Vitamin T

Is the Media the Next Open Source Frontier?

The idea of ‘Open Source Media’ is so popular that two companies have been fighting over the name.  Pajamas Media got off to a rough start this week when the company launched itself under the name ‘Open Source Media,’ which is already owned by a non-profit organization.  Although off to a rocky start, Pajamas Media is a great example of how the open source model is changing the media business. Open source media differs from traditional media in that the content is owned by everyone and can be widely distributed, changed or modified using certain licenses. 

I believe that open source media will not end up as a passing fad.  I predict that in only five years, most people will regularly receive news and information from sources that don’t exist today.

The California Audio Report recently produced a great podcast, “Podcasting Becomes A Business” about how media content is currently developed by a tiny fraction of the people who consume it.  Today we have very little choice where we get news and information.  But the Internet infrastructure in combination with technologies such as blogging and podcasting provide the basis for virtually anyone to create and distribute information.  Add google to the mix, and the stage is set for a paradigm shift that will have a paramount effect on the way information is created, distributed and consumed. 

If everyone is creating and distributing content, the potential plethora of information may seem daunting.  But although everyone may want their own talk show, there will most likely only be a few that you’ll care to listen to. 

I believe that the most significant impact from open source media will be a much more diverse set of voices, opinions and analysis readily available to everyone around the world – verses listening to a few voices that media companies choose to air.

- Barbara Reichert, Reichert Communications

Coming Soon: Phone Commercials

CRAIG: Hi Meghan...According to CTIA watchers, it would appear that mobile advertising will soon be coming to a cell phone near you!  Just imagine, before you can download that Ashlee Simpson ringtone you've always wanted, you'll be treated to a 30-second spiel on how your lifestyle could be dramatically enhanced through the use of prescription Viagra.  I'm looking forward to this new technology advancement about as much as my next dental appointment.  What do you think?

MEGHAN: In a recent survey, In Stat found that “20% of wireless phone users would find some form of advertising on their mobile handsets to be acceptable. Of that group, roughly half were open to having advertisers subsidize the cost of premium services such as directory assistance, ringtones and messaging.”  If that’s the case, let the advertisers help bring down the costs of premium services and keep our monthly phone bills low! 

CRAIG: If only 20% of wireless users would find phone advertising acceptable, that means 80% do not.  I agree that subsidization is a great idea, but how much of a cost reduction would actually occur?  It's more likely that phone charges won't change at all.  Perhaps it would reduce the costs incurred by the providers, but how likely is it that those cost savings will be passed down to the little people like us?  Consider this similar example: Have commercials at the movie theater improved the quality of the movies or decreased the unreasonable amount of money people have to pay for movie tickets?  Alas, no.  In fact, suffering through intolerable cinematic crud like Gigli or Alexander costs more than ever! 

The question remains: if consumers have already revolted against telemarketing calls during dinner, what makes wireless companies believe people want advertisers to be able to reach them at the dinner table and beyond?  At least the telemarketers of old were limited by the length of the cord.

Surfers and Moochers

A couple years ago, the guy who lived in the condo above me was stealing my Internet.  He was an unsavory fellow, recently unemployed and living off a second mortgage, ingratiatingly irritating, and perpetually high—the kind of character who would start his own interior decorating business based having successfully completed a sixth-month, one-wall painting project in his own bedroom (he still has one of my paint brushes!).

About 11pm every night, just before I went to bed, I would notice my router come to life, its green and yellow buttons flashing notice of activity.  I knew it was him because he was stupid enough to thank me once.  Sometimes he would be surfing for hours before I noticed, and sometimes I saw the lights right away.  Regardless, I would start cursing, slam my hand against the wall, turn off the router, and then resume cursing.  If only I could have figured out how to secure my router (simple installation took me eight-and-a-half hours)!

I can’t explain exactly why it upset me so much.  Maybe it’s for the same reason Jerry would get upset whenever dead-beat Kramer raided his fridge without an invitation.  But if Kramer swiped two apples and a Kit-Kat without permission, a tangible crime was committed.  When my neighbor stole my Internet air, the loss was strictly psychological—but I still felt truly violated.

Apparently, Net theft is a growing problem. But is piggy-baking on a neighbor’s wireless service really stealing?  How much of a crime has been committed?  How do you draw a line in the metaphorical sand of cyberspace? 

--Craig Kaufman, Reichert Communications

Cell Phones & Kids

When my friend with a 4-month old baby asked me about when I thought an appropriate time to get a child a cell phone was, I have to admit I was shocked she was already thinking about this topic. She was already thinking about how she was going to keep in touch with her child the first time he went somewhere on his own. But she was also concerned about what he might be exposed to and what he could access via a cell phone with all of today’s capabilities.

Then there are the health concerns. Do cell phones cause tumor or impair cognitive function? Taraka Serrano, a health advocate associated with BIOPRO Technology, writes about the health risks in her article: Cell Phones Endanger Children. But I think my friend’s bigger concern was that her son could be the target of exploitation, bullying and invasion of privacy as well as have the possibility of ringing up a phone bill that could get out-of-hand.

As Larry Magid aptly points out in his article Talk to Your Kids About Cell Phone Use, “When you put a cell phone in children's hands, you're giving them access to the world and the world access to them, including when they're away from home and parental supervision. What's more, today's cell phones are not just mobile telephones. They're also Web browsers, instant messengers and e-mail terminals. In other words, just about everything you can do from an Internet-connected PC, you can also do from a cell phone.” All these exposure points give a parent a lot to worry about.

What limits are appropriate to set with your children when it comes to cell phone use? Should you give them full access to all functions and features available or limit their use somehow? Also, what is an appropriate age to allow a child to carry a cell phone?

-- Pamela Klores, Reichert Communications

See No eGadgets, Hear No eGadgets

As far as tech enthusiasts go, I’m a bit more reluctant than most.  That’s because when I’m not rallying excitement for a client’s revolutionary new product as a public relations professional, I’m busy explaining the inner-workings of pronoun agreement to college freshmen.  My “extracurricular” job as an English instructor has provided me with a unique technology perspective.  I have seen the dark side. 

Teachers are on the front lines of the fight to preserve face-to-face, human-to-human interaction.  Last semester, one student in particular—a lump of blond hair, baggy clothes and sulking facade—tested my patience.  She always sat in the back row of my class, looking down and smiling at her lap.  In the past, this type of unusual behavior might have been construed as an unintentional plea for psychological assistance.  But today’s tortured teacher knows that laps are seldom empty anymore.  There’s usually a gadget of some sort competing against you for the student’s attention.  Sure enough, I spent the entire semester trying to pry her reluctant hands from the type pad on her text-enabled cell phone. 

Sometimes you win; sometimes the gadget wins.  But as more and more, smaller and smaller tech toys surface, the more treacherous the battlefield becomes for us—the human society soldiers.  I have lost my share of battles—when a student enters my class with one ear plugged into a mobile phone headset, the other ear plugged into a tiny MP3 device, a hand clenching a Palm Pilot, and a web of indistinguishable wires spilling out from the slightly opened zipper of his backpack, I start to imagine how Napoleon must have felt at Waterloo.

So when Time Magazine describes a new gadget like the Oakley Thump MP3 Sunglasses as possibly being the “tuxedo shirt of the tech-generation,” pardon my sigh.  Now, in addition to covering your eyes, the windows to your soul, you can also, at the same time, keep people out of your ears, the highway to your brain. 

Technology is supposed to improve life.  And more often than not, it does.  But we’ve also seen what it can take from us.  Viewers don’t have the patience to watch more than a 5-second sound byte on cable news screens crowded with scrolls, charts and logos.  Second graders are playing with computers rather than each other.  You have to pay to talk to a human at your bank. The guy sitting next to you on the train pollutes your commute with his loud, tireless chorus of, “Can you here me now?”

I love new technology—my portable DVD player, my MP3 device, my camera phone.  I’d have an easier time giving up a kidney.  But I realize what many of my students do not: sometimes you have to unplug to be plugged in. 

The text-obsessed blond student with the baggy clothes failed my class, and ultimately flunked out of college.  I couldn’t get through to her.  There was too much tech in the way.

--Craig Kaufman, Reichert Communications LLC

To All the TV Junkies

I used to think portable television was cool. I even bought my fiance a mini TV, just last Spring, to bring on car rides so he wouldn’t miss the game. However his device is not even close to what will lie ahead with cellular TV.

Couch potatoes and TV junkies take note. There is new meaning to anytime, anywhere and this time it is not just voice service.

It just amazes me how far the market will go with cell phone applications. The latest thing to hit is television on your cell phone. No need to rush home to catch your favorite shows like American Idol or Desperate Housewives, just turn on your phone and watch your show directly on your mobile handset.

In the past 6 months U.S. and European operators have announced plans to offer television on subscriber phones. In February, Verizon launched V CAST, its mobile TV service available in 30 U.S. metro areas. Recently, European operator Orange, jumped on board and announced the availability of LIVE TV to its customers. Costs are not outrageous either, V CAST will go for roughly $15 a month and Orange is offering a free 3 month trial. Much cheaper than my home cable service.

In a recent Business Week article, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_20/b3933405.htm, reporter Burt Helm reports on Verizon’s service as well as gives review of television enabled phones.

Before you know it we will be watching television everywhere, in line at the DMV, on the train, on our lunch hour, in the parks, the places will be end less. But what if mobile TV becomes an annoyance and brings even further danger to cell phone use--like if people watch TV while driving a car? Isn’t it bad already that drivers are distracted by voice calls and text messages. With cellular TV we could be in for a whole new set of annoyances and problems.

Let me know your thoughts? Do you embrace cellular TV? Have you tried it?

- Meghan O'Driscoll, Reichert Communications

Will We Ever Use Video Phones?

Watching the Jetsons as a kid I remember thinking my future would be similar to theirs. I thought for sure all my phone conversations would have a visual aspect. The technology for video phones has existed since AT & T showed the PicturePhone at the 1964 World's Fair. Forty years have passed and there is still no wide acceptance.

Initial barriers were due to cost and picture quality. Video phones and the price of calls were extremely high and the picture quality was extremely poor. Today with technological advances one would think the price of video calls would be inexpensive, not necessarily true according to a piece in PC Magazine, but compared to 1964 video calls are cheap. Still, the adoption of video phones has yet to take off even though the video quality these days is excellent (also noted in the PC Magazine article). Why is this so? Speculation leads experts to believe no one wants to be concerned about what they look like and what they are wearing when they answer the phone. Philip Swan at TVPredictions.com predicted at the end of 2004 that video phone adoption would finally take off, but I haven’t heard much about this in the first half of 2005. Wouldn’t it be nice to see friends and family and/or see new business acquaintances? Why have people been so reluctant to accept vide phones into their lives?

Why do you fear video phones, or do you think they are long overdue?

- Pamela Klores, Reichert Communications

CPUs and Monitors and Mainframes, Oh My!

If you’re like me you’ve got at least one old cellphone, computer monitor, or CPU moldering away in a dark corner somewhere.  There are many ways to dispose of these electronics beyond endless storage or dumping. 

Collectables

Some of those old tech gadgets you’ve been storing for twenty years are actually worth quite a bit.  If you happen to have an old Mainframe taking up all the space in your home like an electronic Godzilla, a collector might be willing to take it off your hands in order to preserve a bit of technology history.  In the BusinessWeek article “That’s Not Junk That’s Early Tech” Thane Peterson discusses some collectible technology.  Even Christie's is now auctioning computer memorabilia.  The most expensive item in its sale is a 1946 business plan for Electronic Control Co of Philadelphia, the predecessor to Unisys.  I wonder if anyone would like to collect that still working IBM PC Jr. circa 1984 or perhaps the Atari 5200 with assorted games?

Donations & Art

Many schools and individuals are willing to extend the working life of computers that are only a few years old.  In San Francisco people post on Craigslist both asking for and offering old computers.  Sometimes these computers also end-up broken down into their component parts and turned into notebook covers, pencil holders, or abstract art projects.

Recycle

If you aren’t lucky enough to own an early tech collectible, a potential piece of modern art, or a donation worthy computer; you can always locate a recycling center and pay to have your electronics disposed of responsibly.  In some cases this is actually a bit trickier than it sounds.  For instance, California’s Electronic Waste Recycling Law has been in effect since January 1, 2005 so you’d think it would be very easy to find an electronics recycling center in this state.   They are indeed easy to find through a state agency website (once you figure out which link to click.. see if you can figure it out) but, according to Karl Schoenberger, there are 212 state approved ewaste collectors and all of them have a different collection policy.  This results in hours spent calling around to the local ewaste collectors to determine what they take and how much it costs.  This seems very odd considering there is now a $10 fee attached to the purchase of new electronics which is supposed to help pay to recycle the old.  Schoenberger’s May 5^th, 2005 article “Glitches in e-waste law still being worked out” details the convoluted process by which the collectors and recyclers get compensated.

--Madge Miller, Reichert Communications

What is a Blog?

This may seem like a question with a simple straightforward answer, but as weblogs proliferate and begin to cross the line from personal hobbies to business initiatives, the definition of blog becomes harder to pin down.

Rebecca Blood, an early blogger, refers to the varieties of content you can find as part of a blog. There are the ‘traditional weblogs’ that filter news and information and ‘free-style blogs’ that offer individuals a chance for artistic inspiration. This post was written in 2000 and so she has not included the rise of the professional blogs such as the corporate blog, the journalist blog, or the industry analyst blog. Even the website Typepad, which hosts the Vitamin T blog, has trouble defining blogs resorting to soliciting bloggers to offer their own insights. According to Merriam-Webster a weblog is "a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer." Is a blog truly only a blog if it belongs to an individual and not a business?

The one overlapping theme in every blog is the desire to provide information and build a following. Does that make community building the fundamental requirement of blogs?  If this is the case, does lack of ability to communicate with the blogger mean that something is no longer a blog?  (see Pamela Klores’ posting Community Blogging)

Is something a blog simply because it is offered by a blogging site? Now that there are such household names as MSN, Yahoo!, and Google offering the technology to create a blog is it simply a given that all these newly created weblogs, despite frequency or content or community, are all blogs?

There is not yet one standard set of requirements that leap out to me as absolutely essential in creating a blog, but I do not agree with the idea that something is a blog just because it happens to be posted on a blogging site. What is your definition of a blog?

- Madge Miller, Reichert Communications

Outlook is Out - Thunderbird is In!

Microsoft Outlook has become the defacto email application for business users, but recently I’ve found that its bugs have become too costly to justify using it. After using Outlook for almost ten years, I have transitioned to an open source email application that has more features than Outlook, less bugs, better security and it’s free!! 

If you are tired of paying for buggy software, I strongly recommend checking out Mozilla Thunderbird, a free email application that is faster, safer and more productive than Outlook. I was amazed at the rich feature set – including junk mail management, digital signing, message encryption, a built-in RSS reader, and the ability to manage multiple e-mail and newsgroup accounts. 

Have you have experienced annoying bugs and costly backup issues with Microsoft Outlook?

Frustration:  Almost every time I tried to send mail from a new location, I would spend countless hours with tech support representatives trying to figure out what was wrong. Microsoft blamed the ISP or the hardware, while the ISP tech support and my IT consultant said, “that’s just life using Outlook – sometimes is doesn’t work – it’s buggy software.”  I finally figured out that the Account Settings would get corrupted almost every time I made a change.  So although everything looked like it should work, it wouldn’t. This is highly frustrating, especially while trying to keep up with the flood of emails that seem to stack up when you’re traveling.

I may have been able to solve this problem if I reinstalled Outlook, but a larger problem became apparent.

Costly Backup:  I noticed that the email box sizes for everyone in the company were getting costly to backup. So we started a policy to only save 6 months of email to shrink the size of the mail boxes. But, unbelievably the size of the email boxes were almost the same size after deleting thousands of messages! I was informed by an IT professional that when messages are deleted from Outlook, the message is gone, but the framework for the message remains.To my knowledge, there is no way to get rid of this ‘white space.’ (If you know different, please let me know.) The white space can be compressed – but this only made my PST file 20% smaller. And, this compression needs to occur on a regular basis with the file server off-line – not a very reasonable solution. What is more unreasonable is to pay to back-up dead white space!!

Microsoft is Out: It was time to find a less buggy and better architected email application. I heard about Thunderbird from a friend, but was skeptical that a free application would be as feature–rich as Microsoft Outlook. I was so wrong! 

Thunderbird is In:  I was able to export 6 months of email and get up-and-running with a new email application in less than 5 minutes! I’ve used it for a week, and I haven’t found one feature that I used in Outlook that is missing from Thunderbird. And if I really want a specific function, I can have someone write a few lines of code to customize it for our company. I’m thrilled to have feature-rich, secure, extremely inexpensive (free), long-term solution for our email! 

Please let me know what type of experience you’ve had with Thunderbird.

- Barbara Reichert, Reichert Communications