been around FF living in the shadow of Twitter and (now owner) Facebook in terms of the size of its user-base. I have to agree there. I’ve been on the service for almost two years now and only have about a dozen connections - most of which don’t use it.
When FF first came onto the scene it was praised for the bevy of features it brought that other services were lacking. One service frequently mentioned was threaded conversations. I agree that this feature is great, but at the end of the day it’s dependent on people wanting to house their conversations on the service. While in theory the idea of a single place to host and thread your conversations is a good one, you need the community to support it. And a service that is primarily a feed is really not a community. For example, when I post a link to one of my blog entries on my Facebook page I frequently get comments on Facebook rather than on my blog.
But the biggest problem for me with FriendFeed is the user experience. While I don’t have many friends my feed is totally overwhelming. If you think you have a hard enough time keeping up with your Twitter feed, imagine that plus one-to-many-more services that your connection has plugged in to their feed - anything from Facebook, Flickr, Google Reader, Netflix, Posterous, last.fm, Tumblr, Vimeo .... the list goes on. You absolutely need a simple, smart, intuitive UI to bring meaning to this open tap. Currently they just let you segment your feeds - and that’s far from enough.
There is however one great use that I’ve found for FriendFeed - Groups. At work we’ve created a few Groups to share links and have conversations on various topics. It’s a snap to add an article to a Group - and because the group is small and focused it’s the natural place to thread your discussions. It’s been very successful.
What do you think? Would I see the light if I had more users? Am I using it wrong?
Or maybe this is a moot discussion, as the newly transformed FacebookFriendFeed will live up to the early predictions of Silicon Valley pundits and “represent the next big thing in social media”?
That’s what Jeff Jarvis’s new book aims to answer - not just for tech companies, but in many other industries.
In the above video he gives quick examples of this, such as crowd-sourcing automotive design and restaurant menus.
I have to say, those have to be the most un-compelling, and frankly, ill-advised ways to look at your business that he could have stated.
There’s a widely used axiom (source unknown), that goes like this…
If you asked a group of Porsche owners what they wanted they’d tell you things like, “smoother ride, more trunk space, more leg room”
They just designed a Volvo.
While crowd-sourcing can provide critical input, it’s not the formula for brand differentiation.
It’s also not universally loved within Google.
Former Google employee and Lead Designer, Doug Bowman explained his departure from Google on his blog...
“Yes, it’s true that a team at Google couldn’t decide between two blues, so they’re testing 41 shades between each blue to see which one performs better. I had a recent debate over whether a border should be 3, 4 or 5 pixels wide, and was asked to prove my case. I can’t operate in an environment like that. I’ve grown tired of debating such minuscule design decisions. There are more exciting design problems in this world to tackle.”
Putting aside Doug’s interests here, it’s clear that Google has removed the human element, the emotion, out of the design process. Now, maybe this works for a company like Google that creates things for the masses, but there are many many businesses that don’t. And even some that do, such as Apple, wouldn’t be who they are if they democratized their product creation.
For certain companies, and for specific applications, crowd-sourcing can be a powerful tool. It’s working for Google. But that doesn’t mean that it’s the new paradigm, period.
I typically don’t slam a book before I read it. And I’m sure that there’s more to glean from Google than democratized design. But between this video and the Amazon user reviews, I’m having second thoughts about picking this one up.
I was ready. Really ready. I wanted to sit back and laugh while Pfizer spewed out jargony phrases worthy of bullsh*t bingo about Twitter. Boy, was I disappointed.
There’s a hope that these guys might actually get it.
Though, while they get it, they’re not quite sure what to say. Or more specifically, what they’re allowed to say. Although there are currently no federal rules around what pharma companies can and cannot say through social media, Pfizer has chosen to take the conservative route.
It continues to be interesting to watch how Twitter has accelerated the discussion of social media strategy in large companies. It’s quickly made executives looked down upon when they can’t answer that question.
Whilst I was browsing Apple’s site for info on Snow Leopard, I came across the “leap forward” we can expect with the new release of QuickTime - QuickTime X.
I have to say that I like the new branding. The integration with the Q and the X and the lens-like treatment are nice touches. The new minimized application interface is slick and takes its cues from the iPhone.
Coincidentally, as I was searching for a video to include with my last blog post I first landed on a page with an embedded QuickTime movie. My immediate reaction was “ugh”. Somehow QuickTime has become associated with “heavy” and “sluggish” - at least for me.
Why is that?
Well, on the flip side of things, I also associate QuickTime with “image quality”. I watch all of my movie trailers on Apple’s website (or my AppleTV).
But in the span of a typical week, I watch all/most of my videos through some type of Flash-based player. And for myself, along with countless other bloggers, embedding these Flash players onto our sites is super-simple. Not so, for QuickTime movies.
When I came across that embedded QuickTime today it made the site feel dated too.
In Apple’s pursuit of quality they missed a huge part of the market. I’ll be honest, I have no clue what their strategy is there. With YouTube using Flash (and possibly the speculated new Google format in the future), it will be tough for Apple to make a dent. Arguably they’ve missed the boat on this one.
And does the average Mac user even really get what QuickTime is? Between apps like iTunes or Front Row kicking in when a user inserts media, when do people have the need to launch QuickTime?
For video professionals however, the QuickTime brand is very relevant. So has QuickTime mostly become the stuff of pros?
Whilst I was browsing Apple’s site for info on Snow Leopard, I came across the “leap forward” we can expect with the new release of QuickTime - QuickTime X.