Category Archives: Tech

Evolving into Creativity

Just read Tara Hunt’s blog post regarding bite size data and broken attention spans.  As a multi-tasker who has a family member with ADHD, I felt compelled to wade in.

To be clear: I’m not a doctor.  I’m not a scientist.  I’m not a psychologist, though I work with people and what they think.  But let’s face it, doctors consistently change their views on even the most important things.  This isn’t bad; this is medical research progressing.  But with that in mind, let’s look at what’s going on without any of the current medical research gumming up the works.

Split Attenion

I spend most of my day doing at least 3 things.  I constantly have chat windows open (AIM, MSN, IRC, and Gmail chat), I receive regular email notifications, I’m busy in Office applications, I’m Twittering, I’m checking my SNS and blogging and working.  This is normal at Flock.  This is normal in most places.

If I had told my father when I was a kid that I’d be doing this, he would have laughed at me.  He grew up in a time when you did maybe two things at once.  These days, however, he’s forced to multitask.  He drives his container-carrying trailer to the job while talking to clients on the phone and getting pages from others.  He wouldn’t have chosen it, but even his two-task-trained mind has adjusted to handle this.

By comparison, I grew up multitasking.  TV and computer (a habit I’ve tried to break and mostly succeeded) were my evenings.  While I absorbed theatrical elements and plot development from the tube (the original tube), I spoke with friends online, played games, found random stuff online, and/or worked on my own little projects.  I felt bad about this at the time; kids weren’t supposed to do this.  We were supposed to concentrate on our homework.

Cons

To be fair, I didn’t come out of this as a multi-million dollar champ who laughed in the face of parents and old teachers.  In fact, my grades were less than good and my college options were limited.  When I took my first difficult college class (Astronomy) I nearly failed because I simply couldn’t absorb that much straight data.

Like Tara, I learned to focus my energy.  In a way, it’s a sort of balance.  I now enjoy the concentration taken to focus on a single piece of writing (reading or creating) because I know I’m really getting something out of it.  Once I finish, I relish the dive back into multiple streams of data and creation.

Is this for everyone?  No.  Figuring out how to concentrate my multi-tasking brain wasn’t fun, and if I had screwed up badly enough I would have regretted it.

Where is this all going?

So what is the answer?  Are we all crippling ourselves?  Tara disagrees.  “It sounds a little like evolution to me.”  YES!  I think one of the most-overlooked elements of evolution is the evolution of thought processes.  It is a much faster evolution than that of our bodies.  Frankly, I think this has been labeled Anthropology and Psychology and left alone by scientists of evolution.  But it’s fascinating to think of all the unresearched gaps here.  Why is it that I (with my inferior single concentration) can figure out a technical device that I have no experience with, while my father (with superior concentration) can’t?  I refuse to attribute this all to “experience with technology”.  My dad has plenty of technology and has had it for awhile.  It’s our BRAINS that are different.

So, is this good?  I think the truth is that no one knows.  Is all evolution good?  No.  Evolution is a reaction to environmental circumstances.  It does not take into consideration how things might change in the future.  It doesn’t take into account that this change might be temporary.  If all computers died today, we might be crippled.  We might die off, leaving only the John Locke’s.

What do I think the result of this will be?  I think increased creativity is the most fantastic element of this.  Previously, one had to dedicate specfic time to creation.  Only those with lots of time or the ability to concentrate and create in short periods really revolutionized things.

Now, we all have the time (due to multi-tasking) to imagine and create.  “User-generated content” is a big buzzword right now, but nobody seems to be thinking about it on a deeper level.  Is the internet or technology the real reason for more user-generated content?  No, the real reason is these people have the ability to create and imagine in the space between moments.

This isn’t all good.  In fact, I attribute it to the creation of many crappy, crappy bands.  They have time to work and work on songs until they’re just enough above craptastic to be slightly marketable.  But I think that, by far, the result has been positive.  From the fantastic collections of data on the internet to the myriad of blogger opinions to the startup businesses created in spare time or an afternoon…we’re truly experiencing a renaissance, and it’s because of this ability to split our concentration.

The end to this enormous diatribe is rather simple: don’t fight this.  We’ve stifled evolution as much as we can with chemicals, confines, prosthetics and the like.  Let’s not kill the one, amazing evolution occurring in our brains right now.

As Tara said: “Information overload is painful, yes, but it is necessary, I believe, for our personal advancement.”  Amen.  And now I’m off to Twitter, Gmail, and Flock.  Hm, maybe a little IM too.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Confessions of a Lost addict

I’m a Lost addict.  I’ll be the first to admit it.  No need to have an intervention where my friends and family sit me down and say, in low voices, “Evan, you have a problem”.  It’s true.  Claire and I stay up hours past when we should be sleeping to find out what will happen next with the hatch, the others, the island.

Part of the problem is that we’re still catching up; I saw Season 1 of Lost and then got too busy to watch it weekly.  Claire only recently got interested, and so we’ve been sprinting towards the third season.  We just finished the second season (three words: what the hell!?!?), and now we’re in a pickle: Netflix, our Lost dealer, does not have the yet-to-be-completed season 3 on DVD.  When we realized this, we broke out into a cold sweat.  I started to itch and Claire began to convulse and tear apart the apartment looking for a forgotten disc.  There had to be more, had to be!

We tried the next line of attack (bearing in mind that I have not the time, will, or bandwidth to use bittorrent or the like): iTunes.  I bought an episode and we watched it on my 15-inch screen.  Small size aside, there were slowdowns during the large pans and some audio/video syncing problems.  Not to mention it cost me $2 an episode.

Luckily, a friend let us know that you can watch episode of Lost for free (!) on ABC.com.  Awesome, good move ABC.  Unfortunately, they’re smarter than I expected: you can only get the most recent 10 episodes.  The season is probably 20 episodes in, so we’ve been reduced to buying the episodes on the iTunes store.  I’m trying to not be bitter, but I feel like Netflix has let me down.

With that in mind, here’s what Netflix should do:

In addition to the collected season discs, Netflix should release “singles” of Lost: single episodes on a disc.  As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t even need to have a unique menu (as classy as the Lost DVD menus are).  It just needs to work.  I’d be perfectly willing to use one of my Netflix slots for this.  Sure, some money would be spent creating these discs (which I suppose would have to eventually be sold for very cheap on the Netflix store), but I think fellow Lost addicts will agree with me: we will have incredible loyalty to Netflix if they support our addiction.

I’m off to rob my best friend so I can buy more Lost on Netflix and smoke it.

Blogged with Flock

Tags:

Community Next: Hot or Not?

I had the pleasure of attending the Community Next conference at Stanford this weekend.  The following is my story.

(cue Law and Order orchestra hit)

Community Next was organized by the (in?)famous and high-energy Noah Kagen.  Sadly, I didn’t get to chat with him for very long, but he graciously cleared up some registration problems (not their fault) quickly for me, so he gets points for that.

Squeezed into Stanford’s Annenberg Auditorium, Community Next was definitely underestimated.  As I heard it, the waiting list was 3x the size of attendees…not a bad feat for a first-time conference.

After some cute “social networking” activities that didn’t quite catch on (finding the attendee with your “weird fact”, signing “Hello, my name is” shirts) and a generous collection of Noah’s Bagels, the varied group of Web2.0ers shuffled their way into the auditorium.  This was defintely the right crowd for this conference: strangers meeting left and right, reluctant to move from the idea-riffing of the hallways into the confines of the presentations.

After the somewhat appropriate notes of The Who’s Baba O’Reilly (“The exodus is here/The happy ones are near/Let’s get together/Before we get much older”) faded out, Noah briefly introduced the conference (saying something about cheating girlfriends and the Amish) before giving the floor to Josh Spear and Aaron Dignan.  As would become the standard, the two presenters ran down a quick list of their top rules and were shuffled offstage before they could go into much depth.

Highlights (paraphrased):
“Be authentic…your social networking site should be built by lovers.”
“Let community create you (integrate, don’t infiltrate)”.

Tara Hunt ran into the same time constraints, making it very obvious that this conference should have been two days long (and probably will be next year, if this year’s success was any indication).

Next was a very interesting panel discussing “creating, analyzing, and marketing your own online community” featuring Hiten Shah of Crazyegg, Matt Roche of Offermatica, Mike Jones of Userplane (who looks like Jason Statham in The Transporter but is actually less terrifying), and Joe Hurd of VideoEgg.  A much more business-minded group than the semantic openers, the highlights of this discussion included the suggestion to build one user at a time…literally.  MySpace and Friendster, one of the panelists pointed out, started adding their friends one by one.  “I would see Tom on IM at 3 in the morning, plugging away”.

“Ask your users about advertising” was another theme (reiterated by Heather Luttrell of 3jam and indieclick later in the conference); they know you have to pay the bills, and they’d rather have input than have it sprung on them.

And one of the best quotes of the conference came from Matt Roche: “MySpace is a massive popularity contest…like digital binders covered in stickers.”  So true.  What does that make Facebook?  A pretentious art student’s portfolio?

I won’t go much into his presentation, but Nikhyl Singhal of SayNow has an amazing product that links fans and artists by voice…they sent my band, Monsters are not Myths an invitation a few weeks back, and now I’m fully convinced.

Lunch was delicious Hawaiian BBQ and a significant amount of social networking.  I felt really dumb not having any business cards yet (that’s definitely on the list for today).  Oh well.

Things got much more exciting after lunch, as we were treated to the best presentation of the conference: “The patent-pending skinnyCorp method for creating online awesomeness and other cool stuff” by Jeffrey Kalmikoff and Jake Nickell of Threadless.  These guys could go into stand up comedy if they weren’t making tons of money from Threadless, Naked & Angry, and Extra Tasty!  But they weren’t just funny: they were right.

Jeffrey and Jake hammered in this major point:

“Your Project Is Not Good Enough”

No, they weren’t trying to get us down.  Their point was that you are never “finished” with your product unless you’re shutting it down.  They’ve started a number of projects because they wanted to use them (iparklikeanidiot.com being my favorite), and every time one of these projects became stupid/useless/uninteresting,  they shut them down.  The ones they didn’t shut down they continue to expand and enhance (and they’re making a lot of money from it).

Their four commandments (“We figured out that because we have four commandments, it means each of our commandments are 2 1/2 times more powerful than each of Moses’ Commandments”):

1. Allow your content to be created by it’s community
2. Put your project in the hands of it’s community (actually, not just pretending)
3. Let your community grow ITSELF
4. Reward the community that makes your project possible

I would have loved to chat with these two later, but they were swamped with questions.  Truly the best work of the conference.

We were swung through a couple short presentations next: Heather Luttrel spoke about monetizing with ads (and not pissing off your audience), Fred Stutzman of claimid gave us some figures about social networks, and Jake Mckee emphasized how important even a small but evangelical percentage of your community can be.

Ted Rheingold, John Vars, and Steven Reading of Dogster (and Catster) went through a (slightly too long) discussion of how they started the two sites.  It was very impressive, offering a few relevant points and one slightly painful statement: “I’m so sick of everything being beta”.  Flock 1.0 is coming soon, I promise!

Lastly, we had an interesting panel moderated by the funny and incredibly intelligent Guy KawasakiAkash Garg of hi5, Sean Suhl of Suicide Girls, James Hong of HotOrNot, Markus Frind of PlentyOfFish, Max Levchin of Slide and Drew Curtis of Fark meditated on how they reached 5 million members.  The answer was mainly: right place, right time, a concept they would enjoy, and a lot of experimentation.  Also, the best quotes of the conference:

Curtis: “Basically, we’re a complete waste of time.”

Suhl: “I was working for a big sportswear manufacturer in Portland…”
Guy: “And you decided to ‘Just Do It’?”

Hong: “How HotOrNot started…I was drinking.”

Curtis: “Actually, I could have flipped a coin…and had a Curry Recipe Database instead of Fark.”

My conclusion: Community Next, while a bit rough around the edges, is definitely Hot.  It’s great to see so much emphasis placed on community and so many minds thinking about it.  Here’s hoping we see an expanded conference next year with more presenter time, more space, more organization, and more Hawaiian BBQ.

-Evan

Blogged with Flock

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Steve Jobs is against DRMs too?

I just read a fascinating column by Steve Jobs. Addressing the anger over the Apple DRM system, Jobs explains why the system is in place and what the three alternatives are. To summarize:

1. Continue as we are: “each manufacturer competing freely with their own “top to bottom” proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music”.
Pros: Competition is good, it’s what capitalism is based on, and it will continue to provide consumers with choice and innovation.
Cons: We continue to be relatively locked to whatever mp3 player we happened to buy (*cough*Zune*cough).

2. Apple liscenses out it’s DRM technology, allowing users to buy their music from any online store and play it on any player.
Pros: Apple would receive a small fee for the technology, and consumers would no longer be locked to their hardware purchases.
Cons: With wider knowledge of the DRM technology, there is bound to be a leak that will compromise the system and upset the record companies (thereby halting all online sales).

3. Abolish DRM’s and let the music free.
Pros: The ability for smaller, innovative startups to compete in the online music market (see Amie St for an example), potentially creating more sales for the record companies. Oh, and we can do whatever we want with the music we buy with our own money.
Cons: Er…well, there are only cons for the record companies, who could potentially lose lots of money to music sharing. At this point they would either have to downgrade the plating on their toilets from gold to silver, or pay the musicians even less. I’m guessing they would choose the latter.

What does Jobs propose we do to acheive #3 (more likely than #2 and better than #1)? Convince the record companies. Once they’re convinced, he claims Apple will happily discard DRMs and come over to your house and trade some music with you, as long as you promise to let them play your Xbox for a bit and not tell anyone about it.

I’m extremely appreciative of Job’s candor here, and I understand that he’s running a highly competitive business. However, the end of this article does not exactly imbue me with hope and excitement. Convince the record companies? When has that ever worked? And is it at all reasonable to expect the millions of casual music downloaders (who don’t know a DRM from a BMW) that they should picket in front of Universal and stop their download of the new Norah Jones album? Not really.

I’m not sure who to put the responsibility on…I suppose Jobs could stand up and say “No more DRMs.” to the record companies. He certaintly has balls to write this public column that essentially condemns the record industry. And he has significant power, considering iPod’s are the top-selling mp3 player and Apple has such a loyal consumer base.
But if Jobs did put his foot down and the record companies refused to continue working with Apple, I somehow doubt the consumer feeling towards Jobs would be rosy. He’s in a tough spot.

The artists won’t be any help. It’s hard enough actually making money that you don’t owe to the record company as a successful band (See “So You Wanna Be A Rock’n’Roll Star?” for a great example of how a wildly successful album and quick rise to stardom do nothing to elminate your debt). And those that have been financially successful haven’t exactly been clamoring for DRM-free music (*sneeze*Lars Ulrich*sneeze*).

My conclusion? We’re not going anywhere for now, unless a big gun steps up to the plate or the rest of us get off our oh-well-I’m-going-to-burn-this-from-my-friend-anyway and what’s-a-DRM butts and picket. But it’s good to know that Jobs hears us and is not using DRM’s just to make us unhappy (that’s more like something Bill Gates or Carl Rove would do).

I welcome any suggestions that would put us in a better situation than the one I just suggested. Until then, invest in some Apple stock!

-Evan
evan at flock dot com

Blogged with Flock

Tags:

Amie Street

Amie Street, as reported on techcrunch, seems to be taking the high road in mp3 sales.  This is an amazing system designed to help independent bands sell their mp3’s.  Here’s how it works:

-Upload your songs
-Encourage people to download them for free
-As your tracks (hopefully) gain in popularity your prices are driven higher (with a 99cent cap).
-You get featured with other popular indie bands as your popularity grows even more.
-You keep 70% of revenues after the first $5, which is more than even the most popular bands get via record sales OR iTunes (though I think as an indie band, my band makes more like 60% from iTunes).

The greatest part about all this is that these are DRM-free mp3’s, which means you can upload to and play them on anything (unlike those pesky iTunes mp3’s, which only work on your iPod and start at 99cents).  I’m a firm believer in this, and so are most indie bands (we want that whole “viral” thing to work for our music…it’s not worth 99cents to deny someone that).

This isn’t to say that I don’t love my iPod nano. My band has it’s songs on iTunes; it’s where the business is. Do we get many purchases that way? No. This system definetly has potential. Will I put Monsters are not Myths‘ tracks on Amie Street? Not yet.
I think this is a great system, but for a very small and independent band like mine, I’m worried that our tracks never reach a popularity/price where we can make a profit. And with that alternative, we’ll get 0 downloads on iTunes. The alternative is selling mp3s on MySpace, which kind of makes me feel dirty inside (considering that MySpace is notoriously unstable and unsafe).

I’m not happy with our current situation, but I’m not convinced Amie Street is right for me (though I think it’ll be great for a bunch of indie musicians). I will be keeping a close eye on Amie Street and MySpace and returning to this debate in time.

-Evan

Blogged with Flock

Tags: