Apolitically Incorrect » Digital Lifestyle

Patronage in the Digital Age

Rob Oakes — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:20:22 +0000

As wonderful as the internet may be, it causes a lot of problems. For starters, it is putting newspapers out of business. It’s also radically changing how artists, writers and musicians make their living. And in case you weren’t paying attention, it’s starting to look like a crisis.

Different groups have responded to the impending collapse of publishing in different ways. Some writers sell sponsorships for their books and then offer an acknowledgement when it is printed. Many musicians have adopted the self-publishing and distribution tools long available to authors, leading to experiments like Amazon’s CreateSpace. And there are those who have gone the route of directly asking for contributions and donations to support their work; the digital equivalent of a performer passing the hat, you might say.

The problem is that some of these experiments are running head-long into good old American sensibility and propriety. There are even people saying that some of the new content generation schemes are inappropriate; including that old bastion of American common sense, Ms. Manners. Manners has even gone so far as to say that for a novelist to ask for a contribution is the same as begging, or panhandling.

She says it like it’s a bad thing. The simple truth is that artists, musicians and storytellers have long been beggars. The content industry of the 20 industry is a tremendously new invention, and as I noted above, it’s running into another time tested American value: frugality and a love of private property.

In fact, there seems to be this attitude that, “After I’ve purchased the novel or CD, I own the work and ideas. I’ve invested in its creation.” This little nugget rears it’s head most commonly when discussing music. Even the great Steve Jobs has been known to say, “People don’t want to rent music, they want to own it.”

Except … that’s bullshit. An interesting idea, or a well written book, or a beautiful piece of music isn’t like paying for a hamburger. You aren’t reimbursing someone for providing you a good or service. And I’m frankly shocked that anyone would think that Beethoven’s 9th Symphony or Antonio Vivaldi’s “Four Seasons” is only worth the price that paid on iTunes. The true worth is far greater than the price of admission. Would you seriously think yourself exploited for buying a second recording, or for paying to hear it at a concert?

Of course, that’s when people can be bothered to pay for content at all. An exacerbating factor is that many people expect ideas to be free or very inexpensive. How many times have you heard a variant of this argument, “I would buy more music (or books) if it wasn’t so expensive! Nine dollars for an album is just out of my budget!” Ironically, these same people don’t blanch at dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars for an iPod or iPhone.

While bad, this attitude can further devolve into something much more poisonous: “The artist owes me for reading, viewing or listening to their work. My piracy is helpful! After all, I am promoting them and making them famous!” But being famous doesn’t pay the bills. There have been many authors, artists or musicians who lived in squalor while enjoying enormous fame and prestige.

A music or literature pirate might even justify their position by saying, “I’m sticking it to the music industry (or publishing industry), they’re a bunch of greedy pigs!” And the pirate might have a point, if he weren’t doing far more damage to the creator of the content than to its distributor. Big businesses like record labels and big publishing houses don’t respond to that attitude by lowering prices or dealing fairly with their customers. Rather, they become more draconian in how that content is disseminated. Ever wonder why Digital Rights Management (DRM) and related technologies were born? It might just have something to do with the American sense of entitlement.

Clearly, something needs to change. Artists and musicians can continue to experiment with different pricing and distributions schemes, but I remain rather unconvinced that it will have a lasting effect. What we really need is a return to the patronage system of old, with a few major modifications. Certainly, artists should continue to sell recordings, books and other tangible goods. But the public should also undergo a shift in our attitudes and ideas about what the arts are and how we support them. That might mean that we transform our understanding of what a “donation” is.

When buying a book or donating to a writer, it’s foolish to think that you are somehow providing a fair compensation for the ideas and entertainment that you receive. Instead, it is much healthier to view your contribution as a support so that the artist can continue to create future content. This notion actually fits in pretty well with the concept of Fair Trade.

We also need to understand that the price we pay for a book or CD isn’t about the value of the materials. Textbooks aren’t expensive because they are printed on beautiful paper with artwork and in color; they’re expensive because researching and writing their content is hard. For example, the “Contributors and Reviewers” page for Gray’s Anatomy (the anatomical guide, not the television show) lists sixty different authors and content reviewers, though only the editor and chief is credited on the cover.

Except, how do you actually bring about the needed shift in attitudes and culture?

…

That’s an excellent question, and I’m not sure that I can offer any insight. The Europeans have tried to shape public perception through generous subsidies. But direct governmental support of news agencies and publishers is controversial for good reason. As a cure, it might even be worse than the illness. If you’ve got any ideas, let’s hear ‘em!

Living with Google Voice

Rob Oakes — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:25:20 +0000

I don’t really like telephones all that much. I understand that they are a necessity of modern existence and can be greatly convenient, but that doesn’t make them pleasant. They ring incessantly and result in virtual slavery to an overly complicated lifestyle. Keeping track of callers on a home phone, a cell phone and a work phone is a nasty piece of business. It usually means running two (or three) separate voicemail inboxes. And there is nothing worse than battling voice mail after a long weekend. Nothing.

Luckily, Google agrees with me. In 2006, Google acquired a California based start-up called GrandCentral. GrandCentral had a pretty simple vision of phones: they should work for people. That means one number that never changes, for life. Here’s the vision: landlines change, cell phones change and work numbers change. It is far more convenient to provide people with a single number that can ring to work, home and cell. One number instead of three.

GrandCentral did all sort of other nifty things too, like send e-mails when a new voice mail arrived, let you transfer calls between phones, screen callers before choosing to answer, and automatically direct individuals based on who they are or what day it is (useful for sending the boss to voice mail after 5:30 pm). Even David Pogue of the New York Times had nice things to say.

But for everything it did well, GrandCentral also had some rough edges. For one, it didn’t support text messages. Thus, when I experimented with GrandCentral a year ago, I also had to give out my cell-phone number. And while I would tell people to call me on the GrandCentral line, said people preferred to call me on the cell phone. After all, they wanted to make sure that I would answer; never mind that GrandCentral would ring to my cell office and home all at the same time.

At some point. Google decided that they would overhaul the service and GrandCentral shuttered its doors to the public. And while the service remained active for people who were already subscribers, I found that GrandCentral became a fancy business number due to its limitations. Today, after nearly 21 months of development, Google announced GrandCentral 2.0: Google Voice. I think it’s fair to say that Google’s developers took off the rough edges.

Familiar Vision, New Features

In addition to the the features of GrandCentral, Google Voice includes:

Text Messaging. Google added full support for SMS messaging. You can send and receive an unlimited number of alphanumeric characters through the web or from a cell phone.
Conference Calls and Call Recording. Have you ever needed to take a message, but don’t have anything to write on? Google Voice makes it very easy to record parts of a conversation. Just hit 4 on the keypad to start and stop recording the conversation.
Voice Mail Transcription. All of your voice mail messages are automatically transcribed by the industrious gnomes of voice recognition.
Directory Assistance (GOOG-411)
Integration with Google Contacts.

Though I’ve only been using the expanded service for a few days, Google Voice has already begun to change how I think about telecommunications. To illustrate why, let’s look at one of the most hated part of any phone system: voicemail. Quite often, I know that there is important information in a message; but to get to that message requires listening to 15 other messages of crap. Sure, I can skip those messages and slog through them later, but that leads to a cluttered inbox. Cluttered inboxes aren’t good and well meaning phone companies have created ways to ensure that you don’t accumulate horrific numbers of old messages. Verizon’s strategy, in particular, is tantamount to torture. Prior to retrieving new messages, you have to manage old ones.

Google Voice changes this. Voicemail messages and text messages are now filed into an inbox that is wonderfully similar to GMail The phone number and contact information of the caller, in addition to a transcribed copy of the message. It’s really easy to delete unsolicited, old or unimportant messages. Important new messages can be retrieved first, before voicemail fatigue sets in. Simply awesome!

Attention to Detail

It gets better. One of GrandCentral’s neatest features was the ability to route calls based on who was calling. Work calls could be sent to a special after-hours message box or calls from family could immediately be routed to ring to the cell-phone. Tremendously convenient! But GrandCentral had no easy way to import existing contact information. As a result, it was a huge amount of work to program this feature for all but the most common callers. In contrast, Google Voice is integrated with GMail and the Google address book. The same address book that can be synced with iPhone! With the contact information already there, it’s easy to create groups and apply rules.

Similar attention to detail has been given to text messaging. While other services would forward text messages, responses had to be sent via a web interface. Google Voice, on the other hand, let’s you respond to forwarded text messages right from your phone (even from my decidedly outdated, non-smart cell). Thanks to Google Voice, I don’t need to give out my cell-phone number to communicate with the modern American teenager.

And thus we arrive to my favorite change to the service. Through Google Voice, all calls placed with the continental United States are free and calls overseas are cheap. For example, calls to the United Kingdom are a mere 2 cents per minute. In comparison, Verizon or Comcast charge nearly $1.49 per minute for the same call. The prospect of free national long distance and text messaging, combined with ridiculously cheap international provides real options to simplify my phone plan. In a tight economy where I need to save every penny, this is a welcome development!

If there is a weakness in the service, it is making out-bound calls. There are two ways to do this: 1) through the web app or 2) by dialing the Google Voice number. Option 2 can be a tremendous pain, though it is a pain I’ll put up with for free national long-distance. Luckily, options 1 is both easy and convenient. Need to make an appointment with a business colleague? Find him in your Google address book and click “Call.” Google Voice will automatically connect the call and ring you on your phone of choice. The Google Voice number appears on the caller ID and all is generally right with the world.

Conclusion

The net result is revolutionary. Voice does for phones what Google’s original algorithm did for search: it completely transforms how you think about telecommunications. If the phone companies aren’t scared yet, they should be. The search giant is saying that it wants to be the world’s communications hub, in addition to its keeper of knowledge. Google Voice will change the status quo in fundamentally wonderful ways. I hope that the telcom giants are paying attention and are willing to adapt. If not, they will probably cease to exist.

Edit – March 17, 2009: Even though GrandDialer worked for the first several days after I converted to the new service, it has since stopped responding. This is a tremendous shame, since GrandDialer nicely integrated my iPod Touch into GrandCentral. It is my hope that either Google or some enterprising developer will create its equivalent. I have edited the entry accordingly.