Good Idea, Flawed Approach

There's a move in the online music sales arena to try to convince people that subscriptions sales of music is the way to go.

It's not a bad idea, but the time for this market may be too early. Why? Because people love the iPod, want the iPod, already OWN an iPod. And if you have an iPod, you use the iTunes music store.

USATODAY.com - Napster aims to sack Apple iTunes

So for Napster and others to succeed, they have to both convince you that you should rent your music AND that you should throw away your beloved iPod AND buy another, clunky, ugly music player.

I don't think it will work. Before the iPod, before iTunes music store, I used to pay $9.95 per month to emusic.com. At that time they let me download and keep all of the music I wanted. They had pretty good libraries of jazz and classical, which I loved, and next to no pop, which was fine with me. I really built up my library during that year or so I subscribed. Then they changed their mind, limited the number of songs I could download, and I dropped them.

I don't buy a lot of music, but over the years I've acquired plenty. Legally, mind you. Bought it. My iTunes library is nearly 30 gigabytes and I haven't ripped all of my CDs into it, let alone converted some holdover vinyl records. My aging, 5 gig original iPod is still chugging along - I'd love to have a new 60 gig Photo iPod, but can't justify it just now. So I have plenty of music. Most people do. I'd consider a subscription service, but what I really want is an easy way to buy music, inexpensively, one song or album at a time.

Oh, I can already do that? Right, iTunes has that covered. And there's no fucking way I'm giving up my iPod. So where does that leave Napster? Right where most internet companies that buy Superbowl ads. In next year's "What every happened to?" news paper columns.

Let's Go Out To The Lobby

Hedwig, the wise old owl, sends this New Yorker Article to my attention:

The New Yorker: The Critics: A Critic At Large: "And what is the main cinematic experience? The tickets, including the surcharge for ordering online, cost about the same as the monthly cable bill. A medium popcorn is five dollars; the smallest bottled water is three. The show begins with twenty minutes of commercials, spots promoting the theatre chain, and previews for movies coming out next Memorial Day, sometimes a year from next Memorial Day. The feature includes any combination of the following: wizards; slinky women of few words; men of few words who can expertly drive anything, spectacularly wreck anything, and leap safely from the top of anything; characters from comic books, sixth-grade world-history textbooks, or “Bulfinch’s Mythology”; explosions; phenomena unknown to science; a computer whiz with attitude; a brand-name soft drink, running shoe, or candy bar; an incarnation of pure evil; more explosions; and the voice of Robin Williams. The movie feels about twenty minutes too long; the reviews are mixed; nobody really loves it; and it grosses several hundred million dollars.
"

Ah, the movies!

One fun fact this article points out is the drop in movie attendance. In 1946 one hundred million people attended the movies EVERY WEEK. Out of a total population of on hundred forty-one million. Today that's down to twenty-five million weekly attendance out of a population of nearly three hundred million. Interesting, but not the whole story. In 1946 the movies were the only forum of mass entertainment. TV wasn't available. An inexpensive afternoon or evening at the movies provided a whole range of news and entertainment. And least we forget, these were massive, single screen theaters, not the pocket theaters we're packed into today. Newsreels, cartoons, short subjects, and double features. Now that sounds like fun.

But today we have TV, we have cable with movies on demand. We have DVDs. The movie industry isn't in any danger of perishing. It's simply changing.

And the big secret that the Hollywood big wigs don't know and can't understand: there are untold billions of dollars available to them if they'd only put their entire movie libraries online.

Imagine this: for a small, reasonable monthly fee, let's say $19.95, you could watch any movie ever made.

I have to stop there - the idea is staggering to me. Of course you'd pay that. Everyone would pay that. Christ.

Or let's make it more interesting - no monthly fee, but a charge of ninety-nine cents per movie. They'd be making money on movies that haven't made money in a hundred years. And if the price is low enough, who would bother to pirate? The quality would be guaranteed. You want to talk about a golden age of Hollywood, open the floodgates.

Evil Idiots of the Month for February: Sinclair Broadcasting

This month's award for the Evil Idiots of the Month goes to the clever folks at Sinclair Broadcasting.

At first, this might seem like completely political post, but their actions in last year's presidential election only got them as far as the nomination for this illustrious award. What really stuck in my craw was their greedy and stupid behavior that results in me not being able to watch Lost in high definition. Or the Super Bowl.

In the Columbus market, Sinclair owns both the ABC and Fox affiliates. I'm strongly opposed to companies owning multiple stations in a market this size (and the includes the evil, but not so idiotic Clear Channel). They've exercised their ownership to really gut these stations and take a race to the bottom. In fact, they've recently announced that they're eliminating sports reporting from their news operations. I'm not a sports fan, but reporting on local sports is part of the responsibility of local broadcasters. And they're holding TV watchers hostage over high definition - HDTV.

I subscribe to cable - it's the best way for me to get the programs I want. Satellite would require me to put a box on each of my TVs. With cable, all but one gets cable right to the set and works fine. The theater gets the full digital box, which now includes high definition capabilities, dual tuners, and a DVR (Digital Video Recorder). It's a crude, very difficult to use box and the worst interface possible, but it's HD and dual tuner, so the TiVO gets demoted.

And with this setup I get all of the local channels plus several others in HD - DiscoveryHD and PBS HD has some amazing and beautiful programming. The programs we like to watch, including Law and Order are gorgeous in HD. CBS, NBC, PBS, TNT, UPN - all in HD.

But not ABC and not FOX. Frankly, there's only one program on either that we watch that's in HD and that's Lost. I would really enjoy watching this show, shot in Hawaii of all places, in high definition. But Sinclair says no. Why? Because they, unlike all of the other broadcasters in this market and all of the other US markets insists that cable operators pay them for FREE OVER THE AIR PROGRAMMING.

I do have an alternative. I could go out an buy an HD receiver. I could then buy an antenna. That's right, a freak'n antenna. And after all that, if I'm lucky, I might be able to pick up the HD broadcast signal.

No way.

My perspective is this: Sinclair has been granted TWO broadcast licenses in this market by the federal government. They make money by charging advertisers and provide their content free of charge to viewers. Cable operators earn money by providing clean signal to my house and value added content - things not available to me over the air in my market. As a convenience to me, they also deliver the local stations, which are, as I've stated, freely available. But Sinclair wants to be paid. Now one else is paid. They're happy to have their programs available to customers and their advertisers are happy to have their advertisements displayed.

What's a guy to do? Well I for one will avoid Sinclair's programming for the most part. I'll watch Lost, and when it comes out on DVD I'll buy that - from ABC. And I'll make a point of letting people that advertise on Sinclair's local stations know that others like me are not watching.

So, you've spent millions creating that ad and more to buy the time to air it at the Superbowl. How's it feel to find out that the top purchasing market - all the guys the bought high definition TVs, aren't able to see your ads? And after the football game, they're switching to something that they can watch?

This rant is definitely NOT over.

In a round about way

This article in Today's Salon, purportedly about the resurgence of the Macintosh computer, almost, but not quite gets to some of the market issues that keep the computer industry from stepping to the next level.

"There's a poison in the computer industry,' Hertzfeld says, 'and that is the fact that the common software base is controlled by a predatory software company with a lack of ethics."

This quote, from Andy Hertzfeld gets right down to it. It's simple, really. Bill Gates is today's robber baron. He has used is business acumen, not technological prowess, to beat the market into profits for Microsoft and limited opportunity for everything else. Microsoft is a bad company and the market simply can't move forward until it's broken up by regulation or overcome by market forces.

And Microsoft has helped perpetuate the mindset that computers are technical instruments that require a high degree of specialized knowledge. Recently I was in an airport when I struck up a conversation with a fellow traveler when it was clear that we were heading to the same conference. His companion was crowing that he had hacked through the airport's feeble security to use their for-fee wireless network. When I pointed out that it wasn't that big of a deal - there were few people that could do it and the effort to lock it down probably wasn't worth the expense he scoffed, then claimed, "Most people shouldn't be allowed to even own computers. If I had my way, they'd have to pass a rigorous test before they could even touch one!"

At which point, I went back to ignoring him.

I hold the exact opposite view. If you have to possess virtually ANY specialized knowledge, then something is wrong with the device.

What most computer users forget is that the vast majority of the population do not own and have never touched a computer. They're expensive and don't have clear benefits. And they're confusing, frightening, and probably dangerous. And they'll break down or become unusable.

Apple is on the right path, even if the Mac isn't perfect. But I challenge you this: Pick out a relative over the age of 60 who has never used a computer. Find one that is active and might like to communicate with you and others more easily. One with active hobbies and an interest in learning. Maybe one with an interest in music or movies. Someone that's been talking about getting a digital camera. Now you're this person's contact - if something goes wrong, they'll be calling you. How much time and expense is it going to cost to set them up with a conventional PC and make it work with their new camera, printer, and the web? And how long before it becomes completely unusable from spyware and virus?

Or you have them buy a new, Mac mini for less than $500. They plug it in and are doing all of these things all on their own. It just works.

Of course you're elderly friend won't become a computer expert, but then again, why would they want to be?