Feb 24
AndrewLife in Digital Apple, Downloads, iTunes, Music
Apple’s iTunes store will begin selling an iTunes Pass for some artists, beginning with the launch today of Depeche Mode’s new album Sounds of the Universe. The pass program includes the presale version of the album as well as bonus material that will be released over the course of several months. The pass comes with the instant download of the first single Wrong as well as an exclusive bonus track Oh Well.
The cost of the Depeche Mode pass package is almost twice the cost of the standard edition (which also comes with the instant download of Wrong; but Oh Well is not available until the release of the full album on April 21.) Unlike standard presales, iTunes passes are paid for upfront. The entire amount is due when you purchase it, instead of just paying for the tracks that are currently available for download. Also, iTunes does not list and will not guarantee what constitutes “bonus material” for the package only that the cost will “not exceed the fair market value of the individual items” if they were purchased separately (not much of a promise that). That essentially means at least 8 exclusive songs, packaged either as music or videos, will pad the release.
Since deluxe packages are a routine part of iTunes lately, fans will probably buy into the iTunes Pass. For the most part, iTunes’ deluxe packages have delivered quality bonus material, live tracks, remixes and videos so that fans considering an iTunes Pass can justify the extra cost because they would have bought a deluxe edition anyway. The real test will be whether an iTunes Pass offers over and above what a deluxe package would because otherwise, it’s just a way for iTunes to justify charging customers upfront.
Other artists are expected to tie into the iTunes Pass.
Dec 24
AndrewLife in Digital, Relationships cell phone, Facebook, Phone, Texting, twitter
Communication these days is such a weird negotiating process. When you meet someone new, or just try to talk to your close friends, you have to figure out the best way to get ahold of them.
It’s no longer a simple thing to pick up the phone and dial a number and hope that someone answers on the other hand. They might (if they like you, if they hear the ringer, if the phone is charged) or they might not.
It’s no joke, there are literally dozens of options to choose from to contact someone, text message, AIM, gchat, blackberry IM, Skype, phone, twitter, e-mail, courier pigeon to name a few. And every single one of your friends, family and acquaintances, new and old, has their preferred method to be contacted.
Myself, for instance, I listen to all my queued phone messages at one time. If you call on Tuesday, I might not listen to your voicemail for weeks, by which time, I have another twenty voicemails to delete and fifty missed calls to wade through. Your ninety-second voicemail takes me 3 and half seconds to delete, and that’s about how much time you have to convince me to listen to it.
Even before cell phones, I always used my phone sparingly. If I didn’t pick up when you call, I didn’t want to talk to you to begin with. Phone communication was traditionally at my convenience, not yours. The coming of e-mail was a godsend. And I usually respond to e-mails and text messages within minutes of receiving them.
While philosophically, that hasn’t changed, not only are there way more options to contact me than just a straight up phone call, my phone on its own caters to, let’s see, well…almost all of them. From my phone, I can take calls, e-mails, text messages, twitter, facebook, gmail, yahoo. Short of courier pigeon and the US Postal Service, there is almost limitless coverage of every conceivable mode of contact.
Because of that, the rules go out the window when I’m catering to someone else’s preference. I have one friend who will respond faster to text message than any other medium. We almost never actually talk on the phone. When dude calls me up to chat, you better believe I pick up the phone. That’s something special.
Likewise, my father isn’t so much an e-mail guy (he’s not so much a phone guy either) which makes those phone calls special when they do come in, no matter how much I disdain using the phone myself.
It’s all about negotiating. There should be an implicit understanding that if you initiate the contact, you use the preferred medium of the person you are calling, texting, whatever. But in reality, it becomes a question of who wants it more, the person calling or the person being called.
It’s not all a wonderland to have this many options. It’s led to a lot of less personalized contact. I think bulk updates by e-mail to every person you’ve ever met are impersonal and insulting to everyone on your distribution list. But sending out a mass message through facebook or twitter makes sense because those are designed for that purpose. There is an implied invitation to read someone’s status update. And e-mail (and texting) by its nature is an exercise in passive aggressive obstructionist behavior. It requires finesse to not read too much or too little into an e-mail lacking any clues but what you know about the sender already and just the characters on the screen.
The net effect of all these options makes meeting new people and making connections with them even more impractical. Communication preference is an extra layer of idiosyncrasy that we didn’t need, and one that has begun to get in between individuals. Instead of bridging the gap, e-mail, texting, cell phones, facebook, twitter, it’s all widening the gap between yourself and people you haven’t met yet.
My friend met a boy who said “call me” and he meant it. He never responded to a single text message she sent. But in failing to acknowledge the text messages, all he is doing is making it harder for them to connect. This isn’t even a case of him making her do all the work. His preferred method of communication was talking on the phone, and he never failed to either answer or call her right back. But how do really you tell someone ‘we can’t go out if you’re going to insist on sending me text messages’? Look, people do all the time now. It is actually acceptable to freeze people out until they learn to communicate on your level.
Hey, I’m as guilty as anyone else. So either send me an e-mail now or wait until I’m damn well and ready to check my phone log and maybe I’ll get back to you sometime. It’s your call.
Nov 10
AndrewLife in Digital blackberry, cell phone, Phone
So while I think it is substantially mental to own a phone that checks my e-mails, pushs all my Facebook messages to me and can find me on a (google) map, I love it. Life in the digital age before the blackberry was a barren desert. And I didn’t know it.
Today, despite not having turned on a TV in four days, I am able to check on the football scores from yesterday, e-mail my mother and write an article. All in my PJs. (I thought about taking the blackberry into the bath with me but the irony of either being electrocuted or just breaking the damn phone was too realistic.). The marvel of it is that while absolutely nothing I do on the phone couldn’t wait, it makes me happy to be plugged in.
Well everyone calls it an addiction. I suppose I could give up coffee or gambling and become a crackberry addict instead. (Though I know you’re thinking what I’m thinking. What makes me think I have any choice in the matter. If anything, I’ll probably be excusing myself from the blackjack tables in order to check my e-mail while drinking coffee.)
I usually look for some moral component in my thinking, but I’m not sure where to go on this one. “If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad?” But are we making an exception for phone addiction? If it’s true for one, why not all the others? Is it really a matter of the degree of self destruction?
Look, alcoholism is self-destructive. But it also runs a pretty substantial risk of hurting others. Is there a line to cross with data phones (at least one that is any different than you get with any old regular cell phone?) I’m not sure. If you’re moving and typing at the same time, maybe it’s a hazard to someone else. But then, if I get arthritis in both thumbs, what do you care?
But I can’t help take a live and let live attitude with people and cell phones. I won’t hesitate to tell people who smoke they are killing themselves, but I can’t find the same fault with phone addiction. Maybe it’s hypocrisy since I don’t smoke but I can’t keep my hands off my phone long enough to wave at you. I’ve already checked my e-mail twice while I wrote this article and I love it. And I know I will again and again.
Oct 09
JeremyBusiness, Life in Digital, Society and Culture communication, investing, media, stock market, stocks, Wall Street
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: instant communication is not a good thing because people aren’t mature enough to handle it. Plenty of blogs out there self-righteously bitch about cellphone etiquette or whether or not one should keep facebook profiles private. Google has now even introduced “Mail Goggles” to help us regulate those late night, drunken emails that are never a good idea. All this, however, focuses solely on the responsibility of the individual, private citizen. Rarely do we discuss the responsibilities of larger organizations in the digital age of instant updates and this is a conversation we should be having.
This morning, around 10:00 a.m., I logged onto a news site as I usually do to see what the headlines are. The top of the page, in large bold text, proudly declaimed “Dow Gains on Opening.” Shortly thereafter, the Dow dropped a couple hundred points. While people chalk that up to the market’s current volatility, they haven’t thought about the reasons why the market has gotten as volatile as it is now. The silent, contributing factor is that, in short, instant communication that may in fact be over-communication. Nervous investors, everyday people, who are worried about their money see those morning gains and say “I’ve got to sell right now.” When they all unload at once, the market roils.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not blaming the media for precipitating the current economic situation. That blame rests largely on the shoulders of unethical individuals out there in the markets (and not on government regulators or whoever else they want to shift the burden onto, but that’s a different story). The media, however, took a bad situation and turned it into an instant crisis by reporting on it in excruciatingly minute detail moment by moment over the past weeks. And because the best headline attracts the most readers (and hence the most money), even the slightest move is blown out of proportion.
The market has always been subject to these tensions to some degree, as those on Wall Street directly involved followed their various information sources and reacted in appropriate, deliberate manners. However, the advent of instant updates via the internet and text messages has now brought the everyman investor into the loop. While that is not a bad thing in and of itself, the everyman, who has perhaps purchased his stocks through a website like Sharebuilder or any of the other online investing tools, may never have even talked to a stockbroker who can give him advice and is singularly unprepared to make responsible decisions in the face of changing conditions. It’s easy to panic when your retirement nest egg is on the line and panic leads to bad decision-making, whereas even a decade ago, that same investor likely only saw the stock’s closing price in the morning paper. Without blow-by-blow information throughout the day, the investor could make decisions based on trends rather than overreacting in an instant. In this case, being irresponsibly flooded with out-of-context data has directly contributed to making the situation worse rather than better.
The above is but one example of how the wonders of instant communication negatively impact us. We would all be able to lead better lives if our media’s ethics would catch up with the digital age. As individuals, we personally need to learn to take what we hear with a grain of salt, learn to ask better questions, demand better, more responsible answers, and learn to take a deep breath before reacting. Right now, I know from the scrolling news ticker on my IM program that the Dow is down another 104.97 points, but I’m going to take a deep breath and ride it out, no matter what the news sites tell me throughout the day. After all, it’s only news, not the facts.
Sep 23
AndrewLife in Digital Apple, iPod, iTunes, iTunes Plus
Here’s nothing new: iTunes Plus feature has once again found a way to wring an extra $.30 out of customers. You might recall when iTunes Plus (DRM-free tracks at a higher bit rate) originally debuted at $1.29 a full $.30 more than other iTunes individual songs. The surcharge effectively muted the launch of iTunes Plus. Customers weren’t interested in paying more even at the enticement of DRM-free music.
At the time, iTunes killed the surcharge and all its music, plus or not, returned to the $.99 price point. But now, iTunes Plus rears the surcharge again in form of an “upgrade.” So previously purchased tracks, at $.99 a piece, are now available to upgrade to iTunes Plus for a mere $.30 each. The benefits? DRM-free and double the bit rate.
It’s clever (and a little disgusting) because of course, if you bought those same songs today as iTunes Plus, they would only cost you $.99 per track. Furthermore, you can’t pick and choose which tracks to upgrade (it’s all or nothing among your previously purchased tracks.) The service will continue to upgrade its existing database of tracks to iTunes Plus and then allow you to upgrade your collection for the $.30 each added charge.
Look, I really like iTunes. I’m a big fan, even when I’m paying $.99 a track (while other consumers continue to look for free music.) I like the idea of shopping for songs one at a time and I think the interface itself is highly convenient. That said, this move with iTunes Plus smacks me as a little petty. When I looked at the tracks currently eligible for upgrade in my collection, it’s mostly stuff I could live without. But if I ever want to upgrade one particular album or song, at least as it stands now, I would have to upgrade all 60 other tracks.
Sorry, iTunes, I don’t buy it. If Plus costs more, then it costs more. Don’t masquerade a surcharge as something other than it’s not.
Sep 17
JeremyLife in Digital gaming, Internet, mod, modding, Nardi, NSF, social interaction, world of warcraft, WoW
It turns out that gamers might just be freaks worthy of academic study. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education’s website, the National Science Foundation has awarded Bonnie Nardi at UC-Irvine a grant to study how people play the popular online game World of Warcraft. According to the grant abstract published on NSF’s website, Nardi’s research will focus specifically on modding (basically, changing the game environment to suit one’s whims). Programmers, either commercial or individual, build add-ons that perform functions in the game environment that the game itself does not. Because the game itself is built to be collaborative (there are some things on it that are just damn hard to do alone), mods are usually a group effort, too, since a need must be both identified, then acted upon in a way that fits within the game’s larger framework. An example of a commonly used mod in WoW is an add-on that imposes a coordinate grid on the game’s maps to make sharing exact locations easier among players. Yes, I know this because I play.
So far, it looks like this research is getting a bad rap. I find this ironic since gaming is blamed for a whole host of social ills, from obesity to agoraphobia to just plain awkward social interaction. Here we have the opportunity to understand the effects of gaming just a bit better, yet many consider that not worthwhile research, whether conducted in a scholarly manner or not. This research is especially important as gaming continues to transition from something that’s done at home alone (ahhhh, I miss my old Atari and Nintendo) to something that creates a true digital environment in which people interact both in and out of character.
Tools such as instant messaging have already transformed the social environment. For me, it’s allowed me to develop close friendships with people around the country whom I haven’t even met in person, while allowing me to maintain communicate more easily with my “real life” friends. If IM has had such an impact, I can’t begin to imagine what the impacts will be of online gaming, in which groups of people are working towards shared goals in a collaborative manner. Perhaps this study will begin to answer that question and help us all understand the shape of the future.
Older Entries Newer Entries
RSS
