posted
not that I condone buying things of course. These things just end up owning you. You're best cutting out objects in general. Living in a stone shack.
Posts: 3821
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Plus, this nightmarish vision of distributors having power over producers, hasn't it always essentially come down to what the public wants?
I'm completely torn here, because it's getting late and I've got a ton to do here... but do you honestly believe this is true? Like not just for the sake of arguing with me, but are you serious?
posted
it's already happened though right. I mean, in the case of disney / apple, the distributor and studio is almost the same company, and few would argue that there has been a dramatic drop in the quality of Disney pictures in the last decade or so. It depends what exactly you're producing. I don't know... I mean, it's not as if cinema for the most part - the part that makes money - hasn't always been about giving the public what it wants.
I suppose that it comes down to wondering if films and music etc are of worse quality as a result of the power inversion. I don't really see that they are. They're different I suppose, in that confrontational material is given less time and space, with a general tendency towards summer films to assume a stupified idiotic audience, but I think that this was probably always the destiny of the popular cinema. And it's not new. Maybe we just forget about all the shit that exists in the past. While market forces shouldn't be the only motivator, the pompous whims of labels and studios shouldn't either. It doesn't really bother me. I saw two brilliant instant classics in a multiplex this month, District 9 and Hurt Locker. And Moon! Independent film, £5 million, global cinema distribution courtesy of our friends at Sony. Frightfest recently played like four solid days of indy horror or something crazy. That to me seems 'good'
So yeah. I don't see a lack of quality art and entertainment out there. Am I an idiot though? It's possible. I don't read any magazines about films or music, so maybe there's something huge that I'm missing.
posted
But Thorn, we've said before on here that it's almost a mystery how some truly great (and recent) films ever get made. But they do get made. How were they ever pitched? Who would expect them to be popular, going by pure moneymaking rules?
The most obscure, "arty", imaginative, bizarre films do get made. And a lot of the time they do get shown in big cinemas as well, and are very popular. It's been something of a golden age for good movies in recent years, not just traditional blockbusters. You give the impression that creativity and variety are being stifled by this new age of stack'em'high cash grabbers, but the complete opposite is true.
Look at the huge leaps in stuff like mobile devices, web applications, streaming media, home cinema systems, wireless internet game playing, 3D movies that don't fuck your eyes up and look stunning. Not to mention the BBC iPlayer that you can use to listen to missed radio programmes, over wi-fi to a little device in your pocket while you do the fucking gardening. This stuff is almost pure sci-fi for those of us that remember digital watches and pocket calculators as the most advanced electronic gadgetry on the planet.
Honestly, if hardly anything had changed from the 1980s and you came on here and told us about all the technology we could have had if it wasn't for Currys and Dixons then I'd be as pissed off as the next man. But most of us can't hope to keep up with this brilliant flow of new gadgets. I'm loving every minute of it myself.
How is it possible to be so fucking gloomy about the one thing which is making life so exciting at the moment - i.e. all the new techno shit.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
Just to be clear dang, I'm not advocating a roll-back to the 1980s. I like a lot of new technology. You and Benway seem to be suggesting that one either a) think every new technology is for the best and Apple, Sony and Disney will show us for way, or b) advocate living in a stone shack.
Sometimes it's worth considering that big companies get to be huge because they're playing a long game, and it's worth thinking about the implications of that beyond the fact that you get to have a camera in your phone, iPod and fucking face.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
But there is always a "market leader" in these things. At the moment, Apple have the iPod and iPhone (though I heard somewhere that the iPhone is nowhere near as popular as it seems). Personally, I use a Creative Zen mp3 player and a Nokia E71 phone, mainly because I don't like the restriction of iTunes and the Apple apps store, but iPods and iPhones suit a lot of people. With mobile phones, the market is hugely varied and full of competition. Same with games consoles (well, there is some competition there anyway).
I'm not being totally naive about the big companies, but it's not as if they are ruthlessly killing off the competition. Microsoft are giant, but Linux is used routinely by a lot of companies, and about half the people in the office where I work use Macs.
Disney and Sony don't particularly bother me either. Disney still make pretty good kids' movies don't they? Wall-E seems to be generally liked, Bolt was quite good, The Incredibles, and I'm going to see Up next weekend. They're basically continuing to do what they always did, and still doing it pretty well. It's not stopping anyone else from making alternative films, and there is some completely mad stuff out there for those that want it.
It seems to me that there is only a really big problem when the list of giant companies has only one or two names on it. But there are multiple giant companies at the moment, and there are many, many smaller-but-still-very-big companies, and they are all having success and giving us what we want. It's not like there are huge gaps in the market all over the place because the giant corporations are holding stuff back.
I don't think me and Benway are saying that you should think all technology is great, or go and live in a stone shack. [A cave maybe, yeah.] No, I think the point is that we are very much enjoying the technology and would rather get on with using it than worry about who is making money from it or what their long game is.
You have to distance yourself from such thoughts, don't you? Otherwise you really would have to go and live in a cave and grow your own food, because almost everything we consume these days comes from dubious sources or does damage to the environment - food, clothes, gas, cars, shoes, central heating, electronics... the whole fucking lot.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
I've got the day off work today, so I've got a bit of time to clarify what I'm saying, and explain why everything you and Benway are saying is wrong. If my daughter starves to death while I'm writing this, bear in mind that it will be your fault for being the vessel of colossal ignorance and distracting me from feeding her.
First up: You have to reject the basic assumption that companies are responding to what the consumer wants. I was genuinely amazed to see you both citing that: to me it's an argument on a level with "Well, if you've got nothing to hide why would you object" about ID cards.
What do you think more closely resembles the 100-year plan of a company like Sony? A step by step path for assuming control of means of production, distribution and playback to maximise profits across its entertainment and electronics arm, or a big question mark with "We'll wait and see what the customer tells us they want, and then make that". Obviously it's the first one. Predicting what people 'want' is difficult, unreliable, fickle, and half the time they don't even know what they want. The other half what they 'want' might not be what it's most economical for you to deliver, or you may have comitted to a different path. The way GM cut the throat on its electric car in the face of massive consumer demand is a great example of how a big company will supply you with what it wants to sell you, not what you want to buy. The consumer didn't choose Blu-Ray over Hd-DVD - the formats were at stale-mate until Warner (I think) made a deal with Sony, and Paramount was forced to follow suit. Was Transformers 2 people's favourite film at the cinema, or when they went to the local Vue, was it the only thing on.
So don't believe that the market is dictated by 'what people want', because it's not true in any industry - it's much more cost effective to steer the desires and habits of your customers in the way that suits you best. That's not a big secret, but it appears to need restating. No Benway, I'm not stating this in the guise of Tyler Durden, but as someone who has spent 5 years reporting on this industry, and several more sitting in marketing departments where these discussions take place.
Second of all, I'm not saying that this is something that has already happened. It's something that companies like Apple and Sony will be seeking to make happen over the next few decades. If I was preparing Apple's strategic marketing plan for the next fifty years, it would be basically what I've described: establishing iTunes as the major retailer of downloadable content, establishing Apple devices as the primary means of playback, and then phasing out compatibility with other media/ players to assume control of all stages of the process. I wouldn't do this because I am evil, but because it's the best way of making the most money for the company. Amazon will be looking to do the same thing, and Sony, and at the moment there's some choice, but as with microsoft one company will come to dominate. There may be some niche distributors (the equivalent of Linux, I guess) but the fact they're appealing to a niche audience means there will be far fewer of them than if one producer/ distributor wasn't taking up the lions share of the market.
Benway citing Moon is a good example of how this is already happening - without Sony's distribution this film would have vanished (in the same way as The girlfriend experience, for example). So people are already only getting what the distributor decides should succeed. It's not about 'more choice', or what people want at all. Yes, there is an avenue on DVD for smaller films and that's brilliant. I've always thought DVD is a brilliant format for this kind of thing, but as people are migrated across to streaming media and digital downloads, content providers are going to have more control over what you can get access to (much like the iTunes store does now). This isn't a paranoid fantasy - it's Sony's corporate strategy (they call it connected world or something), and probably Apple's and Amazon's, too.
Like I say, we're not there yet, and I think at some point in the future this will look like a unique and brilliant period where we had an unprecedented level of choice and freedom, and where niche films and music (maybe less so, music) found it easy to find an audience. Benway mentions having more channels, but in the same way having more highstreet booksellers just means you have more places that sell the same books, so will the increase in content providers. Did we really get more choice with Digital TV, or is that choice really between watching a Friends marathon, or a Red Dwarf one?
It's evident that a service like iTunes is laying the way for this, and their control over the music that succeeds will increase as people are migrated away from CD. Already they have an amazing level of control over what gets on to iTunes. What other retailer can tell the Beatles, of all people, to go fuck themselves until they agree to Apples terms? Same with Ac/DC. You say 'more choice', but in many ways having less music by fewer bands (Nothing in the back catalogue from my favourites the Wilkdhearts ) is less choice, not more, and the only reason people think they will have more choice is because they are told this. It's much more cost effective to have a few things that you can sell to everyone, and this is what digital content providers will want to do. Will there still be niche bands? Yes, but because the audience for them is smaller, fewer will be able to survive. Less choice, and probably an overall negative effect on the psychic health of the nation.
Probably the most extreme example of this will happen with books. So far Amazon's service has had an excellent effect on what you have access to, and that's brilliant. Great. What will happen with the e-readers (is already happening, as Amazon controls what content can be read on its Kindle). If this - as Amazon clearly hopes will be the case - fails, then you'll end up going back to a situation where the retailer controls the choice you have access to, and Amazon will seek to ensure you buy the books with which it has the best deals with publishers. Smaller publishers will go out of business as they a) won't be able to afford the high discounts and b)can't survive in a business model that removes their ability to generate cashflow by selling large consignments to booksellers. The same problem will apply to smaller record and film producers. I think that covers the points I wanted to make. Like I say, it's not happened just yet, and at the moment, we've got a lot of freedom, but this is the direction these companies are steering us in, and no they're not sitting around going "How do we please Dr Benway? How do we give him what he wants?"
Posts: 91
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jessica Rabbit: (Nothing in the back catalogue from my favourites the Wilkdhearts
This is probably contractual with the whole east/west/chappel warner debarcle, but I will drop Ginger a line and see what the SP is - all the round records era/gut stuff is on there fer sure.
I don't disagree about the motives and desires of companies to naturally move towards a monopoly direction. I don't think I ever inferred that companies are primarily in existence for the sake of the joy customers as opposed to amassing their own power and wealth - if I did then that is my fault. I just don't see the consumer as being quite as undiscerning and powerless as you do, and I don't see the situation becoming as dire for the proliferation / expression of art and entertainment.
Maybe the multiplexes have driven films in a certain direction.. It's hard to imagine a renaissance of the eras of classic French or Italian cinema happening again. But to me, this isn't just a result of multiplexes, but of the way society as a whole has changed in terms of what it thinks about itself, and how individuals interact with it and each other - how they desire to express themselves, and to who. Technology will always limit this, but isn't that just the nature of progression through time? That things change?
Your example of The Beatles is a good one though... but you could also say that while they are having terms dictated to them by apple, they are dictating terms to harmonix. Could anybody have predicted that something like rock band beatles would have even existed? I recall your own dismissal of the technology only a year or so ago. O but now they've all done deals and harmonix has sewn it up yadda yadda, so the party is over. That just seems so... near sighted, especially considering how this shit just literally comes out of nowhere overnight.
Apart from Apple, the companies are still playing catch up to the distribution technology of digital media, presumably why things seem rosy right now. But this tech is clearly changing all the time. What I think we seem to be seeing is the companies repeatedly failing to predict how people are using the technology that's being offered. Blu-Ray / HD-DVD is a good example in that actually, neither was what people were really looking for. The PS3 is not doing brilliantly, even though ten years ago, you'd probably have predicted that sony's nigh on monopoly on next gen hi-def hardware would mean that such a machine could not fail.
In terms of the histories of these technologies - recorded music, printed words, video, you seem to be suggesting that at some time in the past these things were 'better', that there was more of it being produced and distributed. Or that what we have right now is different to what we want. Either that, or things are amazing right now, but it will soon go bad due to the strategies of the companies that you mention. I suppose I find it hard to imagine that. Perhaps I don't have the vision or the foresight that you do... After all, I don't work in marketing. But from what I see (in my limited experience) live music seems to be increasingly important to people. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. I don't know the numbers or figures behind it, and obviously the cash involved is tiny compared to something like itunes, but in terms of artistic expression, the growth(?) in live events and performance seems to favour there being more bands, not fewer. Bill Drummond's book '17' is an interesting look at the future of recorded music, and how it relates to live performances... he also talks about how recorded music will become less relevant due to the increasing lack of variation .. but not in terms of the way that acts that are pushed by distributors, but how the actual technology being used to create recorded music is having a flattening affect.
Perhaps live music doesn't entirely belong in a discussion about long term strategies of media companies, but it seems an example of why something like itunes won't prevent diversity and choice to flourish. And as for music.. how far back do you have to go to find a time when there wasn't some heavy hand directing which artists make it and which don't, and what the consumer has access to? Also, do we know the consumer habits of people who are using itunes? It's fine to pick up numbers of downloads and money being made, but isn't also the case that this stuff is being augmented via other channels by the same consumers, as opposed to 'niche consumer' and 'mainstream consumer'?
In terms of music, I don't think you can talk about 'niche' and 'mainstream' any more. I know that's cliched, but in terms of my experience of going to gigs and seeing the way all these artists are hooking themselves up to myspace, getting blogged, maybe ending up on a blog aggregator, getting radio play etc, is good for people who like music. Itunes pissing around with the beatles and u2 seems totally inconsequential to me in terms of what the kids are putting out right now. Music seems like it's become synonymous with entrepreneurship as a result of the channels. I don't see itunes destroying or swallowing this, there is room and ingenuity for other things.
Amazon - kindle is interesting, and I agree that this seems to be that this could represent the most successful example of the complete ownership of production and distribution. Assuming the open format of the sony product doesn't work, and google's plans completely fail. We'll see, I suppose this is all happening right now, and is waiting on things like court decisions.
Actually, in all of this we haven't talked about the internet itself - surely things like Google have an affect on distribution as well. On the one hand you've got iphones hooking up to itunes, on the other, google putting it's open software with an open market on every other handset.
Microsoft is a good example of sewing up of tech done correctly. MS with Windows succeeded where apple failed because it wasn't hardware-centric. On the other hand, explorer comes with windows, but firefox - open source - is gaining ground pretty fast. Look to the web for films and the best format for the stuff that's being shared is open source. I don't think that we should be unwilling to look at possibilities outside of whoever is top at any one time when considering the future.
I don't know. Not really an argument there, just thoughts. I suppose what it comes down to me is a belief that people will naturally interact with technology in ways that companies can't predict.
quote:Originally posted by Jessica Rabbit: Like I say, it's not happened just yet, and at the moment, we've got a lot of freedom, but this is the direction these companies are steering us in
Oh, what??
So this whole thing is based around your fears for the Future? There's going to be a fuck lot more to worry about in the Future than whether you can get Wildhearts mp3s to play on your Sony Brainstation, or whatever technology they come up with.
Also, every time these people have tried to take control of media in the past, people have found ways around it. To be honest, it can't be done and it won't ever be done. If something can be encrypted then it can be decrypted. If it is possible to play it then it is possible to record it to another format which can be freely distributed.
The only people who will be/are restricted are those that choose to use the restrictive players like iPod. If those things become restrictive to mass consumers as well (i.e. they even start to impact on people who only ever download mass-market product anyway), then they will completely lose their customers. Look at the Sony CD copy-protection debacle. People simply won't buy that shit. Enough people to actually make the companies back down. There are numerous other examples in corporate history. I'm sure they have plenty of success with the gullible, but they've never managed to take complete control and I don't think they ever will.
As for issues like Betamax/VHS or Blu-Ray/HD-TV or whatever. Seriously, consumers don't give a fuck. If one of them was genuinely massively better than the other then, yeah, there would be objections. But that isn't the case, so no one's bothered.
ETA: I agree with a lot of what Benway said as well. Was still typing this when he posted.
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Live musical experiences seems to be increasingly important to people. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. I don't know the numbers or figures behind it, and obviously the cash involved is tiny compared to something like itunes, but in terms of artistic expression, the growth(?) in live events and performance seems to favour there being more bands, not less.
4 Billion dollar a year industry apparently. And as for the market driving more and more towards live performances, it just boosts my confidence in my little business plan all the more, seeing that is exactly the source industry it is designed on.
quote:Originally posted by Jessica Rabbit: First up: You have to reject the basic assumption that companies are responding to what the consumer wants. I was genuinely amazed to see you both citing that: to me it's an argument on a level with "Well, if you've got nothing to hide why would you object" about ID cards.
By-the-way, I do agree with the comparison with ID Cards. I have been very irate about them in the past, but now I realise that they simply aren't going to happen. Middle-class professionals object to being treated as criminals before they've even committed a crime, and the less well-off can't afford to pay for an ID Card anyway. So, it's not that different from the electronics or software corporations trying to force restrictions either. Enough people will walk away from their products to make them back down, same as the politicians and ID Cards. In fact, I'm kind of looking forward to the showdown, except it will probably never come to that.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
I think there's only so much influence that corporations can have over consumers anyway. A bad product with features nobody uses will be rejected, no matter how much marketing hype tries to tell us why we should want it. There are literally thousands of examples where this has happened, particularly with technology.
Posts: 12211
| IP: Logged
So this whole thing is based around your fears for the Future? There's going to be a fuck lot more to worry about in the Future than whether you can get Wildhearts mp3s to play on your Sony Brainstation, or whatever technology they come up with.
I agree. I didn't mean to imply that this should be the planet's number one headline concern. It's not even my number one concern. About the most I've ever done on the subject is write that post up there. Benway asked why I didn't like digital media: I responded to him. This is how conversation works you see. I don't mean to suggest that if I'm talking about a thing, then that is the only important thing and that all other things should be abandoned in favour of this one True thing. You wouldn't for example, go onto Mart's computer thread and say "Oh WHAT! You're talking about computers! Don't you think there are more important things to worry about than computers!!??!!" I'm sure that you think there are more important things in the world than making people know about bicycles, but occasionally bicycles might be the thing you are discussing. So you see how this works. People might talk about a variety of subjects - it doesn't mean that they think that's the only important thing. I don't think this is the Most Important Thing (unless Kindle puts me out of a job), but it did come up in conversation. Rest assured I won't be writing to my MP or starting a pressure group or taking any action in any way whatsover other than chatting to people on a message board but! I do have an opinion on it. I may make some posts in the future: I should tell you that unless I state otherwise I probably don't consider those things to be the most important issues in the planet's future.
Can you just confirm that I've made myself clear on this?
posted
What I was objecting to was your implication (or my interpretation of what you were implying anyway) that these big electronics corporations are restricting us and forcing products onto us which we don't want. But it turns out that you are talking about something you think will happen in the Future.
We are saying that technology is good right now and continues to take giant leaps. It's been a fantastic decade for that.
In fact, the technology we have now is removing a lot of unjustified profiteering from the media business. At the moment, it's all good for the consumer.
I just felt that you were cheating a bit by shifting your statements to the Future. That's what caused my exclamation. I also think it's legitimate to point out that what you are predicting will be reduced to insignificance by other events. At the moment, issues like war and overpopulation and climate change and energy production are not overbearing enough to stop us complaining about smaller issues. In the Future, even manufacturing electronics is likely become a highly restrictive business, let alone mass-producing and distributing to a global market. That's what I'm getting at.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
an epic 22 gig anime download just caused my internet to throttle to nothing in the middle of screen share conference call. Professional - I live it.
Posts: 3821
| IP: Logged
posted
Hitman. The chap who played 47 just wasn't right for the role, and the plot wasn't even as good as the game's. Worth watching for Olga Kurylenko only. 3/10.
Posts: 14015
| IP: Logged
I don't have much to add as I'm not terrifically invested in the tech arena. The only mobile I've ever had, for example, is a purely functional model provided by work - and the iPod nano I got for my birthday doesn't really suit me... I don't like going out in public in headphones looking like a twat and I haven't yet got around to compiling a load of 'playlists' to make listening to it at home a remotely bearable experience.
There was a pretty stupid programme on BBC4 last night about the culture of the upgrade. It was presented by poet Simon Armitage - who was a kind of morose, Dang65-type character - and made a number of not-very-penetrating points about how the 'upgrade' serves the interests of the technology firm by cultivating longing and dissatisfaction in the consumer.
In all, it seemed to provide evidence more in favour of Thorn's position than Kanye's - particularly when Armitage went to S Korea and visited Samsung's "future house" jam-packed with the kind of underwhelming tat we can expect to be bombarded with in about ten years. I mean: an iPod that looks like a pebble, ffs.
The footage of glazed-eyed Koreans doing things with their hand-held devices - on trains, in the street - was poignant and depressing and surely an indication of where we're likely to be in just a few years. It may of course be the case that all of them were living intensely engaged social lives via the medium of text or what-have-you but the charm and naturalness of human contact in an urban setting seemed to be in the late stages of being leached away entirely.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
posted
I watched the first episode of new series Flash Forward on my television set last night. Has anyone else seen it? I bet Amy has.
Posts: 14015
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, the primordial human fear of looking like a twat is a huge issue for anyone who espouses modern technology. Fortunately, the innate human trait of not giving a fuck is often sufficiently powerful to overcome this. Otherwise, we'd never have moved on from the frankly embarrassing Archimedes' screw.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by dang65: the primordial human fear of looking like a twat is a huge issue for anyone who espouses modern technology. Fortunately, the innate human trait of not giving a fuck is often sufficiently powerful to overcome this.
Yes - wearing an MP3 player is an expression of your free-thinking individuality. It must be true because all the adverts tell you it is.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
lol, it's funny because marketing departments often align the purchasing of their product with an expression of free will, individuality, and a re-enforcement of positive self-image. Next thing you know, it'll be 'mp3 players for thoughtful people' or 'TVs for people who on the whole consider themselves to be better educated and more widely read than the rest of middle england'. lol.
posted
Oh yeah, I forgot adverts. So, it's fear of looking like a twat, and fear of looking like you've been influenced by some kind of advert. Yeah, that could really put you off using technology, big time. Personally, I only ever use things that haven't been advertised, but I'm starting to find a small stone and a piece of bark to be fairly limited technologically.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
) is less choice, not more, and the only reason people think they will have more choice is because they are told this. It's much more cost effective to have a few things that you can sell to everyone, and this is what digital content providers will want to do. Will there still be niche bands? Yes, but because the audience for them is smaller, fewer will be able to survive. Less choice, and probably an overall negative effect on the psychic health of the nation.
Printer-friendly view of this topic