Mr. Meiser, you're on a roll. Jan
On 11/29/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's one simple thing I must point out. Who stands on the soap box > all day? > > The simple fact of the matter is that the average vloggers post what, > 3 minutes total video footage a week if even? > > The power law isn't really much different then this mailing list. The > majority simply read or lurk. This doesn't mean they don't have the > power to speak up, the soap box, when they want to. That's > accessibility. > > I said we could all have our soap box, not all stand on them all day > around the clock.... and who would want to. > > The economics are completely different for communications in > cyberspace. For one you don't have to communicate in realtime allowing > you to catch up with someone's vlog once a day, a week or once a > month. Time is removed from the equation and becomes abundant. If I > don't respond to your email imediately but in a week from now, it's > still effective communication. This is not true in physical world > conversations. > > This medium works because you listen on your time, where you want, in > the manner you want. > > These are all issues of accessibility. > > Just like the Blackberry and email the more ubiquitous and accessible > the viewing methods and the producing methods the more power the > medium will become. > > All we need do is grow the platform. Beyond the dekstop, the ipod, the > PSP, the set top box, cell phones like the nokia n93 and n95, and set > tops. In order for these platforms to be viable as mechanisms of > communication they must be end-to-end... they must be utilizeable as > viewing and producing platforms by everyone, not just a few select > videos as gootube and now revver intend to do with Verizon. > > The value isn't just in the long tail... that might be true of movies, > and music and books... but we're talking communications, like the cell > phone, the value is ALL tail. What value would youtube be to you if > you could only access 5% of the videos google or verizon selected for > you? The idea is stillborn, bankrupt. > > In order for verizon to be a legitimate platform or anything more than > a insignificant token we have to have access to any video blog we > like. Anything else is like having a cell phone that only allows you > to speak to other people using the same cellular carrier. > > The value is all in the tail, it's all tail, everything is tail in > communications. It's simply the "network effect". > > It's funny that providers of basic communications, cell phone > carriers, suddenly think because they're dealing with videos and not > realtime voice communications that the netowork effect doesn't apply. > Thinking that everyone is going to watch the same videos is like > assuming that everyone is going to want to call the same telephone > numbers. > > ESPN mobile made this assumption... that people would buy phones and > pay for services just to watch a football game or baseball game from > ESPN. This is completely contradictory to the nature of a personal > communications device... the parellel, the convergence is between > voice communications and email... such as the blackberry... or what > about voice, email, and an RSS aggregator? And soon... voice, email, > RSS text, and RSS with image, audio and video podcast. > > It's got to be what the user wants... there can be no gatekeeping of > content on networked service... the expectation of accessibility only > goes one way and that is people constantly want more access. > > The internet has permenently changed expectations. Just as noone goes > from having 500 channels of cable to wanting 5 broadcast channels... > noone goes from having access to millions of blogs, and news sources, > and email, and videos, and photoblogs, and such as can only be found > on an open web and goes back to wanting only ESPN games on telephone. > They value proposition for such gatekept services is forever blown. > > It's got to by my friends videos, my friends photos, my peers blogs, > my email, my family photos. > > It's so ironic to me that people like verizon and microsoft with the > zune are STILL coming out with services and making deals around the > assumption that the media on their platforms belongs to some company > somewhere. I already pointed this out with the verizon / gootube > deal... but it's also extremely obvious with the zune. It > automatically assumes the media on your device is not yours... and > keeps you from sharing it. These are the assumptions of a bunch of > lawyers and beuracrats in board rooms in some of the largest > conglomerates in the world. > > It never even occurs to them that it could be YOUR song, your podcast, > that it could be creative commons... that the media could be anyone > else's other than theirs... and that even if it is someone elses media > not theirs that people might feel differently about sharing it. > COpyleft and creative commons and fair use don't even exist in their > vocabulary. > > These are still all issues of accessibility. > > Today that minimal standard for access in the video space is being > able to distribute a url via email or IM, or to embed a video or link > to it in your blog, but the next frontier is beyond the desktop. Why > must one be sitting in front of a computer? Why must one be online > always connected with a broadband connection in order to watch the > latest video. > > As sure as the connection to the telephone became untethered with the > cell phone standards for access are not fixed, they change rapidly. > I'm betting my money that in a year or two's time that Flash no longer > will cut it for accessibility because it can't go beyond the desktop, > it can't go offline, it can't go portable, it can't be downloaded, or > cached, and it cannot become unhinged. It's got to many technical and > hardware requirements and is to proprietary to go where video needs to > go in the next couple years. In short it's accessibility challenge > has already been more than seeded in the architecture that is video > and audio podcasting... a technology which completely contradicts it. > > Peace, > > -Mike > mmeiser.com/blog > mefeedia.com > > > On 11/29/06, deirdreharvey2002 <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]<deirdreharvey2002%40yahoo.co.uk>> > wrote: > > Wow Mike, that is a really awesome piece of writing. I totally agree > with > > you about almost > > all of it and really commend the passion. > > > > Not that I am really coming from a strong place given the number of > months > > (3?) I've been > > arsing around with my blog rather than posting anything. You can't > really > > get much less > > accessible than "not made yet". > > > > --- In [email protected] <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Mike Meiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > 3) And most importantly because YOU are *accessible* to your viewers > as a > > > real live person, to respond to... to correspond with... to email, to > > > comment on your vlog, to IM with... and even because they too like you > can > > > post a video on their vlog in response as your equal... there is > nothing > > > like having a conversation eye to eye... In the real world if we all > got > > > soap boxes none of us would be able to be heard, but in cyberspace we > can > > > ALL have our soap boxes and we can all have an equal opportunity to > bring > > > something to the table. Try getting that type of access with any > > > personality on TV. > > > > This I will quibble with, but just a little. I love the bit about being > > accessible to your > > viewers, but I think that lots of soapboxes in cyberspace is just as bad > as > > lots in the real > > world. > > > > Watching other people's work, commenting, paying attention, involving > > yourself in > > conversation is just as important to my mind as making videos and > publishing > > them for > > other people to see. It's the mutual engagement that makes this stuff > > special. The active v. > > passive discussions often frame active participation as media creation, > and > > that strikes me > > as a pretty impoverished vision of participation. > > > > Being a producer of media may be harder work than being a consumer, but > I > > guess a world > > where everyone is a producer but nobody is listening to what anyone else > has > > to say is > > almost as limiting as one where only a few large organisations can > produce > > and distribute > > media. > > > > So to sum up: soapbox = boo, active engagement with other people = yay > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
