BigShinyThing

The latest contender for ‘coolest imaging/photography tool’ turns snapshots into 3D scenes. And it works!

MIT’s Technology Review highlights the new web service Make3D, which does a truly amazing job of extracting 3D data from normal 2D images.

A spinoff from research at Stanford, Make3D works its magic using:

a machine-learning algorithm that associates visual cues, such as color, texture, and size, with certain depth values based on what they have learned from studying two-dimensional photos paired with 3-D data. For example [...] grass has a distinctive texture that makes it look very different close up than it does from far away. The algorithm learns that the progressive change in texture gives clues to the distance of a patch of grass.

Note the key phrase ‘machine learning’. They haven’t tried to understand the world — they’ve built a tool which can learn to understand depth cues in visual imagery. Cool.

Currently the system only understands scene cues in outdoor landscapes and (rather curiously, we think) indoor scenes which feature staircases (but why not?). Future work will help their system learn about other kinds of scenes. But what it does, it does very well indeed as proof-of-concept. See the Make3D site for demos, or to upload your own scenes for processing.

Impressive as it stands. But as we see it, the most exciting place for this technology to turn up will be at the point of capture — in cameras. Our Nikon D200 already features a ‘programme’ mode for autoexposure, which uses scene cues to understand something of what’s in front of the lens: a big blue rectangle top of image , for example, is probably the sky, and should maybe be overexposed relative to the lower half of the scene so that whatever’s underneath doesn’t come out pitch-black in the photo. Add in Make3D, which could profit from a whole slew of data available at time of capture (by, for example, capturing more depth data before and after the photo is taken by playing with autofocus…) and you’ve got consumer 3D photography done and dusted. We can’t wait.

What did the twentysomething guy say to the other twentysomething guy?

“I don’t know why they call them TV shows. I never watch them on TV.”

Musings on What’s Next

Last night I had a strange dream. The Two Fat Ladies (of cookery show ‘fame’) came to me, explaining that my computer had the first real Mac virus and that I’d signed up for every porn site on the web automatically. I now owed in excess of $10m on my credit card and I’d better come up with something quickly.

Ignoring what this says about my psyche (TV-obsessed, with a thing for matron figures, obviously unclean, feeling guilty about my erased bookmarks and in dire financial straits perhaps?) it did start me thinking. Web 1.0 was rubbish. Web 2.0 was better but still every little piece of my life online was pigeon-holed somewhere. I was promised my 15MB of fame and have been forced to settle for 26 comments on one of my flickr pics (a woman walking naked down a busy Brooklyn street). What will Web 3.0 really be like I wonder? Well here are some thoughts.

First of all I think that Social Networking will go beyond sending someone a virtual puppy on Facebook and start to morph into something useful. What’s the point of having 312 MySpace friends if you can’t borrow money from them?

I may be alone in this but I reckon that Social Networking will expand into community business with Friend Loans (yup, really ­ borrow money from those cyber friends, or put money into the pot for a decent rate of interest), group buying communities (you like Jabba figures too? Let¹s get together and negotiate a job lot) and Social Networking channels for people who like the same content and are happy broadcasting only to each other.

The End of Privacy

Everything I’ve done, said, thought and dreamed about in the last 2 years is somewhere out there online. I have no issue with that. Let’s face it; a lot of it was done not for immediate pleasure but in the knowledge that I’d get to post it later. I’ve said it often (as my web friends know) but I live my own life vicariously. The web has forced me to be interesting and if that means people being able to google my ass (literally) then so be it. At least in years to come I’ll be able to look back at a higher, firmer ass and say “those were the days”.

To this end I’m trying to get a bar concept off the ground. You round up all of the people indulging in a spot of on-cam cyber sex (via something like j-meeting) and you project them onto screens all around the bar. Turning something private into something public and helping end privacy once and for all. The great thing is they don’t know when/if they’re being broadcast.
Adds to the exhibitionist thrill for them and to voyeuristic thrill of my punters.

Marco Polo

There’s a lot to discover out there on the information superhighway. I predict, no I demand, that in the very near future people will pay ODiscoverers to go out and find specific content worth bookmarking for them. Actually they’ll probably just get the brands that they love to do it for them (I’d love to know what Gucci thinks is worth book marking).

Better brands

You know whether you’re a Match.com person or a Nerve.com person (are you looking for bridge and tunnel sex ­ not as dirty as it sounds) or for kinky sex with an underweight hipster on a urine stained mattress in a neighborhood that rings with Eastern European accents? The rest of the web is still a little unbranded. Right now 98% of everything sells something. But what nobody is taking into account is the fact that I want to buy my Burlesque books from someone I imagine wearing a corset rather than from the Amazon algorithm.

Babelfish 2.0

How about we move to one bloody platform. I have Mac, PC, Blackberry, CDMA phone, GSM phone and a Treo that I hate. Why don’t they all speak Intel? Somebody has to own portability. Somebody needs to offer me a techie babelfish.

Riding The Cloud

Let’s have lots of small, easily downloadable apps that surf the cloud of tags, images (and yes I want to be able to google search a picture too) and titles out there. I want to be able to Ovirtual tag the places that I love and search for things close by that I want to photograph. I want the world to be searchable and for my apps to all have access to that data.

So okay this has been a mad ramble. But it was a mad dream. Anyone that wants in on the bar, I’m serious about it.

Steve Walls is an inventor at What If New York.

Posted by Steve | Tags: ,
1 Comment

…One snapshot at a time


A brief (highly subjective) list of internet milestones:

  • 1980s: newsgroups and email & packet-switched internetworking
  • 1990s: multi-user virtuality, streaming media, dotcom 1.0
  • 2000s: people (finally) embracing social media

Anyway, you get the idea. Fast forward through Web 2.0 to get to 2007, and this — Microsoft’s PhotoSynth.

A bit of perspective: when I studied computational approaches to vision in the 80s, ’state-of-the-art’ meant software that could get a cruise missile somewhere near Red Square, given a decent topographic map. PhotoSynth can build 3D models of Red Square (or anywhere else on the planet) from snapshots on Flickr, aggregate and process tags & other metadata to build a semantic web describing what’s there, then navigate the whole kaboodle in real time on any recentish networked PC. Google Earth: roll over and play dead. At least for the next few weeks, Microsoft owns the coolest tech on the block, bar none: some important part of the future looks like this. The original post and other options for viewing are here: just watch the video all the way through. You can see what the BBC have been doing with this tech over at their How We Built Britain site.

Paranthetically, note the presence of the 90’s poster child of infinite zoom — a Mandelbrot set — at the top-left of the SeaDragon demo image used in the video. Does the demo go anywhere near it? No way. In 2007 we no longer use trippy fractals to show off the bewildering wonderfulness of our tech. Instead, we are taken on a zoom into a car ad to show how it’s possible to embed tech specs in a teeny corner of the image without pop-ups. How times change. Wasn’t there a moment there when we were dreaming of more than a better car ad? Maybe not at Microsoft. Sigh.

[via Tim, who sent me a link to the early Java proof-of-concept last year, and a link to this video yesterday]

From the man who believes “the best way to predict the future, is to invent it.”

Alan Kay — educator, scientist and co-designer of the OLPC device — in a recent interview:

The things that are wrong with the Web today are due to this lack of curiosity in the computing profession. And it’s very characteristic of a pop culture. Pop culture lives in the present; it doesn’t really live in the future or want to know about great ideas from the past. I’m saying there’s a lot of useful knowledge and wisdom out there for anybody who is curious, and who takes the time to do something other than just executing on some current plan. Cicero said, “Who knows only his own generation remains always a child.” People who live in the present often wind up exploiting the present to an extent that it starts removing the possibility of having a future.

[Via if:book]

Paris turns 175,000 schoolkids into hackers by equipping them with open source software.

ZDNet reports that Ile-de-France, the political district of greater Paris, has plans to give 175,000 schoolchildren and apprentices a USB drive loaded with open-source software. The keys will be given to 130,000 secondary school pupils and 45,000 first year apprentices at training centres at the start of the 2007 school year. The aim of the project is to give “students a tool of freedom and mobility between their school, cybercafes and their home or friends.” The operation will cost around €2.6 million [hard to see how but hey]. The president of the regional council, Jean-Paul Huchon, is a self-confessed ‘partisan of the rebalancing of the supply of proprietary and open-source software’ who previously welcomed the launch of the Firefox 2 browser and led the support for a creation of a competitiveness hub based on open source.

And if they’re doing it, why aren’t you?

In porn, HDTV makes everything a bit too graphic.

We know a bit about the pitfalls of HD: cute animals and landscapes look stunning but humans can look downright terrifying. Having seen their pores magnified to the size of saucers on extra-wide plasma TVs, celebs are rushing to their plastic surgeons to get their skin HD-ready. But the porn industry is already on the case about how to deal with the advanced technology.

As acne-prone celebrities like Cameron Diaz have discovered, HD is extremely unforgiving. But for pornographers it’s not just just their actors faces which are under constant scrutiny — in fact the actors’ facial features are rarely the focus of the close up. As one actress, writer and director, Stormy Daniels explains:

The biggest problem is razor burn. I’m not 100 percent sure why anyone would want to see their porn in HD.

Others counter that HD makes the action more ‘real’: “It puts you in the room”, says director Roddy D.

One major obstacle to HD porn has already been created by Sony who said last week it would not mass-produce porno on its Blu-ray high definition discs. The decision has forced the industry to use the competing HD-DVD format, or in some cases, find companies other than Sony that can manufacture copies of Blu-Ray movies. This seems like the latest in a series of strategic blunders from Sony, given the role of the porn industry in the VHS/Beta format wars of the 1980s and the proliferation of the Internet. [UPDATE: Sony have just denied blocking porn production for the format.]

Also, because of the sex industry’s experience in adopting new media formats and championing them, it is the ideal testing ground for HD. There is already work in progress to deal with the ‘highlighted physical imperfections’ issue. Two distributors, Vivid Entertainment and Digital Playground, have been shooting with high definition cameras for two years and says that their experience using the technology gives them the edge in understanding how to deal with hyperdefinition. Their techniques include using postproduction to digitally soften the actors’ skin tone: “It takes away the blemishes and the pits and harshness and makes it look like they have baby skin.”

Hollywood take note.

Source: New York Times via Nettime.

Something wondrous this way comes.

Brian DuffyFor the next four months, some of the most interesting sound artists working in the UK are on tour, under the banner of Future of Sound (FoS).

Crossover stars such as Scanner, field recordist Chris Watson (ex Cabaret Voltaire) and the Modified Toy Orchestra are performing alongside less well-known artists deserving of a wider audience. And that’s exactly what FoS hopes to offer. If not exactly music for the masses, FoS is about getting experimental, exploratory sonic art in front of punters, not academics.

BST was fortunate to be invited to the FoS launch [thanks again to Lisa Devaney], where we had a chance to hear more about the project from organiser Martyn Ware. He describes the tour (see the FoS calendar for dates) as an opportunity for the artists involved to refine works in progress, while reaching a UK-wide audience.

The tour focus is on sound in space. 3D surround systems designed by Ware and Vince Clarke (see previous interview) are an integral part of the experience — as is enthusiasm for cross-disciplinary collaboration and experiment. Consider for example the work of conceptualist Brian Duffy:

A new musical instrument that uses six specially adapted telescopes; sensors built into the eye pieces convert the light from stars into sound — this information returns to a central control panel, allowing each sound to be manipulated and played in real time…

As Duffy (pictured above, with one of his circuit-bending toy hacks) sees it, today’s segmentation of creativity and thought into categories of ’science’, ‘art’, or ‘music’ is a modern constraint:

400 years ago you had to make your own instruments and tools, whatever you needed.

Duffy’s spirit of convergent co-creation is at the heart of what promises to make the Future of Sound tour something special.

Tickets are selling fast. Check dates, and book early. Prepare to be awed.

[update 25 Jan: The BBC has some footage...]

The other day, I saw an ad. And it was on the Internet!

I kid not: a big old animated banner ad, trying to sell me stuff, large as life, cluttering up my monitor. I almost fell off my chair. Turns out someone else had been using my machine, and had left Internet Explorer up on the screen. I didn’t notice it wasn’t my usual browser — Firefox – until I clicked into a site and there it was, The Banner. And it was then that it struck me that it’s been months since I’d seen one — the combination of the Firefox plugins AdBlock and FilterSet.G Updater are really that good at blocking the little buggers out.

You can fill in your own moral ending to this tale — be it that I’m one of the scum free-riding on sites that only exist because of ad revenue (whatever — kill them all and let God sort it out), or that Advertising is Dead (in which case someone had better go over and tell it, because last I saw it was dancing on the table and bragging as how it could still pull teenage blondes down the Coach and Horses).

Anyway. I saw an ad! On the Internet! How peculiar.

The $100 laptop and the Developing World’s seemingly endless supply of young minds. It’s not going to just be about education, folks.

We’ve reported on the $100 laptop. We’ve flagged up Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: two innovations poised to set fire to the demographic tinder that’s the youth population of the Developing World. We see truly disruptive times ahead.

The $100 laptop (or its yet-to-be-developed relatives and descendants) will network millions of eager young people. Services like the Turk will give them the opportunity and motivation to take on work that’s too tricky for the best Artificial Intelligences the West can conjour, but too brain-numbingly repetitive and low-paid for most Westerners to bother with. That’s a whole lot of motivation, both supply-side and for the creation of demand. And that means business.

In fact, the one thing missing from the OLPC v1.0 seems to be a workable way to actually get micropayments safely in the hands of those for whom such income could be as life-changing as the educational opportunities which are the prime motivation for the project. If the initial rollout is at all successful, we expect free-enterprise, above-ground or not, to rapidly fill that gap.

The potential is enormous. Exploitation or opportunity? The stakes and possible rewards are too high — and the price of failure too terrible — for us to judge too early. Call it exploitunity, and hope it works out. Watch this space.

Here’s why.

MX01~Always-Make-New-Mistakes-Esther-Dyson-Posters.jpgWe toddled along to an ‘Advertising 2.0′ conference last week. Esther was on a panel discussing the presentations. We thought that Esther makes a lot of sense. An early investor in Google, Flickr and del.icio.us, we think that Ms Dyson — like in the song — knows where it’s at.

She made a couple of excellent points last night. One: if we pay more than lip-service to the thought that users are now in control then we should really face up to the conclusion that pushing ads onto them ain’t gonna work no more. Obvious you would have thought. Not given that the prior presentation had been all about online advertising models that presumed attention as a given. No mention of ad-blocking, RSS-ad filtering and — oh yes — search

Esther talked a bit about the potentially interesting models being developed in the States by companies such as Root Markets, who are basically bribing consumers for their attention. Not a bad idea when you consider the success of crowd-sourcing and gold markets [as discussed in previous posts]. People love to share an opinion. Hell, we’re overjoyed when someone leaves us positive feedback on our Amazon seller account: imagine trapping that will-to-be-liked for your brand.

Second point: advertising is having a good product. The iPod and very-possibly-any day-now the Wii are bearing this out. Have a good product and your consumers will do the selling for you.

Ms Dyson. We salute you.

A study by CBS finds that downloaders watch more TV.

Following on from the music industry’ discovery that music downloaders are mainly fans who can market their music for them (like, duh), CBS has become the latest TV network to realise that allowing people to download TV shows actually makes the content more sticky and compelling.

TV.com reports that a poll taken by CBS shows that over half of the users who have streamed CBS shows on the Web had never seen the shows before on TV. The network says that the new users then became fans of those shows.

CBS says this data will help it and the other networks in their efforts to monetize Web content. The more new people who watch shows at the network sites, the better ad rates the networks can command.

“We’re looking at this as a key change in direction for us now and looking at our programming as dual distribution programming–over the air and on the Internet,” CBS Corp. research chief David Poltrack told reporters today.

The networks are also following the fans in using the web to provoke interest in cancelled shows. Clearly they’ve noticed all the fan lobbying trying to get such shows back on the air. Also witness HBO’s experiments with longtail program, The Wire, as a way to tickle interest in its forthcoming IPTV channel. As we’ve said before, go with this guys not against it (that means you Universal Music) — it’ll be much easier for everyone.

Story via Techdirt.

Publishers try a new way to grab the attention of those pesky kids.

Publishers are trying to gain the attention of a young audience by sending books to cell phones and flashing the text before users’ eyes one word at a time. Launched in England less than a year ago, ICUE software lets users read novels on their cell phone without the irritation (to some) of constantly scrolling through heaps of text on a small screen. Instead, the text is flashed on the screen one word (or phrase) at a time. It’s positioning? Moving the way you read. This is clever stuff — a product following the consumer, not the other way around.

The application (like lots of other cool stuff) was originally developed by the military. It is based on the tachistoscope, a rapid image recognition device that was invented by the US Air Force and first used to train pilots to recognise enemy planes from a distance. The device was later used to teach speed-reading techniques.

ICUE currently has some 10,000 customers and claim that their audience are used to digesting content in this way (advertisers and content owners take note) because they already spend hours staring at rapidly moving images of video games. According to ICUE managing director Jane Tappuni,

Our customers are split between business and tech-orientated readers and, obviously, teenagers. It’s the 16 year olds who are using us the most because they are the ones who are on their mobiles the most. Their reading is split between the classic list that has to do with what they’re reading in school and the contemporary list.

ICUE has already brokered deals with mobile books with major publishers like HarperCollins, Pan MacMillan and Pearson. Interestingly, the company plans to launch in the US only once it has cracked the UK market because - in mobile terms — it is so much more developed:

The UK is 18 months to two years ahead of the US cellular market. Only 35 percent of Americans have sent a text message, as compared to almost 100 percent in the UK.

Tappuni says that 80 percent of users who download ICUE and view the demo text go on to buy ebooks and that she often hears from teachers interested in making ICUE books available to their classes. After all, those kids are glued to their mobile screens already.

Source: MIT’s Technology Review.

“Better than YouTube”, apparently.

Techdirt reports that:

User-generated video-sharing site [God we need a proper short word for this stuff!] Revver has landed an intriguing partnership with a new UK TV station called FameTV. Revver users will be able to opt-in for TV broadcast and those [clips] selected will be shown on FameTV. Viewers will vote for their favorites by SMS [just like erm 'real' reality TV] and revenue sent to Revver will be split 50/50 with the video publishers.”

As the article notes, there have been previous deals along the same lines — for example, Rocketboom’s with Tivo. Revver is also pretty and smart: “Revver is very 2.0, with post roll still frame ads, revenue splits for publishers, social bookmarking integration and an API.” But even though it’s an interesting idea, Revver has yet to build the crucial critical mass that has made YouTube so huge. And as we’ve noted before, prettiness and efficiency are not necessarily the key to success — just look at scrappy old MySpace. Let’s wait and see.

Pew Internet report #2.

Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, has just published an essay of his thoughts into Digital Natives and particularly the impact they will have on the workplace on entering it. It’s worth reading all the way through but here are our highlights:

Young people may be newcomers to the world of work, but it’s their bosses who are immigrants into the digital world.

by Lee Rainie, Pew Internet & American Life Project, September 28, 2006

As consultant Marc Prensky calculates it, the life arc of a typical 21-year-old entering the workforce today has, on average, included 5,000 hours of video game playing, exchange of 250,000 emails, instant messages, and phone text messages, 10,000 hours of cell phone use. To that you can add 3,500 hours of time online.

Our work at the Pew Internet Project shows that an American teen is more likely than her parents to own a digital music player like an iPod, to have posted writing, pictures or video on the internet, to have created a blog or profile on a social networking web site like MySpace, to have downloaded digital content such as songs, games, movies, or software, to have shared a remix or “mashup” creation with friends, and to have snapped a photo or video with a cell phone.

“Today’s younger workers are not ‘little us-es,’” argues Prensky, an educator, gaming expert, author of Don’t Bother Me, Mom — I’m Learning. “Their preference is for sharing, staying connected, instantaneity, multi-tasking, assembling random information into patterns, and using technology in new ways. Their challenge to the established way of doing things in the business world has already started.”

Those challenges often flow from young workers’ embrace of technologies that have grown up with them. Today’s 21-year-old was born in 1985 — 10 years after the first consumer computers went on sale and the same year that the breakthrough “third generation” video game, Nintendo’s “Super Mario Brothers,” first went to market. When this young worker was a toddler, the basic format of instant messaging was developed. And at the time this young worker entered kindergarten in 1990, Tim Berners-Lee wrote a computer program called the World Wide Web. Upon entering middle school, our worker might have organized his [sic] schedule with a gadget called a Palm Pilot (first shipped in 1996). And at the dawn of high school for our worker in 1999, Sean Fanning created the Napster file-sharing service. When the worker graduated from high school four years later, his gifts might have included an iPod (patented in 2002) and a camera phone (first shipped in early 2003).

Our worker’s college career saw the rise of blogs (already two-years-old in 2000), RSS feeds (coded in 2000), Wikipedia (2001), social network sites (Friendster was launched in 2002), tagging (Del.icio.us was created in 2003), free online phone calling (Skype software was made available in 2003), podcasts (term coined in 2004), and the video explosion that has occurred as broadband internet connections become the norm in households (YouTube went live in 2005).

Now, we have a reversal of the normal situation, where young people migrate into a workplace manned by seasoned natives. Instead, in this digitalized age, this 21-year-old and his peers are showing up in human resources offices as digital natives in a workplace world dominated by digital immigrants — that is, elders who often feel less at ease with new technologies.

How different are they? Several years ago when she was interviewing a 17-year old girl named LaShonda for a project about the future of work, Rebecca Ryan, founder of a hip consulting firm named Next Generation Consulting, noted the difference between digital natives and their digital immigrant elders . In an email, she explains:

“We were at a food court in a mall outside Seattle. While I was interviewing her, she was IM’ing, had her PDA on, her cell phone, the whole thing… I was so put off. I thought, ‘She’s not paying attention!’ And so I asked her, ‘LaShonda, what do you think will be the impact of technology on the future of work?’ She looked me in the eye and asked, ‘What do you mean by technology?’ I looked at all of her gadgets on the table and said, ‘Like this stuff!’ She said, ‘This is only technology for people who weren’t raised with it.’ Whoa. The point that came home to rest for me is that for LaShonda, IM’ing and texting are like breathing. Fish don’t know they’re in water. LaShonda didn’t consider her gadgets technology.”

This generational difference will inevitably pose challenges and create opportunities for the firms that hire them because natives have experiences and values that are different from digital immigrants. Herewith, five new realities of the digital natives’ lives that should be understood by their new employers:

Reality 1 — They are video gamers and that gives them different expectations about how to learn, work, and pursue careers.

A host of experts have affirmed that today’s young workers have internalized the new realities of work. “In contrast to a generation ago, job entrants now do not expect lifetime employment from a single employer; they do not expect a full menu of paid corporate benefits; they do not relish jobs in hierarchical bureaucracies,” argues Edward Lawler, Director of the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California, and co-author of the forthcoming book, The New American Workplace. “To them, the word ‘career’ is plural.”

These attitudes clearly reflect the larger realities of the changing nature of work. Yet there is also some evidence that the ethos of video gaming plays a role. Studies at the Pew Internet & American Life Project show that virtually all college students play video, computer or internet games and 73% of teens do so. John Beck and Mitchell Wade argue in their book, Got Game: How the Gamer Generation is Reshaping Business Forever, that games are the “training program” for young workers that helps form their attitudes about the way the work-world operates — a world full of data-streams, where analysis and decisions come at twitch speed, where failure at first is the norm, where the game player is the hero, and where learning takes place informally.

For companies, this puts a premium on designing engaging work that allows workers to make a clear contribution and be rewarded for same. If “organization man” has become “gaming man,” then the importance of worker morale is elevated — as is the value of basing work on completed tasks, rather than other measures of work effort such as hours on the job. “Give them projects to complete and then stand out of the way,” argues James Ware, who helps run Future of Work, an organization for facilities, information technology, and human resources professionals based in Prescott, Arizona. “These kids quit when they are frustrated trying to finish an effort that will ‘get them to the next level.’”

Reality 2 — They are technologically literate, but that does not necessarily make them media literate.

Our research has found consistently that the dominant metaphor for the internet in users’ minds is a vast encyclopedia — more than it is a playground, a commercial mall, a civic commons, a kaffee klatch, or a peep show. This is especially true for younger users, who have grown up relying on it to complete school assignments, perhaps too often clipping and pasting material from websites into term papers.

Sandra Gisin, who oversees knowledge and information management at reinsurance giant Swiss Re, says her colleagues marvel at the speed with which younger workers communicate and gather information. Still, she has had enough bad experiences with credulous younger workers accepting information from the top link on a Google search result that she says the firm will begin new training programs next year to teach workers how to evaluate information and to stress that “not all the best information is free.”

Dow Jones news organizations have similar worries. They have created programs for journalism educators and reporters-in-training to drive home the point that journalists should not rely on Web sources without checking its origin and confirming it in other ways. “We drive home the point that it’s not good enough to say, ‘I read it on the internet,’ without taking other steps to verify it,” notes Clare Hart, Executive Vice President of Dow Jones and President of the Enterprise Media Group.

At the same time, younger workers’ comfort with online tools can be a boon to marketing departments. Hart, 45, says younger workers on the staff “convinced us Baby Boomers” to put more information from Dow Jones conference presentations online and to create podcasts of the best of them. Since then, email offering podcasts gets opened about 20% more frequently than traditional marketing email.

Reality 3 — They are content creators and that shapes their notions about privacy and property.

More than half of American teenagers have created a blog, posted an artistic or written creation online, helped build a website, created an online profile, or uploaded photos and videos to a website. They think of the internet as a place where they can express their passions, play out their identities, and gather up the raw material they use for their creations.

So, why shouldn’t young employees think it clever and fun to post on their blogs pictures of Apple computers being delivered to the loading bay at Microsoft headquarters? That is what Michael Hanscom, a temp employee for a Microsoft vendor, did and was quickly fired for violating the company’s non-disclosure rules. An even more benign episode ended the same way when Bill Poon, a database marketing manager for Collectors Universe, a sports memorabilia authenticating company in Los Angeles, posted a photo of his department’s president on his MySpace profile. Poon also filed a few comments poking fun at the firm’s dress code and cubicle culture and was axed based on the company’s concerns about “identity theft.”

In the many-to-many broadcast environment of the internet, the prospects for data hemorrhage from companies have grown exponentially. The rise of consumer-creations online also means that outsiders have all manner of ways to record and report on the behavior of employees — as AOL discovered recently when a customer recorded and posted a frustrating telephone encounter with a customer service representative who refused his request to change his service plan and persistently pressed him with other options.

Clearly, firms need to create policies about how internal bloggers should treat company information, what kinds of intellectual property need to be protected, and basic norms of behavior that should guide people who want to create online material.

Reality 4 — They are product and people rankers and that informs their notions of propriety.

This is the wisdom-of-crowds generation that grew up rating peers’ physical attributes (amihotornot.com), pop culture creations (metacritic.com reviews), teachers’ style and grading practices (ratemyprofessors.com), products and services (epinions.com), and even weddings (bridezilla.com). No surprise, then, that there are websites drawing decent traffic for people to rate their bosses, their clients, and their customers. The tone of online commentary is often flame-oriented, racy, and retaliatory. This, too, is the generation that has given rise to cyber-bullying.

So, organizations might ponder adding a new clause or two to the policy manual about online etiquette inside and outside the workplace. “Most companies have policies in place against harassment based on things like sex, race, and ethnicity,” says Lynn Karoly, an economist at the RAND Corporation who has studied the 21st Century workplace. “But we should probably create new categories of policies to handle unacceptable online behaviors where liability might emerge.”

Reality 5 — They are multi-taskers often living in a state of “continuous partial attention” and that means the boundary between work and leisure is quite permeable.

The ubiquity of gadgets and media allows younger workers to toggle back and forth quickly between tasks for work and chatter with their friends, research for projects and diversions on their screens. Many marvel at their capacity to juggle multiple tasks at once. An even sharper insight comes from Linda Stone, a technology consultant, who has noted that many technophiles function in a condition she calls “continuous partial attention,” where they are scanning all available data sources for the optimum inputs.

Those who operate in such a state are not as productive as those who stay on task. They also do not make distinctions between the zones of work and leisure, consumer and producer, education and entertainment. “Their worlds bleed together,” argues Charles Grantham, another principal at Future of Work. “It is pretty useless to try to draw borders around different spheres of life for them. It’s better to let them shift among them at their own choosing as long as the work gets done.”

Rebecca Ryan of Next Generation Consulting says she has recently gained a new appreciation for young workers’ capacity to multi-task even when it seems rude and inattentive. In an email, she explained:

“We currently have an intern who’s working on several critical projects. She’s brilliant and a great fit for our team. At meetings, she’s online the whole time. At first, I was totally put off by this — Why isn’t she looking me in the eye? But then I realized that our ‘to do’ lists were a LOT shorter after these meetings because she would locate the information we needed in real time, which eliminated the need for a lot of follow-up work. So, something that I initially perceived as ‘poor manners’ on her part actually ended up being a great efficiency in our team meetings.”

Again, companies would be wise to spell out their tolerance levels for the amount of personal activity workers are allowed on the clock and their expectations about the availability of workers outside the office and after hours.

Many firms see no option but to embrace the world of digital natives. Agilent Technologies, a top global measurement company, began early this year to distribute iPod Nanos to new employees hired from U.S. college campuses. The Nanos were preloaded with podcasts describing each of the benefits offered by the company, such as the 401(k) retirement plan and options for health insurance. “The college kids loved getting the benefit overviews preloaded on the iPod, while our older workers often preferred to read about these things on our web site,” notes human resources manager Cathy Taylor. “There are different generational learning styles.”

Still, the ethic of podcasting information has now begun to spread through the company and some of those older workers have caught the bug, too. For a recent retirement party, staffers from Agilent’s far-flung offices collaborated on a podcast for the retiree. You Raise Me Up by Andrea Bocelli was dubbed over the voiced well wishes and the podcast was played over a WebEx teleconference. “It was a first for a virtual retirement party,” enthuses Taylor. “We’ll be doing it again.”

———-

Excerpts from this essay have already appeared in the Financial Times and The Observer. We’ve been busy.

The latest findings from Pew Internet #1.

In the first of two posts about Pew, findings from a survey published on 24th September of internet leaders, activists, and analysts which show that a majority agree with predictions that by 2020:

  • A low-cost global network will be thriving and creating new opportunities in a ‘flattening’ world.
  • Humans will remain in charge of technology (phew), even as more activity is automated and ’smart agents’ proliferate. However, a significant 42% of survey respondents were pessimistic about humans’ ability to control the technology in the future. This significant majority agreed that dangers and dependencies will grow beyond our ability to stay in charge of technology.
  • Virtual reality will be compelling enough to enhance worker productivity and also spawn new addition problems (we’re already dusting off our copy of Wild Palms.
  • Tech ‘refuseniks’ will emerge as a cultural group characterised by their choice to live off the network. Some will do this as a behign way to limit information overload, while others will commit acts of violence and terror against technology-inspired change.
  • People will wittingly and unwittingly disclose more about themselves, gaining some benefits in the process even as they lose some privacy.
  • English will be a universal language of global communications, but other languages will not be displaced. Indeed, many felt other languages such as Mandarin, would grown in prominence.

At the same time, there was strong dispute about those futuristic scenarios among notable numbers of 742 respondents to survey conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project and Elon University. Those who raised challenges believe that governments and corporations will not necessarily embrace policies that will allow the network to spread to under-served populations; that serious social inequalities will persist; and that “addiction” is an inappropriate notion to attach to people’s interest in virtual environments.

The experts and analysts also split evenly on a central question of whether the world will be a better place in 2020 due to the greater transparency of people and institutions afforded by the internet: 46% agreed that the benefits of greater transparency of organizations and individuals would outweigh the privacy costs and 49% disagreed.

Read all of the findings at the Pew Internet site.

No one wants their MTV anymore.

The original music video channel is losing out to MySpace and must have been shaken to its soles by the news that YouTube is planning a bottomless music video archive. The music video success story of the 80s and 90s, MTV has done pretty well in the noughties with cheap-but-effective formats such as the Pimp My Ride and Crib formats, but can it survive the convergence revolution?

According to the Wall Street Journal, MTV has failed to migrate its viewers online. Its much flaunted online property, MTV Overdrive, attracts fewer than four million unique visitors a month, a minute proportion of MTV’s 82 million monthly US viewers. In contrast, MySpace gets nearly 55 million unique visitors in the US a month and YouTube draws 16 million.

The really devastating implication of this for MTV and other broadcasters is that its brand can’t seem to save it. In the shiny new world of fan-created and fan-consumed content, users couldn’t give a toss about who delivers their stuff — just that they get it. The other problem is how to keep up with a youthful audience shooting and distributing their own stuff faster than an MTV with its studios, producers, licensing, artist management and the rest.

MTV’s stumble has lessons for major media companies watching the explosion of video on the Web. In the closed confines of cable TV. where competition is limited, MTV has protected its niche by portraying itself as the iconoclastic outsider. But the Web is a free-for-all, and the roster of competitors grows every day. MTV, now part of the establishment and late to the game, wrongly assumed its famous brand name and product would have the same resonance online.

And — as many big media players have also found out to their horror — their big corporate structures and strictures won’t protect them either. The anarchic aspect of sites like YouTube and MySpace is precisely what makes them havens for teens. MTV and other Viacom properties are subject to the kind of censorship of content that saw CBS fined $500,000 for Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction‘ in 2004.

One 15 year old quoted by the Wall Street Journal reasons: “MTV is supposed to be ‘music television’, but they don’t really have the music part, they have a lot of reality shows.” And as we know, if you’re not speaking clearly and honestly in the new emergent world, then no-one’s listening. And, as a teen, if your options were MTV vs. the Land of Do As You Please which would you choose?

An online fiction with a life of its own.

We’ve written before, and as believers, that a future of narrative involves transmedia: the tactical use of multiple media to build and spread a many-faceted story, or to sketch a fictional world. Transmedia, at its best, promises to punch through the screen, tear up the page, and engage audiences in a fluid, immersive experience somewhere between traditional story-telling and alternate-reality gaming.

With a few notable exceptions, transmedia is as much media-geek theory object as it is template for successful fictionalising — but it’s a hot topic getting hotter by the day. This week’s case study is the story of YouTube star-in-the-making LonelyGirl15, whose transmedial existence is described in loving detail by New York magazine. Word on the Internet is that her site is set up to promote a film. Or not. Whatever. The sign’o'the times is the degree to which the fantasy has been bought into and built on by others online:

Ironically, her most prominent critic—a YouTuber named ­Gohepcat, a film-geek hipster in mirrored sunglasses and a cowboy hat—has become a mini–YouTube star in his own right. And because anyone on YouTube can post responses or theories about Lonelygirl (and plenty have), her story now has its own metastasizing, David Lynch–worthy cast: Not just Lonelygirl, Daniel, and their ­monkey puppet (don’t ask), but the ­Javert-like Mirrored Cowboy; her defender, Nerd With the Headset; a nemesis called Lazydork; and Richard Feynman. (Yes, Richard Feynman, the famous physicist. He doesn’t appear personally—it’s a long story.)

There’s always been a section of the fan community willing to dive into co-creation, but post-Reality-TV, post clip culture, everyone wants their 15 click-throughs of fame. LonelyGirl15 is just the kind of cultural attractor to encourage them on their way.

If you haven’t read Convergence Culture yet, now’s a good time to get it on order: the wave of transmedia is still gathering speed, and when it hits the mainstream, it’s going to hit hard.

[Thanks to Andrew for the tip-off].

UPDATE: The LA Times has an interview with the LonelyGirl15 film-makers. In a nutshell, like the charming ‘How to be a chav’ Film, the work is the creation of aspiring film-makers:

“We did this with zero resources. Anybody could do what we did,” Flinders said Tuesday. The sum total of the equipment they used to create a sensation on the Internet, as well as perhaps the web’s biggest homegrown mystery: “Two desk lamps (one broken), an open window and a $130 camera.”

Goodfried said Creative Artists Agency in Beverly Hills got involved about a month ago — well into the lonelygirl15 story — through a friend who works at the agency. “We went in there one afternoon. I walked around the place, and met some cool young guys that got the idea and said they would help us,” he said.

YouTube or Citizen Kane? On disc, or online? A reported technological breakthrough suggests that the skirmishes are over. The real battle for the future of video in the home is about to begin.

Technology Review reports claims from a company called MatrixStream that it can now stream HDTV content in realtime, over the public Internet. That’s big news, for a couple of important reasons.

It makes moot the outcome of the format war between the HiDef successors to DVD: if it’s possible to stream HD content on demand long-haul over broadband, it’s unlikely that (m)any punters will take a chance on ending up stuck with the ‘BetaMax of HD’. Instead, they’re going to wait until Apple releases its much-anticipated HiDef ‘media centre’ device. Long tipped to feature iTunes-enabled online access to first-run and classic films and TV series, Apple’s box is an even more compelling proposition if that content can be made instantly available through streaming.

Streaming HD not only marks the death of physical media. It also defines a new battleground: one where encumbent media behemoths will have to fight it out not only against consumer-created content (the Cat Channel) but against existing professional content producers as well. bruckheimer.tv? Hell, that would be on my playlist. Content is media. True today, ubiquitous tomorrow, on a thousand ‘channels-of-me‘.

The only question is, which content will show up on streaming HD? MatrixStream claims to be betting on the long tail:

[...] Independent content producers who could use high-definition Internet IPTV to reach niche audiences with premium programming that makes today’s streaming video look primitive. “We’re talking about the real long tail,” says [MatrixStream's CTO] Chung. “Instead of 500 channels, you’ll have a million. Or, to put it another way, you’ll have just one channel — yours.”

That’s a lot of content, and it will take a while for producers to create (and financiers to see the value of) high-quality niche programming. In the interim, we’re sceptical that punters who have just paid out for their HD home cinema ‘experience’ will use it to watch the same YouTube nonsense that keeps them busy in the office. Likewise, we doubt that MatrixStream’s system will herald the crossover of fan-created TV into the mainstream (not yet, at least).

We think they’re most likely to get bought out by Apple and end up streaming the same glossy, professionally-produced content we’re busily consuming on our Sky+ boxes and at the cinema — the revolutionary aspects of this technology will be in the way it opens up the market to different media and channel models. Assuming of course that Apple (or whoever gets their deals in place first) doesn’t just lock it all down with DRM and create a media monopoly that Charles Foster Kane himself would have envied. Stay (ahem) tuned.

Henry Jenkins’ new book tells the story of emergent participatory media. He kindly granted BigShinyThing an exclusive email interview.

For a while now, we’ve been paying great attention to the writings of Henry Jenkins, Director of the Comparative Media Studies graduate program at MIT.

Over the last few years, he’s argued that the participatory creation led by fans and gamers heralds a transformation in creative media. His new book, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide ties together many of the threads of his research, and was recently published to rave reviews from all sides.

While impatiently waiting for our copy to arrive, we caught up with Jenkins via email to get our readers the lowdown on his persuasive arguments about fan culture, collaborative production, and the social networking site backlash.

BST: We’re still waiting for your book to turn up in the mail! Can you tell us a little about its premise?

JENKINS: We live in an age where every story, image, brand, relationship will play itself out across the broadest possible array of media channels. This convergence is shaped top-down by decisions made in corporate boardrooms by companies wishing to tap their cross-media ownership and bottom-up by decisions made in teen’s bedrooms as they want to consume the media they want where they want it and when they want it.

Consumers are gaining a new power as they learn to operate within the knowledge cultures emerging within a networked society and as they learn to share media they’ve produced with each other.

Right now, they are acquiring and mastering these skills through their play with popular culture, but soon they will be applying them towards other powerful institutions. And Stuff.

You are a fan of fans, and argue that fans have long been ahead of the convergence curve, with their understanding that the ‘text’ of the stories they care about is open to engagement, involvement, transformation. Now a much wider community is participating in cultural creation. Is there an essential difference between fan-created content and other content contributions from the ‘former audience’?

Fans have been and are likely to continue to be the shock troops in this transformation of our culture — highly motivated, passionately committed, and socially networked. They are early adopters of new technologies and willing to experiment with new relationships to culture. (We might also throw into this category other highly motivated groups such as bloggers and gamers.)

There are signs that fan culture practices and products are spreading throughout the culture. Recent statistics from the Pew Center of Internet and American Life found that more than half of teens online produce some form of media and many of them shared what they produced by others. They are part of the participatory culture I am describing. So are people who join discussion forms or sign up for RSS feeds to get more information about their favorite band or television program.

As writers like Will Wright and Raph Koster have suggested, there is a pyramid of participation. Not everyone will want to spend massive amounts of time generating new content — some will simply want to engage with content others have produced. Not everyone will write fan stories — some may share critical responses with the authors. Not everyone will want to spoil reality television programs — some will simply enjoy the new relationships to the program the spoiler community helps to create for them. But the expansion of this participatory culture changes the context in which media content gets produced and distributed and thus it impacts all of us one way or another. Given this, I would imagine fans may still enjoy a privileged status in participatory culture but more and more people will benefit from the once invisible cultural work of fans.

As you define it, is ‘convergence’ an historical event, which has already occurred, an epoch (like the Renaissance), during which we are living, or something experiential, which is happening to different groups of people at differing times, in different ways?

That’s an interesting question. In some ways, each of these would be accurate.

In the book, I challenge those who think of convergence as a technological process and feel that we are a long way from integrating our communications technologies. I suggest we are already living in a convergence culture if we take advantage of the many kludged together ways that content travels across media platforms right now.

But I also see convergence as an ongoing process — not an endpoint — so it doesn’t make sense to read it as a historical event that has already occured, even if some aspects of the change have been building over an extended period of time at this point. I do think convergence is going to define our relationship to media for an extended period of time forward so it is in some ways an epoch.

But I also think the transitional nature of the present moment, as well as the uneven distribution of media technologies, means that we are not all living in convergence culture in the same ways or the same degrees. If it is an epoch, then, it is one that is just beginning and the long term consequences of these shifts are going to play themselves out for years and years to come.

The ‘Renaissance Man’ was a new creature, in that ‘his’ identity was open to invention, construction, reassembly, interrogation. What defines the ‘Convergence Person’, if such a person exists as a type? Who exemplifies this, and why?

The Renaissance Man was someone who sought to contain within their own individual intellect as much as possible of what anyone on the planet at that time knew.

Today, with the explosion of information we are all experiencing, it is simply not humanly possible to know everything. Most of us alive today know more about a broader range of topics than most of the people living in the Renaissance but we know a much smaller portion of what could be known that the idealized vision of the Renaissance Man suggests.

This is where Pierre Levy’s notion of Collective Intelligence enters the picture. Today, we see knowledge as dispersed across social networks. Everybody knows something, nobody knows everything, and what is known by any member is accessible to the group on demand. The Convergence Person thus knows how to tap that network to get the knowledge they need and knows how to make meaningful contributions back to the group in return. The Renaissance Man was a creature of hierarchy and expertise; the Convergence Person is a creature of adhocracy and pooled information.

Do you feel that converged culture offers specific opportunities to — or imposes particular obligations on — the ‘official’ creators of fictional worlds (open-endedness, unresolved story arcs etc)?

In the book, I offer two terms to refer to the aesthetic goals of convergence culture.

First, works seek to be cultural attractors. If consumption is now social and communal, then certain works will attract together people of similar interests so that they can begin to pool knowledge together. To do that, they often must tap existing cultural references in the way that Lost or The Matrix or Harry Potter can be said to do.

Second, works seek to be cultural activators. They give audiences something to do — some activity, some roles and goals, some meaningful form of participation. This can be literally the case in terms of the mechanisms of participation that surround reality television or computer games. Or it can simply be the show embeds lots of secrets and thus opens itself up to a prolonged process of decryption, as seems to be the case of Lost. There are plenty of shows that achieve the first, far fewer which achieve the second.

Once you’ve designed a cultural attractor and activator, the next step out would be to provide raw materials which fans then want to recombine in new ways and thus generate new forms of cultural expression. And the final step in this process may be to find ways to monitor and amplify the creative energies of these fan communities to sustain popular interest in your program.

To achieve the first two, you need the skills and creativity of professional creators. To achieve the second two, you have to create a context where grassroots creativity is respected rather than shut down.

Lost would seem to be a show which does very well by the first two criteria: a decade ago, Lost would be a cult show like Twin Peaks was in its time. Now, it is one of the highest rated shows on American television despite the fact that, as Steven Johnson has pointed out, it is also one of the most intellectually demanding shows on American television (or more precisely because it is so demanding.) It is designed in a way to generate constant secrets which we want to uncover and thus providing fuel for the participation of large scale knowledge communities. The map which was flashed across the screen for a split second in a single episode is, as Jason Mittell has noted, emblematic of that new relationship with the consumer.

As of this summer, the Lost Team has pushed this one step further by creating an alternate reality game that will generate new opportunities for participation and socialization around the series. There has been some suggestion that the Lost writers also monitor online communities and reshape the story in response to their speculations.

There has so far been fewer signs of audiences recreating Lost or creating the next generation of Lost on their own. This may be because the series is so demanding and people are still so unsettled in their expectations about what is actually going on there. In that regard, Lost may generate more new culture once it is finished than it has so far. This was certainly the case with Twin Peaks which only really started to inspire fan fiction once it was off the air. It is spectacular though to recognize that Wrapped in Plastic, a fanzine produced when the show was first aired, is still being produced and read — and if anything, it has more subscribers now, a decade plus later, than when the series was first broadcast. This is a classic illustration of the ways that fans can help extend the shelf life of media products.

With the advent of weightless digital media, we’ve anticipated some global crossover hit from somewhere other than the ‘first world’, but so far, it’s not happened — music in particular seems to exist in tight local (spatial or cultural) ghettos of genre. Any thoughts on what it would take for a truly converged global music culture and if/when it will happen?

I think you are measuring success by the old standards — looking for mega-hits — whereas the greatest impact of globalization in media content so far comes on the other end of Chris Anderson’s long tail. Global media in the West remains niche media.

Indeed, you can argue that it is the most vivid example of the potential of niche media for market success. Music is, as you note above, in general, defined right now by ever more precise niches or “ghettos of genre” to use your term. While music can be a shared resource within subcultural communities, there is very little music we listen to as a culture at large.

The Nichification of music is suggested by something like MySpace which emerged initially as a vehicle for helping people to find music that they liked by tapping their social networks. The massification of music might be suggested by something like American Idol — which has self consciously sought to generate music that will appeal across a broad demographic (though in reality, the best Idols have turned out to be second run performers on the show who then get pulled into specialized niches once they depart it.)

Right now, I see people consuming more and more media from other parts of the world — global fusion music, anime and manga, Bollywood films, Latin America soaps, Nigerian horror films, etc. but in fairly localized communities of interests. We are seeing this culture brought into the western market by a mixture of Otaku (fans) and Desi (immigrants): fans seek out difference where-ever they can find it in the world; immigrants seek to maintain ties back to the mother country which they left. Both contribute to a cultural landscape where global media is more readily available. And the results can take off dramatically.

Do you think that the diversification of modes of media consumption (iPod, PVR/DVR, home cinema, mobile phone) makes for a fundamental challenge to creators of ‘content’? If so, what’s the challenge, and where do you see this challenge leading?

Ok — there are two potential challenges — one a dead-end, the other a new possibility for gifted entertainers.

The dead end is the idea of developing content that simply gets reconfigured easily across all of those platforms. This is an idea that’s been kicking around for a while and this practice shows little to no appreciation of the aesthetic and social dimensions of those various media.

The result will be something like the pan and scan prints of films which have been reconfigured to fit our television screens as opposed to the letterboxed prints that reflect a recognition of the aesthetic practices that shaped the original product and seek a meaningful compromise as it is moved into the new medium.

To create media content that is mechanically reconfigured across all of those platforms is to produce content that really exploits the potentials of none of those media. We’ve seen this in cinema where the expressive uses of cinemascope found in the 1950s when films were designed for the big screen have given way to the pretty limited use of the frame edges that characterize current filmmaking practice. However big the screen looks in the theatre, the significant action has to play out within the boxed window which will be visible on the television screen.

There will of course be some content that moves easily from platform to platform but in general, I think one has to develop strategies appropriate for each space. We are already seeing that there are television series that do spectacularly well on video iPod that are not ratings champs on broadcast and other shows, sitcoms, dramatically under-perform in these new contexts.

The alternative is what I am calling transmedia storytelling or more broadly transmedia entertainment. This is a system where each medium makes a distinct contribution to the media franchise, each is left to do what it does best, and the reader is able to expand on their experience of a favorite story by pulling together bits and pieces of information from various sources.

I discuss this in the book in terms of The Matrix where the films, animation, games, and comics each made unique and integral contributions to the whole. This is similar to the “media mix” culture that has emerged in Japan, for example. I believe that transmedia storytelling represents the most compelling way to use convergence to expand the canvas on which our most creative entertainers work.

We are convinced that the current proliferation of hardware and software is but a moment ie netflix, PVRs, chargeable film downloads, before content moves entirely online (reaches convergence). However, the media industry at large appears to be in denial about this — do you agree?

I am much more interested in predicting where our culture is going than predicting where technology is going. My hunch is that we are going to see a variety of delivery mechanisms for the foreseeable future and indeed, that there will be no steady state of media convergence, no fully integrated technological infrastructure.

We are seeing that divergence as demonstrated by specialized devices is part of the process by which convergence operates. I don’t happen to like the idea of my cell phone as a media appliance, for example, and I find that I prefer to watch dvds on a portable dvd player rather than my laptop. These are probably idiosyncratic choices but then, the point is that every consumer wants their own unique mix of media appliances because they like certain affordances each offers in specific contexts.

My hunch is