October 2, 2009
Here’s an interesting article from Ad Age about how magazine publishers are trying to get a leg up on iTunes before the anticipated release of the Apple tablet.
Link
Not to disparage Apple (because iTunes is very easy to use and the pricing is right for the content), but I would love to have a device independent version of “iTunes” to purchase content. I think Amazon is very well suited for that. The magazine industry, however, wants their own storefront so they can control distribution (pricing) of their content. Hahaha! Well, I hope publishers don’t get greedy and make their content so expensive that people turn to piracy or don’t get the information at all.
It will be interesting to see what the next generation of tablets are like. As of now readability is a issue with LCD screen and some of the e-reader devices have resolution and color limitations. Again, I can’t wait to see how laptops and e-readers will converge, both in terms of screen technology and usability.
I have seen some interesting Flash based e-magazines that could serve as prototypes for future e-readers. I especially like those e-magazines that allow for zooming in and links to other content. With schools looking harder at e-text books, I think we may be approaching a tipping point where e-reading begins to become the norm. I am eager to see what will happen with all of this in the next 5-yrs. How will this change “brick-and-mortar” bookstores (especially used book resellers)? Will this be end the “periodical” as we know it? Will be see micro-targeted advertisements in everything we e-read? And what will happen with books, newspapers, and magazines when reading becomes a shared experience through social networking? It’s a lot to noodle on and I’ll more to say about it after I digest things for a bit.
Leave a Comment » |
Advertising, Digital Entertainment, Gadgets | Tagged: Advertising, Amazon, Apple, Apple Tablet, e-reader, iTunes, magazine, micro-targeted advertisement, publisher, tablet |
Permalink
Posted by kuroneko003
April 27, 2009
I’m beyond irritated with the quality of news we get in the US. It seems their latest thing is trying to scare the crap out of everyone about the “Swine Flu.” This morning I even saw rumblings about the Swine Flu thwarting the economic recovery. If I’m not mistaken, the news agencies are funded by advertising and the amount companies spend on advertising is linked to how well the economy is doing. So … isn’t it best for the news agencies to have a good economy? It seems to me their deliberate drive to scare the crap out of everyone is very short-sighted. Sure panic and sensational headlines may grab eyeballs, but those eyeballs aren’t the ones paying media producers to deliver the news. I’m not saying that the news should only report good things — but what I’m suggesting is perhaps the news should get back into the business of delivering the news instead of opinion and tabloid sensationalism. A balance of good and bad news would be nice. Clearly separating the news from opinion and taking a serious look into what is news worthy and what is not would be nice. Seriously, does 40 confirmed cases of the Swine Flu, which so far has manifested itself as the normal flu, equal a pandemic and the precursor to global financial meltdown? And, seriously, do the media producers wish for global financial meltdown, because that would mean they would go extinct too. So media producers and news people out there, give the news some thought before you start spouting sensational headlines and spinning everyone up with apocalytic prophecies and crazy what-if-a-frog-had-a-glass-ass scenarios. Be responsible in your reporting and most importantly quit “driving” world events into the ground! It’s irritating. So irritating in fact, that I’ve limited my access to news to ~about 1-min/day to make sure the world still exists, while at the same time keeping myself from spiraling into mental depression.
Leave a Comment » |
Advertising, Stupid, communication | Tagged: Advertising, Media, News, Stupid, Swine Flu |
Permalink
Posted by kuroneko003
March 2, 2009
Here’s a link to an interesting article from Ad Age Magazine. The CEO of Time Warner, Jeff Bewkes, want users who access TV content online to prove that they are cable subscribers. Buwhahahaha!!! I guess he sees the writing on the wall as a middle man between customers and content producers. As usual, it’s a fight about how gets the ad and the subscription money — the content producer, the content provider, or the Internet Service Provider. Personally, I see no point for cable to do anything more than provide a content “pipe” into my house. I pay for that pipe just like any other utility and get what I want from it. As for paying specifically for content, I’m a little confused. We currently pay a subscription fee to Tivo and Netflix to watch content when we want to. My husband is currently watching “Jericho” as a video stream from Netflix. It’s convenient for him and he doesn’t have to deal with commercials. But that’s beside the point. I imagine, currently, many people get broadband access through their cable provider, so why add the extra layer of authentication? If a person drops their cable service but keeps broadband … so what? It just means that the cable companies are no longer “double dipping.” In theory, if cable providers only provided the pipe, then they could quit serving up cable tv in general and let the content producers figure out how they want to generate revenue. It seems to me to be a logical simplification.
On the other hand, let’s consider how many people are gonna give up cable in general to watch things on the small screen. Not everyone is tech savvy enough to pipe content from their computers to their big screen tv. I think for the most part, watching via a computer is a singular experience, whereas you watching the big tv in a group. Until the tv and computer become one with a simple interface to access content from the internet, I think Bewkes is barking up the wrong tree because people are gonna view via the both small screen and the large screen. The proper move to make is to develop that technology that joins TV, the PC, and Internet and to charge for that convenience to both the customer and the content provider — “TV Everywhere + Any Content.” With respect to Bittorrent … well, content providers should put out their own Bittorrents and high quality streams of a show in a convenient location and either charge a “reasonable” fee to watch the show or make people watch commercials (or maybe forward the trend of incorporating product placements into the shows). Either way, the only way to beat pirates is to join ‘em ;p. I will say this though, as this economy tightens, and money tightens, the urge to kill cable and just go broadband is strong.
Leave a Comment » |
Advertising, Digital Entertainment | Tagged: Advertising, cable, Digital Entertainment, subscription, Time Warner |
Permalink
Posted by kuroneko003