Design Interaction: What I Learned
The best way to communicate what I learned in this class is through a class-by-class journal. With eight hours of instruction and then a week in between sessions, I felt like I learned quite a bit that changed my perspective walking out of the classroom every other Saturday, and then had time to absorb the material, think about the readings, and formulate my own thoughts on the matter with our week off. That rhythm of learning made each class session feel distinct and unique.
Class 1 (Jan 15)
I felt like a fish out of water in the first half of class. My only saving grace was the fact that I had taken the Psychology of Digital Media class during a previous quarter. However, as the day progressed, I got more comfortable. I began to understand that good design wasn’t just about things that looked nice or felt good in your hand (although both of those are certainly considerations of the design process), but at a higher level, good design is about the effective organization of information, and the process a user goes through to access it – whether it’s an on-screen menu or a Swiss Army knife…what is this thing, what am I supposed to do with it, how do I do it, and does it do its job well? All of these questions are central to design. In the first class, I took away two central ideas:
- Designers organize, structure, and classify information
- Designers determine the behavior of information systems
Class 2 (Jan 29)
The library application development project was a great way to begin working through the mental exercises of making design decisions. From scoping the project, to creating the site map, and then mocking up wireframes, it was an interesting first foray into tackling the questions designers must answer on a daily basis. The best part was that in designing a mobile application, we had to take into a count that the user would be using this product on the go, and on a 4” or smaller screen. Those two constraints force you to make the tough decisions. I also enjoyed the conversation on the user’s mental model. It made me think that designers need to step away from their own thoughts, feelings, and assumptions about a certain design or product in order to use the research and data they may be provided effectively. In some instances, I’m sure designers can design for themselves, creating a product they themselves feel is perfect. However, many times, a designer needs to set their own thoughts and opinions aside, and design in a purely objective manner.
Class 3 (Feb 12)
I really enjoyed the information graphic exercise. My mind is conditioned to think about data in the simple bar graph/pie graph format I’m used to, so it took some time and energy to get myself out of those predispositions to plot everything on an X and Y axis. It was also interesting to go out and find relevant information on a current event that wasn’t neatly packaged already. The prospect of digging up information, analyzing it, determining the story you want to tell with it, and then creating an interesting and impactful visual from it was a great learning tool.
Class 4 (Feb 26)
I had trouble with the bodystorming exercise. Maybe given more time, I would have gotten used to it, but my mind automatically reverts to pen and paper, and most of the brainstorming I find effective involves writing and pictures. I understand the use of it, and wish I could have taken to it more quickly, but it was one design development practice I just couldn’t wrap my head around.
All-in-all, I have a much better appreciation for the design process. I’ve always been interested in design, and felt like I knew a good and bad design when I saw it – but I didn’t know why and couldn’t intelligently explain myself. In my day-to-day job, I have the opportunity to shape the mobile experience for millions of sports fans. After taking this class, I now feel I have the foundational understanding to confidently share my opinion on product and design decisions.
Interactive Design, Term Project Proposal: Design and usability critique of the Netflix movie streaming application across multiple devices
Proposal Introduction:
About a month ago, my wife and I decided that we were going to join the cord-cutting movement – severing our contentious and expensive relationship with Comcast cable TV service. Being a consumer electronics geek, I was excited that beyond saving a few hundred dollars a month, this was an opportunity to do some research into the handful of video streaming devices and services that have come to market over the past few years.
The first and most obvious of those services to look into was Netflix, the company that is reinventing the home entertainment landscape. First by offering movie rentals by mail, and more recently streaming on-demand, Netflix has created a new intersection of entertainment and technology. As I looked into all of the different delivery methods offered by Netflix, I noticed that they offer an open API (application programming interface) to the developer community. Why would such a successful and well-resourced company hand over their customer experience to John Q Developer? In their words, “We want to delight our subscribers. We are always looking for new ways to improve the service but with a small team we can’t do it all. We made these API methods available to the developer community to…find new ways for our subscribers to enjoy movies whether or not they’re looking at our site [and] encourage innovation, especially around movie choosing and watching.” (http://developer.netflix.com/) While the part about only having a small team may or may not be true, the assertion that open source platforms can create the best and most innovative products and experiences is commendable.
With Netflix’ open-source statement in mind, I wanted to see how varied the Netflix experience was from one device to the next. I currently own six different devices that are capable of accessing the Netflix application; a 55” web-connected TV, an Apple TV unit, a Roku box, a 14” laptop, an iPad, and an iPhone. Does each device’s Netflix experience “delight” the user, as they hope to do with all of their applications? How varied are the applications from one device to the next? What design and usability issues exist with each? How does each devices design and experience add or subtract to the Netflix experience? What combination of hardware and software creates the best Netflix experience? I hope to use this term project as an opportunity to explore all of these questions through the design and usability concepts we’ve discussed in class.
Outline for Term Paper:
Introduction
Critique of Netflix experience per device
- Analysis: I intend to analyze the Netflix user experience for each device based on criteria learned from the Moggridge and Maeda readings, focusing on:
- Netflix application design and user experience
- Hardware experience (how does the device’s design succeed or fail in terms of experiencing Netflix content)
- Site Map for each device
- Recommendations for improvement
- Visuals: I will provide screenshot visuals of each experience (as much as possible), and illustrate strengths and weaknesses graphically
- Assessment: I will score each device experience by a TBD system, allowing for better device-to-device comparisons and conclusions
- Devices to be tested:
- Panasonic VieraCast Netflix widget application
- Apple TV Netflix application
- Roku XDS Netflix application
- Apple TV Netflix application
- Netflix.com through Dell 14” laptop
- Apple iPad Netflix application
- Apple iPhone Netflix application
Conclusions
Based on the above analysis and critiques, I plan on coming to a conclusion on what the best Netflix experience is, and grounding that conclusion in class concepts and readings.
Interactive Design, Assignment 2: UW Libraries Mobile Application
Designing mobile applications is interesting because it forces the designer to create a useful experience in a very small space, and with the uderstanding that while the user wants information, they are most likely trying to access it on the move, and therefore need to be able to get to what they want in a minimal amount of time and interaction. Efficiency and simplicity are the name of the game. Menus cannot be too deep, buttons cannot be too small. I created the site map and wire frames with an eye on allowing a person to access the information they need in a minimal amount of clicks, and in an environment that would allow them to use the application while walking down the street or on a bumpy bus ride – minimizing accidental clicks.
Interactive Design, Assignment 1: Gameplay
What makes a game fun?
The entertainment value of a gain is defined in many ways, but the goal of a game is to allow people an entertaining escape from their everyday lives. For some, a game might be fun because it’s simple to learn, aesthetically pleasing, and has a good story or puzzle component to it. Others want a game that is realistic; whether that’s graphically, logically, or otherwise, they want the game to represent a real-life environment that they can interact with.
Game, control, and UI design plays a huge role in making a game entertaining. Intuitive controls, haptic feedback and logical game layout all help determine if people like a game. If you ask a person if they enjoyed playing a game, you’ll often hear that bad games “don’t make sense”, were “too hard to learn”, or the player “didn’t understand what to do”. All of those comments lead back to poor design. A game developer might have a fantastic concept and idea for a game, but if they can’t execute that concept through successful design, the game will not be wee received.
Why do people prefer certain games?
People like games that align with their other interests. You probably won’t like Madden NFL Football if you don’t have any interest in the sport. You might not care for Halo if you hate guns and science fiction stories. But beyond the subject matter of the game, people gravitate towards games who’s design best executes the concept of the game. If I’m a football fan, I will prefer the game that most sensibly recreates what I perceive to be a real football experience through layout, controls, UI, and the physics of the game play. As games increase in complexity, design becomes more important; a user must intuitively know how to accomplish a task in the game, both logically and physically, or it ceases to be fun.
What are the physical, psychological, and social aspects of game playing?
Physical: some people enjoying video games because they test hand/eye coordination. Also, whereas in the past playing a game always meant sitting on a couch holding a controller, modern video game systems (Wii, Kinect), actually allow for full body psychical interaction with the game, increasing the amount of actual physical effort and skill required to play a game.
Psychological: Games allow people the opportunity to achieve goals, gain rewards, and build social capital with their friends. Services like XBox Live track user’s successes across multiple games and use a point system to rank players, providing a psychological payoff for playing games.
Social: People play with and against each other. Gaming also allows people to escape their everyday lives, and take on any persona they wish, whether its becoming a wizard in a role-playing game, or becoming a secret agent and blowing things up.
Comparing Wii Tennis, Dance Central (Kinect), Madden NFL (iPhone), Angry Birds (iPhone)
Wii Tennis
Game type: Sports Simulation – Wii Tennis loosely interprets the game of tennis, by allowing the player to concentrate on simply hitting the ball, and not worrying about moving around the court. The game is geared towards simplicity in every way; the graphics, controls, players, game play, and options are all very simple and easy, allowing someone who has never seen or played the game before to pick up the controls and start playing in only a few minutes
Controls: There is only one control – swinging the wand. No buttons or direction pad is necessary during the game.
Rules of the game: Simplified rules of tennis – sets are best of 3,5, or 7 games, and the player only has to serve, return serve, and volley to score points. The computer moves the player toward the ball, and only requires that you swing the wand at the right time to return the ball. The only complexity in the game occurs when you have to determine the flight of the ball and its velocity, and angle your swing and arm speed to return the ball cross-court, down the line, short, and long.
What made the game challenging: The game is very easy to learn, the only challenge is fine-tuning your ability to place the ball where you want it, and mastering the physics of the game
What made the game fun or not: The simplicity of the game makes it an immediately entertaining experience, there is not much of a learning curve. The graphics, colors, animation, and sound effects are very cute and fun. The haptic and audio feedback are rewarding, you can hear and feel the ball come off the racket, makes the game rewarding. The computer AI is easy to beat at first, and then gets more competitive, but never to the point of beating difficult to beat. The game provides an entertaining experience in two-player mode.
Dance Central (Kinect)
Game type: Dance simulation – the player is rewarded points for mimicking dance routine moves that are shown on the screen.
Controls: The Kinect system allows the player to only use their body as the controller. Cameras and a laser sense body position and determine if the player is making the right movements.
Rules of the game: The player is given points by moving their body in rhythm with the dance moves that are shown on the screen, in tune with the music. Moves are easy to master at first, and then as the player progresses, more complicated moves and combination are unlocked, given the player a sense of achievement. Dance Central has a library of (whats seems to be) about 100 songs.
What made the game challenging: Getting used to the Kinect interface for the first time can be confusing. Most people are used to having a physical game controller to interact with; buttons to push, directional pads to move, and even a wand to point and click with. The player must learn a set of motions to interact with the Kinect system. Unlike the Wii, you cannot just turn on the Kinect and play. The interactions are simple once they’re learned, but there is a learning curve. Also, the game itself was graphically over-stimulating. There are dozens of flashing and animating elements on the screen at one time, and while you’re playing the game, its not obvious what visual cues you should be focusing on at any one time.
What made the game fun or not: The game is very fun once you get through the initial learning curve. Compared to the Wii, it’s harder to learn how to play, but once you do, the motions feel natural and the game is entertaining.
Madden NFL (iPhone)
Game type: Sports simulation – Madden NFL attempts to recreate the game of football; calling plays, controlling your player, throwing, catching, running, kicking, and tackling.
Controls: Madden NFL utilizes the iPhone’s touchscreen in a few ways. The player has the option of using a virtual directional pad in the bottom left corner of the screen, can drag their finger over the player to pull and push him in the right direction, and can “point-and-shoot” to throw the football and complete passes.
Rules of the game: Madden NFL’s rules mimic the game of football.
What made the game challenging: The different kinds of controls made the game confusing. During any one play, the user might have to use three different input types; using the directional pad, dragging their finger over a player to move them on the field, and tapping a target to get their quarterback to throw the ball. The interface and controls are not intuitive, and detract from the game play. I spent more time wondering how to control the players than i did thinking about the game.
What made the game fun or not: The complicated control interface made the game a less than enjoyable experience. Madden attempts to make the game as realistic and feature-filled as possible, but ends up creating a muddled game experience. The developers would be better off creating a simpler, easy to learn, easy to control game.
Angry Birds (iPhone)
Game type: Puzzle, point-and-shoot – Angry Birds combines hand-eye coordination with puzzle-solving skills.
Controls: Touch screen. The user has to aim and shoot tiny birds with a slingshot into objects on the opposite end of the screen. The slingshot interfact requires the user to tap, drag, pull, and release.
Rules of the game: The player earns points by blowing up pigs and wooden structures by slingshotting birds across the screen. Some birds have special abilities, and the player must learn how the best strategy for maximizing their bird’s special powers.
What made the game challenging: Success in the game is completely dependent on how well the player can judge angle and velocity. The sling shot control is easy to learn but very difficult to master. Also, come birds have a specialty, secondary function. While in mid-flight, an additional tap will make some speed up their flight, slow down, or drop bombs. Also, different sized birds have variable “weights”, so the player has to adjust the power and angle of their shots accordingly.
What made the game fun or not: The game is very cute, and is fun to play just to watch the birds fly across the screen. It’s simple to learn but tough to master, and there is a strategy element in determine how to best utilize the destructive power of your birds.
Wk 10 Reflection: Microsoft’s close-minded approach spells mobile failure
Microsoft Is Losing Fight for Consumers, Analyst Says
By STEVE LOHR
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/microsoft-is-losing-fight-for-consumers-analyst-says/?ref=technology
After all of our discussions over open source versus proprietary platforms, I found this article very interesting. The author makes a loft prediction that Microsoft’s battle in the consumer market is almost over. Why? Mostly, his theory revolves around the idea that handheld devices are becoming the hub of all consumer-focused software development. If that is true, then Microsoft is already losing the race to Apple, RIM, and Google (given the initial popularity of Android phones). Lohr’s second point is that the software market is breaking into two camps; consumer and enterprise. Companies like Apple will derive their revenues from the consumer, while behemoths like IBM, Microsoft, and HP will focus on businesses.
I wonder how much of Microsoft’s failings in the consumer market are based upon their reluctance to open their code to the community. The iPhone began to truly dominate the landscape with its decision to open up third party app development. The same is true with the promise of the Android platform. Once again, Microsoft was late to the party and is losing badly. While they did not hold on for dear life in this market like they did during their fight with Linux, it looks like it may be too little too late. While I disagree with the author that their losses in the handheld market will shut them out of the consumer market altogether, I do agree that they have lost the handheld battle for good, mostly because of their reluctance to adapt to a new, open platform model.
Review: Here Comes Everybody
Losing a cell phone is one of the more aggravating occurrences of modern life. The device at the center of almost everyone’s digital universe, a lost phone means that not only have hundreds of numbers, e-mail contacts and photos disappeared, but also that one of our most important possessions could fall into the hands of a mischievous stranger. Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody begins with this exact scenario, telling the story of a young woman’s misplaced cell phone and the coordinated social media effort created by her friend to retrieve it from a delinquent teenager. Through e-mail, blogs, and text messages, one person created a groundswell of attention that resulted in the successful return of a prized gadget. This is the first of many effective anecdotes the author uses to illustrate how technological advancements have dissolved barriers to group action, allowing people to gather online and work toward a common goal, even if that goal is just helping someone get their phone back.
One of Shirky’s main focuses in Here Comes Everybody is illustrating the elements that allow communities to form online. He shows how technology is not the driver of group formation, but rather gets driven by the decisions of individuals to participate or not participate. At the end of the book, Shirky provides an excellent framework that makes it easier to analyze how and why people make certain choices. Every technological-social situation is comprised of a mix of three factors; the promise, the tool, and the bargain. Analyzing each of these factors helps the reader understand why some online communities thrive while others fail or fade away.
In a world where attention is a scarce resource, we all have to carefully choose where to spend our time. As Benkler comments in The Wealth of Networks, more of our time is being spent interacting online, “Some of the time that used to be devoted to passive reception of standardized finished goods through a television is now reoriented toward communicating with others, in both tightly and loosely knit social relations.” (Benkler, 467) How we choose what ‘social relations’ to become a part of is determined by what Shirky calls the promise, “The promise is the essential piece, the thing that convinces a potential user to become an actual user.” (Shirky 261) The promise is a value proposition to the user that either tips them towards or away from participation in a group. The promise must be perfectly tuned in order to hit the sweet spot of a potential user’s interests and desires; not too general or specific, not too ambitious or underwhelming. A perfect example of this is from the book’s narrative about Meetup, the online service that organizes groups of people by interest and location. Many group ideas within Meetup never get off the ground, either because they are too broad, too specific, or aren’t considered interesting by enough people. However, an initiative to start a group of stay-at-home moms from North Charlotte struck a chord with enough women (but not too many) to result in the successful formation of a Meetup group. The promise helps us decide if participation in a particular group will be time well spent.
The next determining factor of a community’s success is the effectiveness of the tool it uses to interact with each other. As Shirky describes it, “…a good social tool is like a good wordworking tool – it must be designed to fit the job being done, and it must help people do something they actually want to do.” (Shirky, 265) Although it is not mentioned in the book, an example of how an ineffective tool can cause users to abandon a community can be found in a recent Financial Times article describing the recent fall in popularity of MySpace (The Rise and Fall of MySpace, Financial Times, 12/5/2009). In the interest of maintaining page views and advertising space, News Corp executives refused to allow implementation of a tool that would have let members read and send messages within the same page. Instead, they were forced to communicate through an inefficient interface that launched pop-ups and new windows. At the same time, Facebook provided users with a cleaner, friendlier, and more effective user experience, allowing their community to do more of what they’re there to do; interact. MySpace’s sub-par tool is one of the reasons they’ve lost market share within the social media realm, and is an example of how the user interface is a crucial component to the success of any online community.
The final factor to consider is what Shirky calls the bargain, “A bargain helps clarify what you can expect of others and what they can expect from you.” (Shirky, 270) The bargain is the social norm of the community, the rules of the road that everyone must be aware of and understand. Wikipedia is the ultimate example of a community bargain. Contributing members of the Wikipedia community understand that they are to only add factual, unbiased information that betters any given entry, that another member has the right to add on or even replace their work if they deem it to make the entry more useful, and that adding false or inflammatory comments to an entry will result is having that work deleted. By knowing how to act and what to expect in a community, it lends to a more productive environment.
Here Comes Everybody is a fascinating look at what makes virtual communities work. It shows that participation in online groups is the result of innate and complex social tendencies and decisions, that when aided by technological advancements allow us to express ourselves and work with others in ways that have never before been possible. It is highly recommended to anyone interested in learning how and why our society has become so literally and figuratively connected.
Sources:
Garrahan, M. (December 4, 2009). The rise and fall of MySpace. The Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fd9ffd9c-dee5-11de-adff-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York, Penguin Books.
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
text-align:right;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Losing a cell phone is one of the more aggravating occurrences of modern life. The device at the center of almost everyone’s digital universe, a lost phone means that not only have hundreds of numbers, e-mail contacts and photos disappeared, but also that one of our most important possessions could fall into the hands of a mischievous stranger. Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody begins with this exact scenario, telling the story of a young woman’s misplaced cell phone and the coordinated social media effort created by her friend to retrieve it from a delinquent teenager. Through e-mail, blogs, and text messages, one person created a groundswell of attention that resulted in the successful return of a prized gadget. This is the first of many effective anecdotes the author uses to illustrate how technological advancements have dissolved barriers to group action, allowing people to gather online and work toward a common goal, even if that goal is just helping someone get their phone back.
One of Shirky’s main focuses in Here Comes Everybody is illustrating the elements that allow communities to form online. He shows how technology is not the driver of group formation, but rather gets driven by the decisions of individuals to participate or not participate. At the end of the book, Shirky provides an excellent framework that makes it easier to analyze how and why people make certain choices. Every technological-social situation is comprised of a mix of three factors; the promise, the tool, and the bargain. Analyzing each of these factors helps the reader understand why some online communities thrive while others fail or fade away.
In a world where attention is a scarce resource, we all have to carefully choose where to spend our time. As Benkler comments in The Wealth of Networks, more of our time is being spent interacting online, “Some of the time that used to be devoted to passive reception of standardized finished goods through a television is now reoriented toward communicating with others, in both tightly and loosely knit social relations.” (Benkler, 467) How we choose what ‘social relations’ to become a part of is determined by what Shirky calls the promise, “The promise is the essential piece, the thing that convinces a potential user to become an actual user.” (Shirky 261) The promise is a value proposition to the user that either tips them towards or away from participation in a group. The promise must be perfectly tuned in order to hit the sweet spot of a potential user’s interests and desires; not too general or specific, not too ambitious or underwhelming. A perfect example of this is from the book’s narrative about Meetup, the online service that organizes groups of people by interest and location. Many group ideas within Meetup never get off the ground, either because they are too broad, too specific, or aren’t considered interesting by enough people. However, an initiative to start a group of stay-at-home moms from North Charlotte struck a chord with enough women (but not too many) to result in the successful formation of a Meetup group. The promise helps us decide if participation in a particular group will be time well spent.
The next determining factor of a community’s success is the effectiveness of the tool it uses to interact with each other. As Shirky describes it, “…a good social tool is like a good wordworking tool – it must be designed to fit the job being done, and it must help people do something they actually want to do.” (Shirky, 265) Although it is not mentioned in the book, an example of how an ineffective tool can cause users to abandon a community can be found in a recent Financial Times article describing the recent fall in popularity of MySpace (The Rise and Fall of MySpace, Financial Times, 12/5/2009). In the interest of maintaining page views and advertising space, News Corp executives refused to allow implementation of a tool that would have let members read and send messages within the same page. Instead, they were forced to communicate through an inefficient interface that launched pop-ups and new windows. At the same time, Facebook provided users with a cleaner, friendlier, and more effective user experience, allowing their community to do more of what they’re there to do; interact. MySpace’s sub-par tool is one of the reasons they’ve lost market share within the social media realm, and is an example of how the user interface is a crucial component to the success of any online community.
The final factor to consider is what Shirky calls the bargain, “A bargain helps clarify what you can expect of others and what they can expect from you.” (Shirky, 270) The bargain is the social norm of the community, the rules of the road that everyone must be aware of and understand. Wikipedia is the ultimate example of a community bargain. Contributing members of the Wikipedia community understand that they are to only add factual, unbiased information that betters any given entry, that another member has the right to add on or even replace their work if they deem it to make the entry more useful, and that adding false or inflammatory comments to an entry will result is having that work deleted. By knowing how to act and what to expect in a community, it lends to a more productive environment.
Here Comes Everybody is a fascinating look at what makes virtual communities work. It shows that participation in online groups is the result of innate and complex social tendencies and decisions, that when aided by technological advancements allow us to express ourselves and work with others in ways that have never before been possible. It is highly recommended to anyone interested in learning how and why our society has become so literally and figuratively connected.
Sources:
Garrahan, M. (December 4, 2009). The rise and fall of MySpace. The Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fd9ffd9c-dee5-11de-adff-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York, Penguin Books.
Wk 7 Reflection: MSFox…seriously
I’m starting to think that the rumored search partnership between News Corp and Microsoft is just the tip of the iceberg. If this deal were a stand-alone arrangement, aimed at cutting News Corp’s content out of Google’s search index, it really benefits no one, and doesn’t hurt Google much at all. Rather, it makes sense for this to be the first date between Microsoft and News Corp. Eventually, MS could gain a huge advantage by acquiring News Corp’s online content, and it could be Rupert Murdoch’s final exit strategy in the game of online media that he has yet to solve.
With this deal, MS barely gains a blip on the radar in search, and it then is saddled with brand association of a very volatile content company. Arguments will be made on whether Bing gives News Corp content preferred status within their search listings, and in general, could cause a massive PR nightmare for a company that seems to be constantly embroiled in them. For News Corp, it might make them a little money, but not enough to offset the potential risk of keeping their content away from a majority of search eyeballs. And for Google, this is hardly concerning. They’ll lose the blip that MS gains in search, and might get some users grumbling about the loss of News Corp content. Oh well.
However. think of the advantages MS gains by acquiring all of News Corps online content. In the past, big technology companies have been terrible at creating their own content. Yahoo hired a bunch of Hollywood executives, slapped them together, and expected mega-hits. It didn’t work that way and Yahoo blew up the model. Microsoft has gone back and forth with creating a multimedia Halo franchise, including a movie, but has had a rough go of it so far. In the build-it vs. buy-it scenario, MS may be seeing that acquiring successful content and franchises it is easier than building them. If they would have bought another search partner years ago, the company wouldn’t be in the predicament they currently find themselves in with Google. Also, realizing their disadvantage in search and their fading software revenues, perhaps Ballmer is realizing that the company needs a new trick up its sleeve, and fast.
For Murdoch, this is the final play in a career that saw him dominate all mediums except digital. Purchasing MySpace, taking WSJ from free to pay to free to pay again, and the like, he’s realized that he’s not as sharp as he was in print and television. He’s also ready to hang up his tycoon hat, he’s not getting any younger. Merging, or entering into a joint venture with MS allows him to spread his empire even further with a company that has the infrastructure and technology, but not the content they so desperately want.
Wk 5&6 Reflection (out sick): Brier Dudley “2010: the end of the online gravy train”
It was interesting to see an article this week from The Seattle Times’ Brier Dudley, somewhat putting the editorial breaks on the concept of online content, products, and services being free. After weeks of discussion on Chris Anderson’s Free and Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks, it was actually somewhat refreshing to get a viewpoint from the other side. IT was a reminder that, like most things in life, the future will probably end up being somewhat in the middle of both arguments. We’re not going to get everything for free, and we’re also not going to pull out our credit card every time we want to reads the news (sorry, Rupert). Dudley doesn’t refute Anderson directly, and if the two talked they would probably agree that we’ll still need to pay for some things online. It’s interesting that this viewpoint is coming from a member of a dying industry, whose job it is to cover some of the millionaires being minted by the “free economy”. However, we’ll find our equilibrium. The nice thing about economics is that a settling point will be reach. The invisible hand will steer us to the balancing point of free versus paid.
Article: Online freebies won’t be as free
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010280189_brier16.html
Wk 7 Reflection: The new browser wars
I enjoyed the conversation in class this week on the proposed NBC-Comcast merger. As we were discussing the topic in our small group, I started to think that the anti-competitive sentiment building around this conversation is very similar to the argument raised in the 90’s around Microsoft preventing Netscape from being pre-installed on desktop PC’s. The Comcast-NBC discussion revolves more around vertical integration, which is certainly an important point, but also around the “browser” functions of the cable box, the piece of hardware/software user’s maneuver to find the content they want.
In an increasingly converging, on-demand world, the mechanisms by which users access their thousands of content choices is becoming increasingly important. Usability and user flow are one of the primary components of the online experience, and publishers and retailers spend millions trying to optimize their web sites to allow a sensible, purchase-inducing experience. The same principles will also apply soon to cable operators. As of now, on-screen menus are clunky and poorly designed, but like all things online they will get better. However, If Comcast owns NBC content, why wouldn’t they optimize their on screen menus to make their own content more prominent? Yahoo doesn’t promote Google on their homepage of course. With on-demand viewership becoming an increasingly important piece of the TV world, driving ratings and ad rates, it only makes sense that Comcast-NBC would want to promote themselves front and center to their subscribers. Competitors and regulators will certainly balk and the notion of allowing Comcast to flood subscribers will only their own content, however, the article below suggests that even with regulation in place, the cable world is hardly an equal playing field.
Article:
Small cable, online video companies warn of anticompetition in Comcast, NBC merger
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/11/what_scares_cable_and_online.html
Review: The Wealth of Networks
The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
By Yochai Benkler
In 1776, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, a book that became the cornerstone of modern economic theory. Two hundred thirty years later, Yochai Benkler’s work of a similar name and comparable ambition describes an economic and political landscape Smith could have only imagined. The Wealth of Networks is an incredibly in-depth and salient commentary on how technological advancements are causing a societal shift from mass media production and consumption to a decentralized network-driven model. Benkler effectively asserts that freely flowing information eliminates barriers to democratic participation and encourages economic innovation, providing benefits to human society that should not be impeded with overly protective regulatory policies.
One of the greatest achievements of The Wealth of Networks is Benkler’s ability to make complex material user-friendly. The Wealth of Networks is not light reading, the subject matter is very dense and Benkler writes in a calculated academic tone. However, considering its tremendous scope, he creates a very accessible piece of work. If the reader invests the time in The Wealth of Networks, they will be rewarded with valuable insight into the advantages of a networked culture, and the challenges facing its acceptance.
A central focus of the book is the argument that the Internet is a democratizing force in modern society. As Benkler succinctly states, “The network allows all citizens to change their relationship to the public sphere. They no longer need be consumers and passive spectators. They can become creators and primary subjects.” (Benkler, 272) In the twentieth century, the national conversation was primarily shaped by the oligarchies of the industrial information economy, which controlled the distribution of information to the public. Technology has changed all of that, commoditizing news and opening up almost limitless distribution channels of information. This in turn has allowed more diverse opinions to surface. The proliferation of networks has allowed the public to produce, share, and amplify their own information and opinions, enriching the political discourse for all.
A poignant example of this is the protest and boycott of the powerful Sinclair Broadcast Group during the 2004 U.S. presidential race. Sinclair planned to air a politically charged documentary on their numerous TV stations slandering John Kerry immediately before the election. After an L.A. Times reporter learned that a Sinclair employee who objected to the film was fired, a grassroots effort of blogs, online reporting, and information web sites created a groundswell of opposition to Sinclair’s right-wing agenda and eventually caused them to pull the documentary. As Clay Shirky puts it in his book Here Comes Everybody, network technology has completely shattered pre-existing hurdles to participation“…most of the barriers to group action have collapsed, and without those barriers, we are free to explore new ways of gathering together and getting things done.” (Shirky, 22) The network enabled this David vs. Goliath story of public action. This is one of many examples Benkler uses to show how information technology has allowed the voice of the many to be heard louder than ever before.
In addition to the contributions network technology has made to the public discourse, Benkler focuses much of his attention on the economic impact of networks. As is the theme of most of the book, he believes the open sharing and creation of information, a process called social production, creates an innovative society that, in the end, maximizes economic efficiencies through constant innovation and competition with traditional market-based products, “At the simplest level, social production in general and peer production in particular present new sources of competition to incumbents that produce information goods for which there are now socially produced substitutes.” (Benkler, 122) He walks through several success stories of open-source products, including IBM’s decision to shift its server business to the open-source Linux platform, creating a new revenue stream based on service and development of a free product.
While Benkler does an excellent job communicating his theories on why information should be free, he spends an equal amount of effort explaining why it isn’t. Chris Anderson, in his book Free, tackles some of the same issues as Benkler, and very nicely summarizes the reason our modern economy is not more accepting of the concept of free information,“…in business, companies make their money by creating an artificial scarcity in ideas through intellectual property law. That’s what patents, copyright, and trade secrets are: efforts to hold back the natural flow of ideas into the population at large long enough to make a profit.” (Anderson, 83) Benkler fully acknowledges this, and thoroughly educates the reader on the regulatory movements working against social production and the free flow of information.
Instead of embracing innovation and communal improvement of goods based on an open model, companies are understandably trying to protect the proprietary products that have generated tremendous wealth for themselves and their stockholders, re-enforcing an institutional ecology that favors regulation and restriction of information. In order for social production to advance, regulations must be eased to allow access to information that can be shared and enhanced, “This upset is hardly uncontroversial. It will likely result in significant redistribution of wealth, and no less importantly, power, from previously dominant firms and business models to a mixture of individuals and social groups…” (Benkler, 468)
The Wealth of Networks is a prolific piece of work that effectively conveys its argument in favor of social production and the advantages of an open information culture. It is a crash course in the modern history of communication technology, and an insightful look ahead into the potential of a connected society that creates and shares information at both an individual and loosely organized level. Social production is not a replacement to our market-based world (at least, not yet), however, it allows individuals to contribute to the political dialogue and create value in ways that are not possible in a proprietary world.
Sources:
Anderson, C. (2009). Free: The Future of A Radical Price. New York, Hyperion.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York, Penguin Books.
