Elderly woman: “Look at that man with the dummy!”
Her husband: “Who are you to criticize?”
âMannequin
Category: Random (Page 4 of 6)
Math class scratch paper. Reward.
There was an old woman who swallowed a fly. …
Today’s New York Times article on the commercial implications of digital video recorders has me thinking about consumers’ sense of entitlement, and the methods with which content producers try and create revenues. This leads into free content-based Web sites and the donation schemes many of them now tout. The “donate” links raise questions for me: Is this site free or not? Why is it being published, for the owner or the reader? And most importantly, who would donate to these causes, and why?
Today’s New York Times article on the commercial implications of digital video recorders has me thinking about consumers’ sense of entitlement, and the methods with which content producers try and create revenues.
In the article, Jamie Kellner of Turner Broadcasting, worried about happy TiVo users skipping ads, saya, “If you don’t watch the commercials, someone’s going to have to pay for television and it’s going to be you.” And on a fundamental level, I’m okay with that.
Why shouldn’t I pay money to access the individual channels on my cable system? If the YES Network wants two bucks per subscriber, and I want YES, should it cost me two dollars, and not someone else? Of course it should.
The danger comes in creating a barrier to entry. If I had to pay for the Game Show Network, I probably would not have bothered, and I never would have fallen in love with 1970s “Newlywed Game” reruns. But try-and-buy systems can and should exist, and through these models, we could someday adapt to a new way of viewing television. I know I’d be willing to pay for a season of “Ed” and “The Sopranos” rather than getting everything or nothing.
This leads into free content-based Web sites and the donation schemes many of them now tout. The “donate” links raise questions for me: Is this site free or not? Why is it being published, for the owner or the reader? And most importantly, who would donate to these causes, and why?
Apologies if this sounds callous, but I will not voluntarily give money to a self-published, noncommercial Web site. The presenter is creating a work and sharing it free of chargeâtherefore it is not a for-profit situation. As such, it is not an arena in which I would provide financial award.
Why should I “donate” my own money to a nonexistent “cause?”
Web site donation systemsâhigh-profile server funds as well as “If you like this site, give me a buck” PayPal links on personal sitesâare, in a word, silly. Try placing them in proper analogical context:
- Example: The Village Voice is free in New York each week. Say the Voice puts a note on their front page asking you to mail in five bucks out of loyalty. Would you? No: One does not pay for something that is deliberately available without pay.
- Example: Your friend has a Sony Playstation 2. You play Grand Theft Auto 3 twice a week, once in a while when your friend isn’t even playing. Do you take a $10 bill out of your pocket one Sunday and leave it on the TV, saying, “Hey, man, thanks for all the comp time?” No: One does not pay to partake in pleasures provided free of charge.
- Example: You give money to museums who charge “suggested donation” prices as admission. In this case, the appeal is obvious: You can come in for nothing, but you’ll likely feel guilty about it, and you’re also paying for a much greater privilege than reading something that most folks are reading for free. Is this an accurate example? No. The difference here is that a non-profit organization is identified as such, unlike, say, The Morning News, which is, so far as I can tell, a labor of love and an opportunity to publish to a wide audience (and an excellent one).
I have a much easier time philosophically with links to Amazon wish lists and the like. Would you buy your friend a thank-you gift after all those hours playing Playstation games? You sure might; I probably would. But I wouldn’t hand my pal ten bucks.
An important aspect of this is the obligation and access. If sites I loved had pay schemes, I would, more often than not, pay for them. Metafilter, for example, would be worth an annual membership fee to me. But I have not donated to Metafilter’s donation system on the side (sorry, Matt), nor will I, because its intent is simply to lessen bandwidth costs and make Matt less aggravated about the site he runs for free (and now supports with advertising). As a casual reader, his costs are not my problem, the same way the cost of newsprint isn’t my problem until the New York Times decides to charge me more for my morning paper.
Sites that request donations expect their readerships to view their sites the way computer users regard shareware: If you like it, pay us a few bucks, which will encourage us to keep up the good work. But content isn’t the same as software; it is usually a diversion, not a utility, which alters its worth. Additionally, one assumes a site receiving $0 in donations would continue to run, much the way shareware without a set expiration continues to work for free. This discourages the incentive and value in donating.
To bring in revenue, there are lots of other questions that can be asked, schemes that can be tried that have not yet taken root. Why isn’t there a pay weblog? Why isn’t there a weblog network that charges one value for multiple sites? Why don’t systems like Blogger provide a pay interface on the consumer end and provide easy access for content creators to charge money for their sites?
I am not on the winning side of this argument just yet; so long as users expect their Internet##8212;and their television##8212;to be free of incremental costs, they will not be inclined to spend money. But should Americans come to accept a sales model other than buffet-style pricing, content producers everywhere would truly benefit. In the meantime, the beggar’s cup we politely call “donation links” is not enticing me to fish for my change.
ReplayTV has been ordered to spy on its customers. I’m all for maintaining copyright and allowing the entertainment industry to preserve its product, but using
Question: Why do I have such little faith in the average Web site that I need to rely on Google to find simple search results?
Just installed BBEdit 6.5.2 on my Macintosh at work. On first run, I received a warning message that I needed CarbonLib 1.4 or later to run the latest BBEdit. (Why this is so, and what CarbonLib is, are issues I am unable to answer, but I digress.)
So I went to Google. Not Apple’s Web site, but Google. And it was a cinch.
Question: Why do I have such little faith in the average Web site that I need to rely on Google to find simple search results?
Google makes it so easy. In order:
1. On google.com, search for “carbonlib 1.4.” The top search result was for Apple’s CarbonLib 1.5 update.
2. Click through to Apple’s site, download, and done.
I hadn’t even tried Apple’s site when I Googled my query, because I figured Google would do it right. Indeed, they did, and Apple made a mess of things. Here is how apple.com handled the same scenario:
1. “Carbonlib 1.4” search results page shows listings for Age of Empires II, DeBabelizer Pro 5, Black White, Championship Manager, CronniX, Liquid Ledger 1.0.1, Sockho Stock Watcher, Loan Calc X, QuickMovie 1.4, Photo to Web.
2. Fresh search for “carbonlib 1.4 update.” Similar results.
3. Fresh search for “carbonlib 1.4 system,” playing off the Mac’s system folder requirements. (Remember, I don’t know what CarbonLib is.) Nothing.
4. Click on Support tab.
5. Click on Downloads tab within Support. This was a lucky discovery; I was ready to search support for CarbonLib, which I suspect wouldn’t have given me the right leads.
6. Search for “carbonlib 1.4” in Apple’s “search for downloads” box. Results: No documents were found.
7. Change “search type” on the dead results page from “software downloads” to “smart search” and try again. First result is an AppleWorks troubleshooting document that mentions installing CarbonLib 1.4, so I click on its link.
8. On that page is a link to “install CarbonLib 1.4 or later.” Clicked on that link.
9. Busted link. Search interrupted.
10. I give up.
Let’s review. A third-party search engine outperforms the site offering the download to the extent that I would sooner go to the third party than the source, even though I know exactly what I need and from where I have to get it. Why is this so?
This is a terrible state of affairs for the user. Google is revered because it does such a good job, which is great. But how come Google can find me a Web page on Apple’s site easier and more smoothly than Apple can? How often does this have to occur before Apple, and similar consumer sites, begin to suffer as a result?
“Newspapers cannot be defined by the second word—paper. They’ve got to be defined by the first—news. All of us have to become agnostic as to the method of distribution. We’ve got to be as powerful online, as powerful in TV and broadcasting, as
Observed outside Pick-a-Bagel on 57th and 6th, Manhattan, 9:01 a.m.
The players: A middle-aged woman, nicely dressed and in good spirits, and her companion (probably her husband), talking to two uniformed policemen.
The woman seemed pleased with herself and the cops, which was striking, considering most people talking to the police are in a state of distress.
One of the policemen spoke into his two-way radio:
“Request location: N-B-C Studios.”
An approximation:
A man goes to his psychiatrist and says, “Doc, I keep having these alternating recurring dreams. First I’m a teepee; then I’m a wigwam; then I’m a teepee; then I’m a wigwam. It’s driving me crazy. What’s wrong with me?”
The doctor replies, “The first thing is to relax. You’re two tents.”
* cue laugh track through wince *
Sometimes it’s the computer. Usually it’s just me.
The instructions for my way cool new Wacom Intuos 2 installer read, “Before installation, plug your tablet into an available USB port in the back of your computer.”
Laptop: USB 1, keyboard; USB 2, mouse. I yanked out the keyboard jack, so I could keep roving the screen, and plugged in the tablet. The red light went on as expected.
The instructions continued: “You should not have any other programs running when you install the drivers for the tablet. Quit all open applications before continuing.”
It was several minutes after I clicked into Internet Explorer that I finally figured out why apple-Q! APPLE-Q! wasn’t doing anything.
Ideapad © 1998–2024 David Wertheimer. All rights reserved.