It’s the iPod of reading

In an interview yesterday I was asked what problem an Apple Tablet was the solution to. “It’s obvious that the iPod solved the problem of digital music,” said the interviewer, “but what does the iSlate fix?”

I didn’t have a good answer then, but after sitting up all night reading an actual printed novel, I think I do now.

When the iPod launched in 2001 there were already devices that did what it could do, more or less. There were big, clunky MP3 players with hard drives that held just as many songs, and there were tiny flash players that held 50 songs and fit in your pocket. The problem of taking your music with you was already handled, people said. You want lots of songs, get a Nomad. You want portable, get a flash player.

The iPod did both. You could have the thousands of songs, but you could also have them in your pocket. It took all the benefits of the tiny flash drives, and added the space of the hard drive.

Today, if you want to read a lot of — for want of a better term — “digital text” (like a long web page, a newspaper site, a PDF, an eBook etc) without sitting at a computer, at a desk, your choices are either laptop or smartphone. (If there’s an eReader that’s ready for prime time, especially for web browsing, I haven’t seen it yet).

Digital text is in exactly the same position digital music was in 2000. The laptop is one of the hard drive players. To use a laptop, you have to keep it largely vertical, which means you have to be largely vertical, too. Sit up straight while you’re reading the paper. Even the smallest netbooks take up much more space than a paperback, because the keyboard and screen are at right angles, and force you into clearing a large cube to use them. Think about the difference between squeezing a 15″ laptop on to a tray table on a plane or a train and just holding a magazine. The screen is large, clear and sharp, though.

The iPhone, on the other hand, is like those flash players. For reading digital text it’s already ahead: I’m doing more reading on Instapaper than anything else these days. It’s just too small, really. It’s for your pocket, not your lounge chair.

There is a space in the middle, here. As publishing moves online, you want to be able to curl up with digital text just like you’d curl up with a book: in a chair, tea in one hand, book in the other. You want to read on trains and planes, lying on your side in bed, in coffee shops, over breakfast. But the laptop’s too big and too much hassle for that, and the iPhone’s too small.

This is the problem the tablet solves. It’s digital text with the tactility of a magazine.

It’s obvious to us now that the iPod solved a huge problem. At the time, it wasn’t. After the launch, the critical consensus was summed up by Slashdot’s verdict: “No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame”. Sometimes you don’t know you have a problem until it goes away.

Posted in long, mac | 1 Comment

Your solution to the news crisis will not work. Here’s why.

After Metafilter’s 400th thread about saving journalism, I realised all my answers were saying the same thing. So I posted a new version of this Slashdot comment-turned-meme to speed up snarking:

Your blog advocates a technical/legislative/market-based/crowd-sourced approach to saving journalism. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws owing to the avaraciousness of modern publishers.)

( ) It does not provide an income stream to the working journalist
( ) Nobody will spend eight hours sitting in a dull council meeting to do it
( ) It is defenseless against copy-and-paste
( ) ...

The full thing looks crappy on this template, so read it in full here

Posted in journalism, short | Leave a comment

a versatile storage solution for modern living

So build she did, around the clock for 38 years until her death on Sept. 5, 1922. The house now has 160 rooms, 47 fireplaces, 10,000 window panes, 17 chimneys, 950 doors, and 40 staircases. It is famous for its nonsensical architecture, with hidden rooms, staircases leading to nowhere, cupboard doors open to solid brick walls and secret passages.
Winchester Mystery House

From the super cool places you should visit blog.

Posted in short | Leave a comment

continential philosophy

it’s often suggested that Quine must have been wrong because conceptual analysis is what analytic philosophers do, and there must be something that they’re doing when they do it. That put a brave face on it, but there were guilty consciences wherever you looked.Jerry Fodor

Posted in short | Leave a comment

derivatives

In 2003 the total size of the world economy was $49,000,000,000,000. The total size of the derivatives being traded was $85,000,000,000,000. In other words, derivatives today are worth far, far more than the total economic activity of the planet. More than $1,000,000,000,000 of derivatives are bought and sold every day. Cityphilia

(A completely unfair comparison, but catchiness counts)

Posted in short | Leave a comment

editing

In Salon, Gary Kamiya writes in praise of editors:

The art of editing is running against the cultural tide. We are in an age of volume; editing is about refinement. It’s about getting deeper into a piece, its ideas, its structure, its language. It’s a handmade art, a craft. You don’t learn it overnight. Editing aims at making a piece more like a Stradivarius and less like a microchip. And as the media universe becomes larger and more filled with microchips, we need the violin makers.

And then Digg got its hands on it. From the comments thread there are many gems. Ninjaboy:

I think we would need less editors if we had less grammar nazi’s.

Or Merkhava:

Editors are censors. We need no more censors. We need no more “Deciders.” And we need no more police clad in black armor and combat boots carrying M-16 rifles.

Which reminds me of the time I tried calling for editing on Comment is Free, the Guardian’s hopelessly flame-ridden bitch-fest of a forum. “We doesn’t need n0 edit0rs,” someone said, “because we has the intern3ts now and we can read what we like”.
Yes, we can. Until there’s nothing left to read except Merkhava’s blog. When your sample size is in the billions, the law of averages can take you to a very low place indeed.

Posted in journalism | Leave a comment

advertising as conversation

John Battelle wants you to think of advertising as a conversation. That thought has made quite a lot of money for him and Federated Media. Except last week they got slapped about by readers for inviting their authors to become part of a “conversation” with Microsoft. (His defensive apologetic explains more.)

In short, Microsoft would like “people-ready” to mean something. So they get bloggers they advertise with to write nonsense about what people-ready means to them (“if I was people-ready, I’d be really ready to engage and entertain people, readily”). This, apparently, is not advertorial, it’s a “conversation”, and we should be pleased to have a conversation with a marketer. What’s the problem?

Battelle has a great point about the rise of conversational media, but goes astray when he thinks this means we give advertisers a second run at our trust:

I do not agree with those who regard marketers as a necessary evil. I think that approach reflects the worst baggage of traditional approaches to media, and I for one have dedicated my working life to eliminating it. Marketing can and should be useful, relevant, helpful, and add value to the conversation of a site.

The “baggage” of our traditional approach comes from years of being burnt. We have advertising standards bodies so that companies can’t abuse the public’s trust; we have codes of ethics so that journalists are not writing with agendas hidden from the readers who expect them to be, if not objective, biased on belief, not biased for pay.

The very first example of conversational marketing has to do with a very large computer brand which I will keep anonymous, as it’s not clear they’d want me talking about them in this forum.

You can’t have a conversation with an anonymous party. An agenda is an agenda, whether it’s the bent journalist writing a puff, a politician’s spin, a full-page advertisement or a “marketing conversation”.

Advertising is not a conversation. A conversation where one side has an ulterior motive is not a conversation, it’s a persuasion. You don’t have a conversation with a car salesman, you have a sales pitch. If you think otherwise, you’re in danger of leaving the lot in a shiny new vroom you had no intention of purchasing.

Making the pitch feel like a conversation is what marks out the best salesmen, but it doesn’t make it one.

Posted in journalism | Leave a comment