|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: August 06, 2002 WebWord Comment -- I'm wondering if we need to fill the pipes. I've been thinking about broadband and bandwidth and I think that perhaps we need to encourage more people to create bandwidth-sucking applications and tools. Such applications should make us drool and stare in amazement. Maybe we need to to get kicked into broadband so that in turn we can kick those people that provide it. I wonder if it is time to find out how much pain people are willing to experience to get good content and applications. Napster helped us understand what people will do for music, now what about videos, cartoons, and so forth? What do you think? I suppose that this whole discussion is an old one: supply push versus demand pull. It just seems to me that if we enourage more people to create more material for fat pipes that the internet will more effectively evolve.
Reader Comments...
Free not Fat, Free not Fat, Free not Fat My cable company (UK) restrict access to certain file types in the name of 'efficiency', but actually they want to make sure I don't start getting my movies from anyone else. They won't let me run my own website by crippling my upload rate and not letting me have an IP address. At the moment Broadband is about control, and I would urge people to boycot boradband while there's still time. I'd prefer to stick to my 56K modem rather than accept the promise of rich content at the price of my soul. Posted by: Mac on August 6, 2002 10:06 AM
Would be nice to see the internet applications move beyond the UI constraints of the browser. This would be a big plus for more bandwidth.
Mac, if you ignore the complex business issues behind the broadband industry and instead focus on the user experience and the technology, do you think you argument against broadband still applies? In other words, are you throwing the baby (broadband) with the bathwater (broadband providers)? Also, while I don't believe it at all, perhaps some companies really do need to restrict access to ensure growth and profits. What would you think about broadband if it was free and open, made public in some way by some organization or the government?
I'm still waiting for the compelling argument for broadband. The expense/benefit ratio is extreme. The Internet is not essential. Water, garbage, electric and phone bills are essential. Some might say cable TV is essential. There's nothing essential about fast Internet access, especially at $45-60/month. There are a few exceptions (ex: online gaming, diehard fanatics, wealthy individuals, business applications, etc.). I suspect the people who have broadband fit those exceptions. Just last night I was looking at alternatives to my cable modem because it requires me to pay for cable TV service I do not use. DSL is out-of-range. No microwave. Satellite is a few hundred bucks more per year, plus questionable access in bad weather. I know web designers who do not have Internet access at home and/or don't even own a computer anymore. I always thought that to be bizarre, but I'm beginning to understand. My life is pretty darn busy and the Internet has lost its luster. Posted by: Jack on August 6, 2002 11:43 AM
John, I have had a think about this and focusing on the 'user experience and technology' I can honestly say that I think we should do without broadband. You have already explained why constraints aren't necessarily a bad thing, and can actually encourage innovation and creativity. The point has already been made elsewhere that making sites accessible can also make them more usable. Well maybe having to think about limited bandwidth can help up design and build more usable sites. If broadband does begin to take over, then we may be in the situation where we have a 2 tier Internet. With lots of focus and energy being expended on 'byte candy' for the FatBanders, whilst the SlowNet Peasants get left to rot. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that Ted Nelson is right, and that this road may be a dead end. Perhaps there is a better way? Posted by: Mac on August 6, 2002 11:43 AM
I think that with the fall of the dot.com, there's nobody left to provide push without demand. If everyboy use the internet only for email and use traditional medium for broadband content, we will have to wait a long time before we can watch old "I love Lucy" on the Internet... Posted by: Richard Lehoux on August 6, 2002 12:10 PM
John I think the first thing you need to do is convince the telco's of a viable business model that does not mean taking out a second mortgage to pay the monthly subscription.
John, do I understand your suggestion correctly? Are you asking companies to spend money to invest in content that's appropriate to broadband, and hope dial-up users will see how poor the experience is, and then, rather than say, this was hell and I'm not coming back, they would say, gee, this would be a whole lot better if I had broadband? I don't completely agree with Jack that and the "it's only the Internet" argument - - I do think that the Internet can mean more to people - - but I don't think this is the way to go... In my view, there are enough rich sites out there, that if a company wants to push broadband, they should set up broadband kiosks in malls where people can try broadband content in a broadband setting. (I was about to mention a failed past effort to show baseball games using broadband, but then remembered that satellite dish packages serve that pretty well... Maybe Jack's right: it will take a unique app not served by other channels to make it happen.) Until it does, I think the company with the real opportunity here is Opera. That graphics toggle in the tool bar really helps with dial-up. Posted by: Frank on August 6, 2002 12:16 PM
But do we even want to watch "I Love Lucy" via the Internet? There is no broadband issue with broadcast or cable TV. Why push full-screen video into a medium that cannot handle it and whose users do not want it? I would say this is a failed idea from the dot-com boom, but hasn't Micro$oft been making some rumblings about the PC becoming the new home entertainment center? As if. Posted by: Jack on August 6, 2002 12:17 PM
I think the difference is "on demand." I can't rent "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" in my neighborhood, but I still think my kid would like to see it. Who knows when TBS will run it again? Posted by: Frank on August 6, 2002 02:00 PM
Hmm...very good discussion. Thanks for all the interesting thoughts and ideas. Here is what I am thinking right now, at this moment. 1. What I like is interactivity. I really hate most electronic media that is passive. For example, I can't stand most TV. I can't stand most radio. I think that most movies are crap. If I could have substantially more control or TV, radio, movies, and so forth, I would be happy. 2. When I think about what I want in terms of interactivity, I think about what I outlined just above. In most ways, this feels like what I want from broadband. Rich media (e.g., video) that I have extreme control over. I want to see it when I want to see, I want to edit it, and I want a lot more. Seems like I need broadband for it. Oh, I also want it to be fresh and I want it now. Therefore, I (usually) won't just be satisfied to go buy it from a store. I want to download it now and then...engage! 3. One of the reasons video games are getting more and more kickass, is that they offer what I outline above: rich experience, mega control, interactivity, and more. In my mind, video games are broadband-in-a-box with some networking thrown in, in many cases. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is why I think that the video game market is growing so rapidly. Well, that and the fact that the Atari generation is getting older and richer. What do you say? I'm I a quack? Do you agree? Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 6, 2002 02:19 PM
Regarding your "on demand" comment Frank, I think this is why TiVo is so popular. You have control. Here's an interesting application: Merge TiVo with easy editing and gameplay. That is, take the data stream from a TiVo and give people the ability to play with it. Change characters, sounds, colors, and so forth. Add some competition to it, or contests for best manipulation of content. Or, add some shotguns and frag grenades. Really take out Barney, or force the Seinfeld crew to attack the cast of Friends. Ha! Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 6, 2002 02:25 PM
I channel surf because most TV programs are boring, unoriginal or just plain bad. When I channel surf I get exposed to a bevy of shows I would never choose from a TV listing guide (History Channel, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and sometimes even CSPAN!). If you give me complete control over watching what I want when I want, I'll get so bored I'll stop watching television. I like TV stations providing the programming for me. As crude as they are, the TV/Cable networks act as a content gatekeeper. I record maybe one show per week. If I miss a show, I must be pretty busy. I'll catch it as a rerun, or live with the pain of having missed a show. I think my life will be the better for it. Posted by: Jack on August 6, 2002 02:45 PM
What we should all do is give up TV, radio, and the internet for a while. Just for fun. That would help us know what is really important and what is not. I think very few things would have value. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 6, 2002 02:50 PM
Interesting comments... Nielsen begins monitoring TiVo usage Will this now symbolize the decline of "user control" over TiVo? My personal observations lead me to believe that marketers have the anti-Midas touch. Everything they put their hands on begins to turn to shit and chip away at the larger user experience. It's funny actually...TiVo users tend to be mac-like fanatical about their units and once an audience like that is built, the marketers swarm in like buzzards changing the device to accomodate advertisers and merchants. The result is a lesser product that seems to cater more to add-on functions then what the thing was originally designed to do. But I digress...good comments here. jonathan
Jack I am not to sure that users don't want it...more that they don't want it as it is today. I think that once the services and the infrastructure is in place (i.e. based around users needs and wants) this will lead to the next evolutionary step of the Internet. One needs to remember that we are not the entire user population. Posted by: JB on August 6, 2002 02:55 PM
John, I think you inadvertantly nailed it on the head. CONTROL. You want to see it when you want, edit it, interact with it and make it your own. Outside of games, the big boys who control the information don't want you controlling their copyrighted material. People can't sample tracks anymore without litigation, film companies want to crash down on user-edited versions of their popular films (i.e., Phantom Menace), etc. That's where the bottleneck is. CONTROL of the pipe, CONTROL of the pricing, CONTROL of the content. Posted by: Darin on August 6, 2002 03:19 PM
We're all sheep. The sooner we accept it, the sooner we can go about being good little consumers. Forget silly ideas like "you own what you buy" and concepts such as "fair use." Those are dangerous ideas that will soon land you in jail. CONTROL implies a degree of freedom. Your free days are numbered. Posted by: Jack on August 6, 2002 03:31 PM
OK, so I'm cynical. When I ask myself "Is the Internet a better place than it was a year ago?" and after I adjust my answer for factors that would skew the results (for example: I don't consider the increase in the number of people coming online because that will always be rising), well, one of these days I'll have to respond: "no." So far we have enjoyed new technologies, standards, protocols, etc. that have increased communication and how we interact with information. However, legislators are increasingly treating their constituents as criminals. It won't be too long before the Internet changes from an environment based on "what we want" to one based on "what corporations and governments want." Fanatics worry about the "new world order" with one government ruling everything. I'm a tad more concerned that we practically already live in a "one world operating system." When the corporations and legislators choose to impose the will upon us, they will already have the means to do so: Microsoft. Back to the original topic... bandwidth. I don't need a fat pipe. I'm not interested in a future where a handful of companies control what we see and hear. What will bandwidth give us? Rented software. Rented movies. Rented music. Rented everything. No more ownership. Anyone want to buy my PC? I'm going to install kitchen cabinets for a living. Posted by: Jack on August 6, 2002 04:31 PM
Someone will develop a nice little stand-alone app for computers based on a similar idea to Instant Messaging. People to people communication, via video, recorded at webcam quality on computers with webcams and other internet connected devices. Messages will download in the background, first informing of their arrival when they are ready for playback. Users with broadband will love it. People on slow Internet connections will be able to fully participate, but the choking of the 56K modem will definitely be noticeable, and irritating enough to push users steadily toward broadband. When a "buddy" is online, the video will be sent peer to peer. Sending messages to offline buddies will require payment. The app will not come from Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, or anyone else with existing networks of advertisers or software with which to integrate it, and thereby mess up both its usability and utility. It will be stand-alone, no-strings attached, and people will feel like they control it, and that they can trust it. Posted by: Lyle on August 6, 2002 04:49 PM
What's the driving force here? What are the priorities? The needs and abilities of the people who will use or be affected by the use of the products, the needs and capabilities of the technologies, or the desires of businesses promoting the technologies? Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 6, 2002 05:05 PM
Hearing Jack's rants via .mp3 = 3 mb Seeing Jack's rants via .avi = 6 mb schonchin@_just_sit_back_this_won't_hurt_a_bit_.yah priceless. Posted by: sean on August 6, 2002 05:15 PM
Watching TV/movies on a computer will not become a mainstream thing. DTV will reach that space long before any PC/TV convergeance comes about. I would never equate an increase of bandwidth with a rich experience. Does Flash MX have that stigma? (I haven't used it yet). Besides Flash MX, there are a handful of players in the "beyond the browser" space right now: Rebol http://www.rebol.com These products are pretty damn good. I've used the first two extensively, and their aim is to provide rich, native-app like interactivity with little/no bloat. In the case of Rebol/IOS, I actually think they've **over-delivered**. It's not until you experience network-aware thin client apps that you realize this odd new market could have legs. Hopefully the bad rap of Flash doesn't thwart progress in this area. Posted by: Dusty Bottoms on August 6, 2002 05:41 PM
John, yes Tivo will help if there is a showing of "The Incredible Limpet," but then there is planning. Tivo won't answer for my spontaneous interest in having the opportunity to say to my child, "Gee, I'm sorry, I remembered it being better." Posted by: Frank on August 6, 2002 06:15 PM
John, your original comment bothers me, and I'm trying to put my finger on why that is. I think it's because you make it sound like broadband and fat pipes is a good thing in its own right, and that it is somehow necessary for the internet to "evolve". This is too much like saying that the increased availability of nippy little sports cars is crucial to the continued wellbeing of (off-line) society. Having access basic access to a PC, and the internet--regardless of the speed of your link--is just now *beginning* to be foundational in a societal and educational sense. Advocating bigger and richer media applications over faster and fatter pipes is a sport for the rich and privileged that pays heed neither to social nor economic good practices. Where the real opportunities for the internet lie, and where the real wealth (in both monetary and less tangible forms) will be created, is in getting more of the world's population on-line. (Metcalfe's law: the value of a network increases with the square of its size.) If most people were to prioritise what they want out of the internet, it would probably look like this: In western society, we're well into phase 1. That first wave has seen applications like email, Amazon, and Ebay. Phase 2 has--so far--brought us instant messaging. What has phase 3 actually delivered that wasn't already available (albeit more slowly) by phases 1 and 2? I think the next real innovations on the internet will come from the always-on-ness of our connections. The next round of wealth will be supplied by the original, basic phase 1 applications. (See how Hotmail, Yahoo, et al. are all starting to charge for their webmail?) Right now, phase 3 is only good for art, and those of us with more money than sense. And yes, I'm writing this over a broadband link. ;-) Posted by: Martin Sutherland on August 6, 2002 06:18 PM
One aspect often not considered when discussing broadband content is the issue of hosting - serving up huge amounts of video, audio and animation costs a fortune in hardware and bandwidth. Most sites are struggling already, they certainly can't afford hosting bills several times higher, leaving the way clear for the major sites with deeper pockets to dominate. I have to consciously avoid using large files on my own sites, as I know it'd only take one link from a fairly popular site to cause problems. I'd love to use video, but broadband hosting's beyond my budget. (I'm still on a 56k modem at home, as ADSL is unlikely to work and cable TV is unavailable; at work I've got a lovely 2Meg line)
Off-topic aside: Matt, very good point re wanting to avoid chewing up host bandwidth on your own site. Are you familiar with blogger Josh Marshall? Aside from gif's asking for donations and book covers, the photos he uses are linked off other sites' pages, thereby chewing up their bandwidth, rather than his. I don't know how much traffic he gets, or whether the other webmasters know/care about this... But I know it happens at other sites, because there's a site on using DNA as evidence (believe it or not) that actually links back to the image on the picture page on my Samuel Johnson web site. (The guy has a page including Johnson's comments on being an attorney.) Posted by: Frank on August 6, 2002 07:36 PM
Bandwidth is just a pipe. It's what you get over that pipe that really delivers value. Fatter pipes can deliver value faster. I just moved and was looking to get DSL - no go - too far away. Cable is a year off. My area phone lines are crap and can only deliver 26k dial-up connections. The reason I want broadband is so that when I dial in to work to check email running my rich, fat-client (Outlook) it doesn't take over 10 minutes to load. Of course some better design on the part of Microsoft would've helped too (Hey Bill, it's called background processes and multi-tasking - look up OS/2 for examples). To me broadband equals time: less load time, faster access and downloads of research materials, and occasionally mp3's I might find or audio samples when buying music. Keep your TV and Movies -- I can get enough of that crap on the boob tube if I want to waste 20% of my time watching ads. More valuable "killer apps" will deliver broadband - broadband won't invent killer apps. Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on August 6, 2002 11:06 PM
We can only get so far by speaking in generalities. We build and visit specific sites for specific reasons. Which version do you prefer? Why? Posted by: sean on August 6, 2002 11:37 PM
The thing that will drive people to Broadband is lower cost. Give them broadband at the same price as dial up and who wouldn't switch? Then sell additional services (movies, applications, tools, etc.) at an extra cost for people who want them. Most people won't see these "bandwidth-sucking applications and tools" until they have basic broadband service first. Right now, who wants another monthly bill? Who feels that they don't already pay enough in monthly bills? Who wants to increase the money they pay out every month? Most people don't feel the advantage of broadband is worth the extra cost. Give it to them for the same price and they'll see the advantage. Posted by: Jim on August 7, 2002 08:52 AM
Good thread. IMHO best comment is from Lyle. Broadband/fat pipes don't do anything, they enable useful applications. So - there are those above who see some useful apps, those that don't see useful apps, (and those who think it's all a plot to control our lives.) I'm with the useful apps crowd. Broadband=time for me and I like it. Not sure how I'm being controlled; I can go to any site I want (or not). Posted by: mcw on August 7, 2002 09:58 AM
Just read an interesting article about this topic. It puts the case that the most important aspects of braodband are:
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |