Jobs v Gates

Comparisons between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have been made in a lot of different ways with their computers, software, business model. Often the goal is to put them in competition with one another and see who comes out on top like even in a flash video game. I however think these two are similar in a lot of ways. Computer moguls, views toward innovation, constant drive towards success, conducive environment to accomplish genius as posited by Malcolm Gladwell. I also think these two seemed to be quite similar in their leadership styles as far as dealing with people inside their company.

both are insanely detail-oriented.  Jobs and Gates are able to focus on specifications needed for different software or computing.

both are unruly in ‘constructive’ criticism.  Jobs and Gates are known for belittling employees. Jobs telling them to redo something without even looking at it or Gates saying that something ‘was the dumbest idea i have ever heard’.

both are oriented toward charismatic leadership styles. Gates and Jobs became the face of their companies and were involved in a lot of the engineering and business deals. They also kind have built a mythology about them and the genius that was required to work with them.

both have shown their vision into the future. Gates ability to patent and fight for his software knowning its importance and Jobs developing products and services that people didnt know they wanted until Apple made it.

I think of all the comparisons that can be made between Jobs and Gates i think theyre leadership styles were fairly similar in that these two extraordinary men had the vision and tenacity to stick to their intuitions and push people working them to their best as well. Technology and society are different because of these men.

 

 

 

 

the FUTURE of music

I think that the future of music is for the consumers…

Because consumers have so many ways to get to music by their favorite artists through legals means ( itunes, amazon, spotify) semi legal means (gomusic.ru, allofmp3.com, pay-what-you-want) and illegal means (piratebay.org, bittorrentz.com etc). Music can be in the hands of the consumer so quick and easy compared to the extended waiting on releases and going to stores for physical copies. The digital revolution has truly given the music industry to the consumers the proof is in the dramatic growth in music downloading as of late as documented by Price (2010). Which is a great thing for those that like to have a lot of music.

Im not sure about the future of music as far as the artist is concerned. Instantly available catalogs are good, having fans support you and invest in your projects over record labels like Kulash suggests in his article is good. I think the loss of the golden album sale is important because it forces the artist to make money in other ways than the CD and now each individual song has to have some quality to justify fans buying an entire album. Optimistically speaking, this means that only artist who put on great live shows will be able to sustain their craft and continue to produce music for their fans.  But on the other hand it could also mean that more gimmicks will be employed to sell records that are irrelevant and useless. See Katy Perry Cotton Candy Scented CD.

The gimmicks have probably only just begun though Im not sure what instant access will do to the actual creation of music. I remember an interview done with Ben Folds (track 21) talking about his ability to instantly upload his music on itunes and directly from his desk to fans and he viewed it mostly negative like the process didnt force him to produce his best work because there wasnt any one else really involved to critique and get the best from him. Like it or not, sometimes corporate industry men are forces for good that push for more from artists. Unlike some die hard fans some time who will like any thing an artist will utter into a microphone just because it’s from them.

I think the industry men are the ones that are totally up in the air for the future of music. Generally, their focus for music about the bottom line. It was a whole easier to produce a good single and force people to buy a whole cd for the one song that they liked on the radio. The record labels will have to create a way to further monetize digital recordings or make such a product of popular bands that they are replacing or even surpassing the money made on CDs with other interactive opportunites, merchandising or purchased experiences. I think the future of music for the business will more than likely include some more expermentation a la katy perry but then it will also need true adjustment to the digital age of music that is already here.

The Long Tail to Freedom

The concept of the Long Tail in business is simple. Things that appeal to larger audiences are often generic and mass produced because there is mass demand while things that appeal to more specific audiences are produced in limitation if at all.

 

In Chris Anderson’s article for Wired magazine talking about the Long Tail he mentioned several suggestions for companies in the digital age to capitalize on the Long Tail.

1. Make everything available.
2. Cut the price in half. Now Lower It!
3. Help me find it.

In the digital age this is completely practical and a great way to earn those sales of the long tail that contains every bit of content that can be created. Making it available for the niche market allows the business to develop the long tail into being as profitable if not more profitable than the ‘hit’ products mass produced because of the mass appeal. Ultimately, if you are able to continue selling everything you produce to niche markets you can grow your business.

A more difficult concept to grasp is Anderson’s idea of free. Common sense doesnt support free to grow a business or a brand or anything unless you’re giving free hugs away everyday…

But ‘free’ is valuable to think about the shift in cost of production and the different ways that free products can still be used to make someone, somewhere some money. I first heard about this idea when I got a free download of the Chris Anderson book titled Free and was blown away by the idea that free could be more useful for profits than even charging a penny for something.

I think that the most refreshing and growing ideas for the market are the idea of the ‘freemium’ which is basic services beign offered to all for free with premium features available for those that invest in the product. I see this online everywhere. Even with surveymonkey.com who im trying to conduct my research project for this class with. ha. And the other idea of free is the growing importance of economic externalities or the other resources in scarcity like time and respect. With production costs driving towards free companies will have to focus on how they respect consumers and the time that consumers have using their product or devote to their products and companies. All in all, I think the world of free is a very interesting idea to wrap yourself around.

Online impression management

 

 

“To a large extent, we’re evolving toward a world where you are who Google says you are.” says J. D. Lasica talking about the advancement of internet profiles and online identities. The Austin American Statesman is working on a four part series exploring the implications of our online identities.

Not so much now as in the past, people went online to manipulate the identity that they had in real life. Men might be women online, women might be men and men might be rabbits. Most of that extreme identity exploration is considered extinct because of social networking sites but there are still subtle ways where people alter or enhance their online identities.

I want to research where people draw the lines between their Internet identity and their real life identity. How much of their true self do people share online? How accurate would people say their online activity reflects who they are? How active is the average SNS user in their own online branding and managing their online identity?

I think short surveys asking questions about online identity on various SNS platforms could begin to answer these questions and start research on how the average user views their online identity. Getting at the idea of online branding as how people invent and idealized their online identities.

NEXT BIG THING

Given the nature of social media it is hard to predict what silly thing is going to take off and become the ‘next big thing’.  but i think the biggest thing that’s going to happen to social media is probably integration. Integration in the way that Facebook wants to complete your whole social graph online and the way that Google wants to provide everything for your life on its site and affiliates.  So probably the next big thing for social media is going to be devices that let you do that wherever you are and whatever you’re half way doing because you’re also commenting about it online.

So i guess my prediction for the next big thing for social media is the facebook phone and whatever new google phone that might be in the works in response to the creatiion of Google+.

I think the big impact social medias are already out there right now. there is twitter for microblogging, facebook for connecting to friends, music, (movies are coming), theres the new introduction of google+ that offers incorporation of other google tools with circles of friends and then theres thousands of other apps and sites that allow for pictures(instagram), gps transmitting (beluga, mayor maker, foursquare) and recipe and interest sharing (pinterest). The next innovation that will impact social media is the devices that will enhance the utility of the sites and further our journey into becoming cyborgs…

interactivity

I think the most pertinent thought to defining interactivity is in the McMillan & Downes article when they admit ‘interactivity is not a monolithic concept’. Instead it’s almost as if the concept of interactivity is dependent on who is interacting with it. the concept itself is an exercise in interactivity.

depending on whom is defining it, interactivity can take a focus on communication, feedback, the medium providing the interactions, the control of mediums, the discourse between users and time aspects of interactivity.

The trouble in seeking a more integrated definition is the attempt to catch all possible concepts like Kiousis’ definition ‘Interactivity can be defined as the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many), both synchronously and asynchronously, and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency). With regard to human users, it additionally refers to their ability to perceive the experience as a simulation of interpersonal communication and increase their awareness of telepresence.’ (Kiousis, 2002)

Saying all that needs to be said sometimes makes it harder to say anything clearly. can there be an objective way to determine the degree to which a medium possesses interactivity without a checklist of 30 different criterion in three sub sets?

 

WIth my background in sociology I favor the communication and feedback trains of interactivity and I ultimately think that a definition of interactivity is going to be constructed around whoever is giving the definition. One definition that I believe more suited interactivity for media technologies is the ability for communication over a medium that gives users influence over the control of the medium.  Whether this is an the interface of the technology or in feedback to the beta release. Interactivity can come in varying degrees for various media.

 

 

New Media

Media, as I understand by my readings of Marshall Mcluhan can be understood as ‘any extension of man’. Thoureau’s pencils are an extension of man’s memory and language and language itself is an extension of man’s thought and all new media can be reduced to an extension of some function of natural man (Mcluhan; Baron, 1999).  So I would like to loosely define New Media as extensions of man’s extended functions through technology.

Media is such an integral part of modern life because of the different extensions that we take advantage of and often under appreciate. I think a definition of New Media is difficult because a lot of the different implications of new media are enhancements and integrations of various ‘old’ medias such as social networking platforms that use the computer using the internet using the web to connect to a whole host of other users at several locations. What once would have been an unorganized town hall meeting or family reunion with multiple generations is available in the virtual world created by this new media.