Notes from a Floating Dog

Within the last month, Apple announced the iPad and Google announced that it wants to deploy 1 gigabit (1 billion bits/per second or 125Mbytes/second) internet service to selected communities. In both press campaigns there were allusions to enabling new rich applications. Given the hyperbole that tends to emanate from the tech sector it would be easy to dismiss such proclamations as just more geek bullshit…., that’s right, I used the word geek. Bullshit shouldn’t offend

Apple might have some sense of how the iPad will drive these “rich, new” apps. As arrogant as they  can be at times, Apple knows products, and  is smart enough not to try and impose an all-reaching narrative on the iPad/app story arc. The feature set for the iPad, at least the initial version seems reasonable. As usual, they’ll improve the hardware platform over time . I am also pretty sure, given recent history, they’ll use the App store to help nudge things in the “right” direction.

Google, a relative newcomer (compared to Apple), has a somewhat tougher task in that their offering is more a service augmentation than straight up new product. True to form however, their hubris, and formidable corporate developer intellect should help them overcome some of the pitfalls this deployment may encumber. What remains to be seen, however, is how much of their storied prescience was brought to bear on the long term effects of this deployment. If they are smart, they will have already put together, locked and loaded, a developer community outside of Google primed and ready to go, because 1G to the house is a large pipe and there is more than just good hi-def media that could be enabled.

This is an infrequent event in the tech industry. Two titans each bringing potentially disruptive products /and or services to the consuming public. Each product/service being somewhat underestimated in its potential effect. The iPad is more than just a big iPhone, 1Gbit to the home is an awfully big pipe.

Apple and Google have asked us to “wait and see”. IMHO, I think that true results from either of these plays is a little further out then either of them knows. Good counsel would  be to do as they have asked, wait and see, give this some time…

So far, from what I have read/seen online , while not quite the second coming, I do see the iPad as something I will probably buy.

I don’t think the iPad is a complete replacement for my MBP (or the upgrade I intend this year) but when I am traveling for fun, it and my iPhone will travel with me and will pretty much cover all my online/communication/organizing needs. Not to

No, I won’t be able to fire up VNC, log into work and write some Systerm Verilog.No, there is no X11 server/client stack for it… yet

But I am pretty sure will be able to satisfy all my news/journal reading and offload my brain from stuff I have to remember. That’s good enough

I’ll be buying physical hard cover books though. Call me a luddite in that domain, I don’t care.

I won’t be buying one  one immediately. I’ll wait until the end of the year, when more of the production and design kinks are worked out. I suspect the price may drop a bit as well.

There you go,not nearly the epic tome you may have been inspecting. But then hey,

Earlier this week, Monday to be precise, I went to a panel discussion on the state of the SF Chronicle during the “transition” it finds itself in. “Transition” is such a nice word. The panelists included:

Historian Gray Brechin
Investigative Reporter Lowell Bergman
Multimedia journalist Kevin Weston
Public radio producer Holly Kernan
San Francisco civic leader Clint Reilly

Introduced by Dean Neil Henry,
Moderated by Senior Lecturer Susan Rasky

I am not going to pretend that I am a subject matter expert, at least from the producer end of things. I do consume news, lots of it so I am pretty knowledgeable in terms of what I want to read and how I want to read it. And yes, I am willing to pay for it.

As far as the panel was concerned, they were a pretty sympathetic bunch, and some even grok’ed the fact that what needs to be saved is journalism, and not necessarily the delivery mechanism. I personally believe that the demise of newsprint was a long time in the making if for no other reason than that most print media relies on advertising to subsidize their operations and subscriptions help to close the remaining revenue gap.

If that is the case, then it was only a matter of time before some other medium came along (seems this medium was the internet, or at least that is the spin, though the actual dollars taken from print media by the internet needs to actually be tallied, and I am sure someone has that information) and put a hurt on the advertising revenue news print took in.

I am sure I am naive with this observation but wouldn’t it have made sense to have a purely subscription driven business model (though that might not have allowed some pubs to even push a first edition)

The panel itself was pretty sympathetic to the Chronicle’s plight although I had to agree with Kevin Weston when he indicated that maybe the Chronicle was not serving the needs of the right communities.

Clint Reilly has put a lot of effort into saving the news print version of the Chronicle bless his soul but I suspect that in the long run this effort may be in vain

What concerns me is that no one had any idea of a model (profit or non-profit) which would seem to work. I guess I am wondering as to whether or not people are willing to pay for news. I know I am, but maybe something is wrong with me. How big is the online news market ?

Who, if anyone is paying for news ?

Where does one go if one wants to pay ?

During the panel discussion, there was a fair amount of talk on seeing to it that journalism covering local news was important. My first response was to disagree as I tend to be focused on international stuff but in thinking more about what actually potentially affects my pocket book, it would be local issues. So then the question is how does that get financed, and then for me, how does international reporting get financed. It was suggested that maybe the future lies insmaller news/journalist coops/consortiums but that did get a lot of discussion. The NPR reporter suggested the best, albeit impossible model, A magically funded 700 person news room. We all chuckled at how nice that would be, but hey, I believe in Santa Claus too.

Newsprint kept coming up over and over again, I just didn’t get it, seems to me that newsprint is an anachronism at this point, though I can’t suggest a more robust replacement for it….

I am worried, we don’t know what we will lose if local, national, and international are weakened further beyond their current levels. Can you imagine what the coverage of the financial crisis would have been like if the fourth estate had degenerated further than it already has….

Pay for content, its the only way to go…, but pay the actual producers and not their middlemen