So here’s the thing.
I’m not saying beautiful design is bad; I’m a web and graphic designer myself, and I love seeing and creating beautiful design specifically tailored to the Internet.
I’m saying that this will happen maybe at the expense of content delivered to people over the web - most of which is free. With better design, you need better designers, and all of this should happen along with the content, it should flow with the content.
More directly put, you shouldn’t design a beautiful website and force people to pay for its content. You’d be compromising the beauty on the content, and that is never a good thing.
Content should remain open and accessible to everyone, most of the time. The same goes for design.
That’s the problem.
Let me tell you this. Downloading a 15 gig torrent with an internet speed of 26 kB/s, courtesy of Time Warner, is not fun.
Neither is live-streaming the Olympics with that Internet speed.
Time Warner, here’s what I want to say to you, eloquently put:
Absolutely right, except for one itty-bitty detail. Google+ didn’t take off. It has become what everyone hoped it would not become: a ghost town.
On the first month of the service, you’ve always got to account for the number of people that join the service because of hype and then leave their accounts there, inactive. The number of active users is the best measure of popularity, and the jokes on the number of users over at Google+ seem to speak a lot for that.
I haven’t really used Google+ myself. I don’t even use Facebook all that much, in fact, my preferred platform of choice happens to be Twitter. That’s because it’s easy and efficient to use, but that’s not the point. I suspect most people didn’t migrate over to Google+ not because they didn’t like it, but because the layout was so much more different than Facebook’s, or Twitter’s, and so much more intuitive, that it felt foreign.
And most people didn’t really get used to it, so they left.
I am, actually, like, a year behind on tech news. I’ve got a lot of catching up to do.
I think the essence of Twitter comes in seeing what other people are doing. That in itself brings about this feeling of community. And when tweeting at events, we see what thousands of other people at those same events are doing, are seeing. Like, Comic-Con. Or even VidCon.
It’s like, you follow someone, and you get this insight into their thoughts and opinions on things, and you say, “Oh! I agree with that!” or, “No, I don’t. Let me reply and chime in to the conversation.”
I think that’s it, yeah. Twitter’s about the constant conversation between human beings.
This was written last year. Things have changed since then, definitely. Revolutions have been aided by the Internet. International protest movements have been organized through the Internet. Acts trying to restrict the freedom of the Internet have failed just because of the massive power of the Internet itself.
Yeah, it evolves in a damn short period of time.
But this is still a great review of all that it was, all that it was supposed to be, and all that it has become.
I mean, they’re still on about it. Honestly, Google TV was such a failure I’m surprised they haven’t given up on it already.
They should give up on it, and go back to what they do best.
Pushing a product that has no potential whatsoever in my opinion, seems like the stupidest thing to do for a company that’s already relinquishing it’s title as ‘overlord-of-the-Internet’.
Google’s Latitude does, like, almost the same thing.
And I find it much better.
I think the different-people-you-can-share-with aspect of Google+ would really work, but most people don’t bother with maintaining their circles and adding new people into them. A default sharing circle is ‘Public’, so people just generally stick with that.
That’s why Facebook’s Smart Lists works, to some extent. It saves you the trouble of organizing your friends into different groups and does it for you. But then again, that’s also automated, so there’s a chance something might go haywire here and there.
PS - Yes, I am catching up on my news. Finally.
“10 million people contacted Congress,” Wales said. “That’s not an abuse of power, that’s democracy. [Dodd] had best get used to it.”
I doubt Hollywood would ever want to get used to it. It’s ridiculous, it is, the way all of these companies have influence up there and we don’t even know that that’s our money going up there for bribery and corruption.
I still demand greater transparency in the handling of election campaign funds.
I might have mentioned this before, but censorship and copyright are two sides of the same coin.
One of my friends and I were discussing this problem yesterday, and she made a very valid point I think I ought to post here. She said that advocating censorship means advocating masking the problem, not solving it directly.
The problem is that Hollywood is so reluctant to accept new methods of sharing that all they can do is stop us from sharing at all, like, entirely. They’ve got the money and power to.
What they don’t have is something that will enable this transition from more traditional methods that they use to the Internet. Netflix is one of them. And imagine, all of these services that allow you to rent something and watch it would have been affected.
In the end, it all comes down to a point Patricia makes in this post - we’re all in it for money.
What we need to implement is something that will benefit both sides without angering either. Because that’s what SOPA did, it angered the Internet and pleased Hollywood. What’s the point of doing something like that?
I think the bigger question here is why Hollywood is so reluctant to make a shift from its current position in the consumer chain of being the producer and distributor of content. I feel it’s because this might put them on par with other services that do the same and eventually might disrupt its position.
Encouraging innovation is what technology is all about. It’s the practical application of science.
It’s just that Hollywood doesn’t want to adapt, instead, they want to stop the adaptation from forcing itself upon them.