For years, I only knew of George Lucas’ 1977 cinematic sci-fi breakthrough as “Star Wars.”  Then I found out that it was part of a trilogy. But wait, Lucas had a plan all along; this tale of an oppressed rag-tag alliance looking to overturn a hierarchical, monopolistic political system (aka “The Empire”) was always meant to be “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.”

Of course, in a multi-part saga, if the good guys get their way initially, the Empire is always going to have to Strike Back to make it a good story. When I read Groundswell co-author Josh Bernoff’s The Splinternet Means the End of the Web’s Golden Age, that’s what immediately came to mind.

We’ve been declaring an end to media monopolies for a while now, thanks to networked communities who no longer require institutional intermediaries to share, collaborate or take collective action.  This ability to produce and consume media for almost free threatened the very economic model that media moguls had taken to the bank for over a century. As I made my own transition from corporate media journalist to independent content creator, I took advantage of new, inexpensive tools that we saw as the great democratizer of production.

Apple was part of this rebellion, helping us to crash through the barriers to entry with the digital weaponry of firewire, USB, Final Cut Pro, iDVD — this filmmaker’s “secret plans to the Death Star,” so to speak.  As digital content proliferated, The Empire writhed in agony, from The New York Times to Conde Nast to NBC, desperately in search of new business models.  Now, with renewed focus on pay walls and walled gardens, Bernoff sees Apple’s new iPad as the turning point as we leave the Web’s hopeful first age of universality and openness:

…[M]ore and more of the interesting stuff on the Web is hidden behind a login and password. Take Facebook for example. Not only do its applications not work anywhere else, Google can’t see most of it. And News Corp. and the New York Times are talking about putting more and more content behind a login…Each new device has its own ad networks, format, and technology. Each new social site has its login and many hide content from search engines. Read more…

In December 2007, Jim Manis founded the Bellevue-based Mobile Giving Foundation to establish an infrastructure for mobile charitable giving. After the earthquake in Haiti, the Mobile Giving Foundation worked to support more than 20 nonprofit organizations and helped set up high-profile campaigns for Wyclef Jean’s Yéle Foundation and the Clinton Foundation Haiti Relief Fund.

Why do you think the appeal to donate to Haiti by texting has been so successful?

It was a powerful message replicated across all communication platforms for the benefit of major charities. Texting provides an immediate way for a person to respond. It’s a powerful medium to take action.

Its success builds on a few factors. Mobile giving reaches an addressable audience of 260 million cell phone users. As a country, we send billions of text messages a year. The technology has become ubiquitous. Because of the work we’ve been doing, the infrastructure and technology were in place when the earthquake struck Haiti, and agreements were pre-negotiated with the carriers. And the billing aspect is appealing because it doesn’t require the use of a credit card.

Hasn’t this technology been around for a while? What has changed since the tsunami in 2004?

When the Asian tsunami hit, two things were relatively new: Read more…

At this point most people are pretty tired of hearing about the iPad.  Those that love it keep raving about it, and those that are dissapointed just want people to stop talking about it.  However, I think it’s good to explore exactly why the iPad won’t revolutionize the computer market – and never really had a chance to (even if it had all of features most people expected).

The iPad won’t revolutionize the market simply because it doesn’t solve a problem or fulfill a need that wasn’t being fulfilled before.  Apple has certainly released revolutionary products in the past.  The iPod brought the ability to listen to digital files on the go.  iTunes allowed people to download music legally and safely.  The iPhone created a market for mobile applications that wasn’t there before.  These products all created a market because they were actually useful.  The iPad, however cool it may be, simply doesn’t do anything new.  Anything I can do on an iPad I can do with one of my other computers.

If you are interested in video or music, Archos, a little known brand in the United States, has been making similar media devices for years.  If you want the iPad for the e-reader aspect, the Kindle is much cheaper (costs half the price, you don’t have to pay extra for 3G, and books are cheaper as well).  If you want mobile apps, the iPhone and iPod touch provide what you need.  All the iPad does is combine a few features from scattered devices.  It doesn’t actually do anything new.

Price is huge factor here as well.  $500 for the base model is a lot of money for what you are getting.  People have become so used to Apple products being expensive that they think this price point is cheap.  It’s not.  iPods and iTunes media sell at accessible price points, which is another reason they were able to create a new market.  This product isn’t accessible to the general public at this price point, especially because it doesn’t actually provide you with a function that your other devices can’t do.

The reality is we don’t need a new way to consume media right now.  I’m happy with my iPhone, laptop, and 46″ HDTV.  Carrying around yet another device isn’t appealing to me – especially since it doesn’t replace my iPhone.  If the iPad had a camera, GPS, supported Flash, and cost $100 less, I might say it is worth purchasing (but still wouldn’t call it revolutionary).  As it is, it’s a neat gadget for rich people.  Nothing more.

Down in Half Moon Bay, Robert Scoble started a discussion on Sunday about the value of “creation” versus “curation” — a discussion centered around Wednesday’s media event at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino. Should he attend the Steve Jobs press event and “create” original copy, an eye-witness report? Or should he sit in Half Moon Bay and “curate” news and commentary for his readers? Which path would add the most value?

Curation is a buzz word in journalism and social media circles. I don’t think that curating digital content — news and information — is the same as curating an exhibit of Degas. On the web, we don’t want to see the entirety of each artifact: each article, Tweet, video and op-ed that, in this case, Robert might use to provide us with his unique point of view on Apple’s newest gadget. Instead, we want Robert to pull the best bits (no pun intended) and synthesize them into a coherent narrative.

Read more…

Amazon made an announcement last week about the Kindle e-reader and changes to their royalty scheme for authors that may have caught your eye. I will do a quick recap:

Amazon announced it is providing authors and publishers with a “70% royalty option” for books sold on the Kindle. The new royalty regimen seems to be squarely aimed at keeping Amazon as the’ top of mind’ publisher for e-books, especially in light of the enormous number of new readers that were unveiled at the recent Consumer Electronics Show (CES) and the breathlessly awaited arrival of an Apple tablet device. The new percentage of 70%, from the current royalty of 35% per title, comes with a number of restrictions. These include:

• The actual price of the book must fall between $2.99 and $9.99 and be at least 20% below the lowest price of a physical edition of the same book.
• It has to sell for the same price, or less, as it does with competing booksellers.
• It has to be available everywhere the author or publisher has intellectual property rights.

According to Amazon’s announcement, “the 70 percent royalty option is for in-copyright works and is unavailable for works published before 1923 (a.k.a. public domain books). At launch, the 70 percent royalty option will only be available for books sold in the United States.” To see the entire announcement, go here.

My take: The royalties question is very important to authors, obviously, as that’s how they eat.  Amazon’s announcement has a sobering effect on competitors and publishing houses, as many authors may opt to move their works to direct publishing by Amazon, foregoing the services (and fees) associated with working with a publishing house.

Read more…

For years, Nintendo has ruled the mobile gaming world, first with the Game Boy, then with the DS Lite. After an amazing run, though, the torch is being passed. Not to another gaming company, but to smart phone makers Google and Apple.

Over the next decade I believe smart phones will be where most gaming innovation will happen. The market for smart phone games is booming. A recent New York Times article reported that games make up more than half of the billion downloads from the Apple App Store. The App Store has about 15,000 games for the iPhone, and the Android Market has about 3,000 for Google Android devices.

Read more…

Trust is perhaps the most critical element as the media become “democratic, decentralized and diverse” as Hanson Hosein stated early in his presentation, “The Storyteller Uprising” at Seattle’s Town Hall.  There are many experiments in developing trust, like NPR’s model for curating local bloggers as reporters in the Hurricane Ida and Haiti disasters.  Universities are also in the enviable position of having scholars with credibility in their field, given their intense and often lifelong research in a field.  Some universities are taking full advantage through platforms they manage, like the MIT Technology Review Others are wisely creating a crucible for the next generation of scholars, activists and journalists.  University of North Carolina is a great example of community scholarship, multimedia journalism and activism.  Seems like an unreachable goal, eh?  But check out the work created last fall by a group of 21 students and 5 faculty in the Galapagos Islands. http://www.livinggalapagos.org/

UNC living galapagos map

Living Galapagos has won several awards for innovation and journalistic quality – all well deserved, I think.  There is great storytelling by the residents, beautiful photography, and the unveiling of thorny issues about economics, tourism and sustainability.  Taken together, these can ignite passion in readers of the site.  But, as you also pointed out – how does one sustain the passion?  I did a cursory review of google looking for efforts to expand the message and link to others that can help, as Lance observed, to “take the news and translate it into things to do.”  It’s just not there.  Too bad.  Let’s hope there are other elements in the works.

I’m certainly going to keep an eye on UNC’s journalism program and share what I find here on campus.  We have a real connection to activism here at the UW through various programs like those at the Evans School of Public Affairs, which produces more Peace Corps volunteers than any other public university,  that may help our students create the stories AND sustain the passion.

Update: The New York Times announced on January 20 that they will indeed begin to meter content, starting in 2011. Read the Times’ statement here.

Bloggers’ reactions? Mashable predicts that the number of sites linking to the Times will decrease, negatively impacting traffic, while most readers will move on to another news source after they reach their limit. TechCrunch breaks down the numbers and comes to a skeptical, yet optimistic, conclusion. PaidContent.org, an information company owned by Guardian Media Group, justifies the decision.

*****

The New York Times may be close to charging for online content.

According to New York Magazine, the venerable ”Gray Lady” is seriously considering a metered system that will allow consumers to read all of the paper’s content — up to a point. Once that limit is reached, the reader must pay for articles. This allows new visitors to explore the site while charging the heaviest users. Seems fair enough, right? The question is whether the Times’ audience will agree to pay or go elsewhere for their news. Read more…