Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
Um, actually, no, it isn't the other way around. The vast majority of consumer periodicals in the US market have substantial graphical content, and substantial advertising content. First hand, I assure you that the presentational aspects are a huge challenge, especially as it relates to presenting material so that ads and edit are proximate in materially the same was as the print product, which is basically a requirement for ABC compliance. Having it "look nice" is only part of the issue, and a vast over-simplification. But in order to be of value to the publisher form an advertising perspective, there are a number of requirements which must be met. This is the challenge.
And Foreign Affairs? I remember subscribing to that in high school so that I could leave the thick, wordy copies laying around and feel informed. Not sure what relevance that has to the world of consumer magazines. It really ain't one.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
Disagree...presentation is EVERYTHING from magazine publishers points of view, at least for those who produce anything better than Dirt Bike Monthly. A major hurdle for mags is found in the limitations present in today's devices, lack of color, in particular. Additionally, there is a huge problem with how advertising and circ is tracked for non-print products which needs to be worked out in a serious and consistent way. That text is basically readable does little to address these very real issues.
Mike, I get the point and basically agree (though I think the author also makes the point you say he doesn't). You do have a serious error in your horse versus automobile analogy, though. You write: "The first automobiles were a lot crappier than the fancy horse carriages you could buy -- but they did the important thing better: getting you somewhere faster and cheaper. " WRONG! The first automobiles were immensely expensive, for the most part, prone to breakdowns and suffered from an extreme lack of supporting infrastructure (passable roads, petrol/kerosene, etc.). I agree that when one was in an area with roads which were passable by a hard-rubber-tired car and the engine and chassis remained intact, it was faster than a horse, if you could make it to your destination before running out of fuel. But early autos were surely not less expensive (in cash or time) to operate or maintain. Early autos gained popularity as a status symbol or tinkerer's delight, and almost in spite of their short comings. I know this doesn't invalidate your point, but such boo-boos make a credible point less so.
It's really a two part equation. As you say, "IT should understand the job functions throughout the company." AND the other job functions in the company need to understand IT if it is critical to their function. Beyond that, what you seem to be describing is basically the creation of a personalized IT experience for every user based upon their individual job function and skillset. That doesn't sound like it would scale well....
Mike, I get your point, but as the good doctor points out, you are way oversimplifying the cost and complexity of keeping up with bandwidth demands. This is capital and engineering-intensive work. Not say that it shouldn't or can't be done, but bandwidth management is expensive and complex, requiring that technology and capacity bets be placed well in advance. Of course, the way this ISP is dealing with their limitations is amateurish at best and deserves ridicule.
The most surprising thing in the article is the fact that Slate, a news and opinion operation, is content-restricted in terms of web surfing. That is truly silly and can obviously impact their news gathering and fact checking. But opening up the client image to be modified at-will by end users is a whole other matter.
You're mixing two things, here, Mike, as is the Slate author: content filtering and client management. Content filtering (aside from where kids are involved) is relatively stupid and I agree that it often does little to further the cause of the business. A little bit of personal surfing is fine, though the cost of bandwidth (and please don't just consider carrier costs, but all the components that protect and support that path to the internet) can be material and is not to be brushed off as trivial.
Another matter entirely is how client desktops and laptops are managed. It is certainly not just a cost consideration, but security and protection of corporate information assets. Anyone who thinks this is minor has never sweated 24 hours trying to get a multi-billion dollar company's network to settle back down after some jackass installed trojan-carrying software in the form of a stupid photo retouch application. Eh hem. Unmanaged and user-managed systems can carry real risks for business, especially at scale, which can wipe out completely any incidental benefits found along the way.
That said, when the company's business demands that kind of flexibility (say, a news or consumer service organization that needs to test new software or consumer electronics devices and review them, etc) there are plenty of ways around the challenge, whether it be in the form of physical or virtual labs, parallel secured and unsecured networks, etc. I agree that IT policy can't run counter to the aim of the business. But, typically, end user griping doesn't factor in the dim, unglamorous, cave-dwelling reality of keeping networks and systems up, secure and performing well on a 24x7 basis.
I don't disagree. But online advertising pays very few bills.
I would like to see a few examples of "internet news" that you refer to. Wholly original reporting (not gossip, not opinionism, not content aggregation) that is supported solely by online advertising. Can't think of any off the top of my head, but my mind is open to be educated.
Many sites that offer news free (Reuters, FoxNews, CNN) have either mammoth media companies or subscription models supporting them on the back-end, as well as many other complementary businesses in their portfolio. So saying the production of the news content, and distribution via internet is, "supported by advertising" is probably disingenuous. Online advertising is a drop in the bucket relative to the cost of that content creation...they are propped up by other means.
Ahh...the Fact Check guy. Looks, fact checking is synonymous with good reporting. There is certainly good and bad reporting going on. The point is that raw information is made into news via a process. That process is not cost-less.
Agree that information is free, but news - information which is analyzed, fact-checked (hopefully), digested and set in decent prose - is not free and hasn't been for centuries. The subscription model without advertising goes back quite a ways in a Euro-American culture (honestly can't speak for other areas of the globe). The subscription-supplemented advertising-based approach for new is a couple of hundred years old as well. Prior to the internet, telegraph and telex-based news was subscription only. And, of course, radio and television news (not the subject here, but someone will invariably bring it up) is advertising-supported, which costs consumer time and annoyance. The new distribution path available for news in the last 15 years - the internet - definitely changes the equation, but it doesn't mean that news has been "free" until recently. And word of mouth "news" at least in my opinion is another matter altogether, and doesn't represent a business proposition...just the human culture of gossip and chit-chat.
The distinction between information and news doesn't change the stupidity of attempts to collude or get an anti-trust exemption, but it is an important distinction.
I agree that nationalistic protectionism, generally, results in negative effects for the market being protected.
"Lots of companies have been jumping into the market, realizing that the world needs better energy solutions, and recognizing that those who successfully crack that nut won't have to worry about patents, but about being able to actually serve the demand."
Idealistic, but the companies jumping into the market are getting in because (hopefully what with fiduciary responsibility and all that) because they see the opportunity for PROFIT through the creation of better energy solutions. Those who successfully crack the nut will absolutely be reliant on patents to ensure that they can recoup their investment and gain the PROFIT that drove them into the market to begin with. Of course there are companies that align ethical stances with their market entrance and that's great, but there would be no company without cashflow.
This is especially the case with companies that don't have their own manufacturing and distribution capability. When they invent, they HAVE to rely on patents and contracts to ensure that their innovation can be brought to market to their benefit (profit) rather than just copied by every other company with manufacturing capabilities. I'd note that China is one of the most notorious markets for the creation of knock-offs so fears in that particular case are not unfounded.
It's also important to keep in mind that green energy is HARDLY new and has had great success innovating in IP-controlled markets like the US. The US market has been the major site for solar, wind and hydro innovation over the last 75 years. Small companies, like the old Solarex all the way through to GE have played a role. Bell Labs (talk about a focus on IP) was the site of the pivotal breakthrough for solar via silicon in the 1940s, as an example. There are now 200+ companies worldwide researching and building solar. As a solar enthusiast of old, I applaud the increased level of investment and interest.
So, while I agree that unbridled nationalistic protectionism must be moderated, the fears involved are not unfounded and the reasonable protection of IP as it relates to green energy has not to date and will not in the future stunt innovation.
A sense of responsibility (which I applaud) is different than legal culpability. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that free speech can only be curbed under a very limited set of circumstances in the US. Defamation, incitement, public threats in some cases, etc. The question ultimately here is whether the Writer of Skank's comment is defamatory. Since the plantiff is probably considered a private person not a public figure, the standard for proving defamation is much lower than if she were, say, Madonna or other high-profile skanks. Even with that, I seriously doubt this speech will be considered defamatory.
Anonymous speech has a deep history in the US and plaid a material role in our founding. Though it is, perhaps, used too often for stupid or annoying purposes today, it should not be tossed out in a caviler fashion.
Damn good thing the Founding Fathers (sorry...but they were all men) were able to use pseudonyms and operate the Committees of Correspondence using false names else we wouldn't have that-there Constitution. Anon posting can be crap, I agree, but protected crap unless it is defamatory, incites a riot, threatens the life of the President and a very few other patently illegal cases.
The Lego brand is incidental in this case. The product is being used, not marketed. I've never understood the "use of product implies endorsement" argument whether it's with a politician using someone's music (paying royalties, of course, unless it falls under fair use or parody) or someone cracking open a Coca-Cola on a cooking show. Basically, I think it's companies (lawyers, really) trying to hyper-control while at the same time dissing consumers with the argument that they are too dumb to understand that the product maker doesn't endorse the thoughts, beliefs or activities of all those who use the product.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
And Foreign Affairs? I remember subscribing to that in high school so that I could leave the thick, wordy copies laying around and feel informed. Not sure what relevance that has to the world of consumer magazines. It really ain't one.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Publishers Have Been Selling E-books for Years
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Ebooks
On the post: It's Not The 'Good Enough' Revolution; It's Recognizing What The Consumer Really Wants
Nit Pick
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: This is not an IT problem
On the post: ISP Slows Access To High Bandwidth Services 12 Hours Every Day
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ISP Slows Access To High Bandwidth Services 12 Hours Every Day
Re: Re: Re:
Mike, I get your point, but as the good doctor points out, you are way oversimplifying the cost and complexity of keeping up with bandwidth demands. This is capital and engineering-intensive work. Not say that it shouldn't or can't be done, but bandwidth management is expensive and complex, requiring that technology and capacity bets be placed well in advance. Of course, the way this ISP is dealing with their limitations is amateurish at best and deserves ridicule.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Sorta
You're mixing two things, here, Mike, as is the Slate author: content filtering and client management. Content filtering (aside from where kids are involved) is relatively stupid and I agree that it often does little to further the cause of the business. A little bit of personal surfing is fine, though the cost of bandwidth (and please don't just consider carrier costs, but all the components that protect and support that path to the internet) can be material and is not to be brushed off as trivial.
Another matter entirely is how client desktops and laptops are managed. It is certainly not just a cost consideration, but security and protection of corporate information assets. Anyone who thinks this is minor has never sweated 24 hours trying to get a multi-billion dollar company's network to settle back down after some jackass installed trojan-carrying software in the form of a stupid photo retouch application. Eh hem. Unmanaged and user-managed systems can carry real risks for business, especially at scale, which can wipe out completely any incidental benefits found along the way.
That said, when the company's business demands that kind of flexibility (say, a news or consumer service organization that needs to test new software or consumer electronics devices and review them, etc) there are plenty of ways around the challenge, whether it be in the form of physical or virtual labs, parallel secured and unsecured networks, etc. I agree that IT policy can't run counter to the aim of the business. But, typically, end user griping doesn't factor in the dim, unglamorous, cave-dwelling reality of keeping networks and systems up, secure and performing well on a 24x7 basis.
On the post: Fewer Foreigners Coming To US Grad Schools: This Is A Problem
Re: Taking a broader view of the question:
On the post: Fewer Foreigners Coming To US Grad Schools: This Is A Problem
Re: Re: Fewer Foreigners Coming To US Grad Schools: This Is A Problem
Your statement speaks volumes about almost all Unionized labor and, for that, I applaud you. ;-)
On the post: If Newspapers Claim They're Serving The Public... Why Are They Working So Hard To Limit Who Sees The Content?
Re: Re: Re: Re: The fatal flaw
I would like to see a few examples of "internet news" that you refer to. Wholly original reporting (not gossip, not opinionism, not content aggregation) that is supported solely by online advertising. Can't think of any off the top of my head, but my mind is open to be educated.
Many sites that offer news free (Reuters, FoxNews, CNN) have either mammoth media companies or subscription models supporting them on the back-end, as well as many other complementary businesses in their portfolio. So saying the production of the news content, and distribution via internet is, "supported by advertising" is probably disingenuous. Online advertising is a drop in the bucket relative to the cost of that content creation...they are propped up by other means.
On the post: If Newspapers Claim They're Serving The Public... Why Are They Working So Hard To Limit Who Sees The Content?
Re: Re: Re: Re: The fatal flaw
On the post: If Newspapers Claim They're Serving The Public... Why Are They Working So Hard To Limit Who Sees The Content?
Re: Re: The fatal flaw
The distinction between information and news doesn't change the stupidity of attempts to collude or get an anti-trust exemption, but it is an important distinction.
On the post: Looks Like IP Is About To Slow Down Innovation In Clean Tech
Sorta
"Lots of companies have been jumping into the market, realizing that the world needs better energy solutions, and recognizing that those who successfully crack that nut won't have to worry about patents, but about being able to actually serve the demand."
Idealistic, but the companies jumping into the market are getting in because (hopefully what with fiduciary responsibility and all that) because they see the opportunity for PROFIT through the creation of better energy solutions. Those who successfully crack the nut will absolutely be reliant on patents to ensure that they can recoup their investment and gain the PROFIT that drove them into the market to begin with. Of course there are companies that align ethical stances with their market entrance and that's great, but there would be no company without cashflow.
This is especially the case with companies that don't have their own manufacturing and distribution capability. When they invent, they HAVE to rely on patents and contracts to ensure that their innovation can be brought to market to their benefit (profit) rather than just copied by every other company with manufacturing capabilities. I'd note that China is one of the most notorious markets for the creation of knock-offs so fears in that particular case are not unfounded.
It's also important to keep in mind that green energy is HARDLY new and has had great success innovating in IP-controlled markets like the US. The US market has been the major site for solar, wind and hydro innovation over the last 75 years. Small companies, like the old Solarex all the way through to GE have played a role. Bell Labs (talk about a focus on IP) was the site of the pivotal breakthrough for solar via silicon in the 1940s, as an example. There are now 200+ companies worldwide researching and building solar. As a solar enthusiast of old, I applaud the increased level of investment and interest.
So, while I agree that unbridled nationalistic protectionism must be moderated, the fears involved are not unfounded and the reasonable protection of IP as it relates to green energy has not to date and will not in the future stunt innovation.
On the post: Could Evidence-Based Copyright Law Ever Be Put In Place?
Re: My proposals for reform of U.S. copyright
On the post: Tech Columnist Calls Model 'A Hero' For Exposing Anonymous Blogger
Re:
On the post: Tech Columnist Calls Model 'A Hero' For Exposing Anonymous Blogger
Re:
Anonymous speech has a deep history in the US and plaid a material role in our founding. Though it is, perhaps, used too often for stupid or annoying purposes today, it should not be tossed out in a caviler fashion.
On the post: Tech Columnist Calls Model 'A Hero' For Exposing Anonymous Blogger
Re: free speech
On the post: The Very First Copyright Trial, In 6th Century Ireland, Sounds Really Familiar
Re: Re: Re: Question
On the post: Why Does Lego Get To Stop Spinal Tap From Using Lego Video?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Time was
Next >>