I’m in Nashville, TN and went to a singer-songwriter “in the round” thing at The Bluebird Cafe. It was quite interesting and I realized while watching these folks that I’m open to any music when there is artistry behind it, so I did enjoy myself.

Funny thing about country thematics, the songs seemed mostly about the following:

1) Wives/children/life (blue-collar type commentary)

2) The war

3) Blue-collar/country humor

About subject number 1: if you changed the key’s, maybe some pronouns and moved the music to Omaha, you’d have Brighteyes. I actually quite liked these songs. I also think Country music is almost a structuralist exercise in its adherence to classical rock song structure (intro verse/chorus/verse/chorus/middle-8/bridge/verse/chorus/chorus/outro).

I was down in Athens, GA earlier this week, and all told its been a great week musically. I have photos showing up soon from the studio with R.E.M. and I must say it’s always good to see my friends in the band, and their support staff. And it was actually really enjoyable to spend time with work friends outside of work, but in the context of work (if that makes sense).

Taken from Freedom Communication’s “video brochure” type thing (they are my former employer, long ago):

ORIGINALLY POSTED DECEMBER 2005, but now relevant thanks to the iTunes ringtone hacker store situation

The value proposition of a media artifact is inversely proportional to the level of abstraction applied by its transmission mechanism.

When I was at UCSB, I lectured a significant amount on the fact that with the movement toward an exclusively digital media-scape, the differences between media types are dependent not on formative properties, but on context and reconstruction. To give an example, the difference between a book and a newspaper happens at the core foundational level. Before content is even considered, each is on a path toward being distinct media (I’m speaking post-plate here). With digital media, the difference between media is not at the core — because of the absolute reductivity into binary — but instead at the level of context and representation.

An MP3 and webpage are formatively the same thing, but in representation extremely distinct. While you can read an Mp3 and listen to a newspaper by viewing the binary through alternative mechanisms (open an Mp3 in VI, or run the binary of a webpage through an audio-tap), you wouldn’t want to. The signal gets degraded to just noise as the context is not suited to the content.When given a lack of differentiation then between formative content, the primacy of the artifact itself is relegated to only the situation that enables representation rather than an object of representation itself. What this means is that an Mp3, a webpage, a photo, etc is indicative of something that can be represented, but as an artifact, it only exists as a braketed data source, not something tangible, intrinsic or immutable.

Ascribing value to a tangible artifact is easy in the sense that even outside the physiological aspects of production (the artist, craftsman, etc), there is the manufacturing cost, material cost and the requisite costs of the independent systems which enable the causal chain leading up to Artifact to happen. When itemized, even outside the cognitive valuation, an analog artifact directly correlates to a monentary value exchange.With digital media of course, the value of the artifact is less tangible and hence harder to quantify. How do you “value” a piece of data? Do you value it before or after reconstruction and representation? That is to say, is a FairPlay AAC file from the ITunes Music Store of value as data, or only of value in conjunction with a device that can play it (iTunes/Ipod)? Is the value of an image, say a stock image, the raw pixel data or the image itself? Are we paying more for more accurate representation (higher bitrate, higher resolution) or a better represented product?

The real question is: how do we equate abstraction with value?

This can be taken to mean, does the value of a digital artifact vary with the degree to which the artifact is abstracted?For an example, lets take a ringtone vs. a protected M4P file from iTunes. The song? Aftermath, by R.E.M. (as its a ringtone I bought last evening).The ringtone for Aftermath cost $2.50 dollars for a 90 day expiring license on Sprint. The ringtone is 15 seconds long, and is one of the choruses from the song. The entire song is 3:53 mins long, equating to 233 seconds. At $2.50 dollars for the ringtone, that means the entire song would cost $38.83. By contrast, the entire song on iTunes Music Store is .99 cents. Or for an Mp3 ripped from a CD, figuring that there are 13 songs on the record, and a record cost $11.99, that is .92 cents for the song?What accounts for a difference of near $38 between the 15 second ringtone and the .99 or .92 song?Simple: abstraction of the data that constitutes the song. This goes back to the first statement:

The value proposition of a media artifact is inversely proportional to the level of abstraction applied by its transmission mechanism.

In relation to a ringtone and an Mp3 then, this means the following: a ringtone is valued higher because the data more closely resembles an analog artifact. Its method of representation is so restricted, that even though it is digital data, it equates more to analog in that the possible choices for transmission mechanisms are limited on a strict basis to certain devices (phones). Thus the level of abstraction for the digital data is low, as abstraction implies choice and fluidity in the network from source to representation. The value proposition therefore is high, while the level of abstraction is low.With MP3’s and AAC’s (more for Mp3’s), the level of abstraction for the data is much higher. An unprotected Mp3 has such a fluidity of representation that the primacy of the data is diminished as the possibilities for recontextualization increases. By allowing an Mp3 to be represented in so many fashions (aurally, visually and even haptically), the primacy of the original artifact is reduced from an object of creative expression (music) to more a collection of data that can be represented as music if so desired, but also recontextualized in other fashions just as easily.

The abstraction of the data then is high, as it is entirely dependent on individual choice rather than lock-in for its representational framework.With high abstraction then comes low value proposition, as the power of the data is diminished through its lack of forcing of strict adherance to its own desired representational framework (like a ringtone). By allowing individual choice then, value gets diminished as the onus for half the media equation (representation) is on the user, not the media artifact itself.So for an MP3, it is .92 cents (or free for most kids) because of its relative abstraction as a piece of data, while a ringtone in the same equation is nearly 40 dollars because its strict media framework relegates it more toward a locked in analog artifact than a piece of digital data agnostic to final representation mechanisms.

Does this explain why a kid will spend hundreds on ringtones and nothing on music?

I think it does, and I see this personally applied to other media besides music, and even other circumstances. It is hard to quantify the value of data when the onus is on myself to make that data relavent to my own consumption desires. It is easier to ascribe value, and easier to spend the money when I know that the purchase of the data does not subject me in any way to dictating its use. It equates to convinience, but more I think it equates to giving people the knowledge of the abstract nature of data (as Mp3’s, photos, etc do), or hiding that abstraction from transmission to representation in order to equate the piece of datas value to the value of the device doing the representation.

This serves then to explain other situations:

• Why do we watch movies in theaters?
• Why do we still buy magazines, but not newspapers?
• Why did Apple need a video iPod to sell videos on iTunes en masse?
• Why are consoles still more popular than playing games on computers?
• Why are Apple’s better than PC’s, according to the evangalistic meme?
• Why does Just In Time manfuacturing products cost less at times (think Scion)?

Here is the quation then:

Value ∝ 1/Abstraction

I’d love to hear comments on this. I plan on lecturing on this at UCSB on October 28 for the Art 1A class.

So if you want to know really what Apple did today, it is confirm the fact that they are moving away from “computer as your digital hub” into “we are making an undirected graph structure that encompasses your digital life.” Quite wordy! But its pretty much true.

You can see this in the fact that Apple now, as I predicted a while ago, is entering the Holiday season with half their product line having 802.11 wireless and OSX running on them:

• Mac Mini
• Mac Pro
• Mac Book Pro
• Mac Book
• iPod Touch
• iPhone
• AppleTV

Lets consider that for a moment. That means Apple has a device potentially on your desk, lap, TV and in your pocket all running a derivative of the same operating system, and all capable of wireless connectivity with the world and with each other. Apple today released the wireless iTunes music store. I wager that by the holidays we’ll have a high definition iTunes Movie Store made for the AppleTV. I also wager the little form-factor bluetooth keyboard is for this purpose as well.

Apple is basically saying that no matter what modality you want to experience content, commerce and community in you have it. I don’t think showing Facebook on iPhone was coincidence, I think Apple is positioning the iPod Touch and iPhone as a community device.

Here is my bet:

Apple will enable wireless purchase from AppleTV of HD quality movies. I think I heard they are only accepting HD movies right now anyhow. And then… wireless sync. Then “friend” features (suspiciously missing, but easily doable). And then Leopard integration comes.

Apple has a trojan horse on their hands. And the scary and awesome thing I think, is that they have 2 in my pocket and one on my TV.

I’ve been testing the new super-thin Apple Keybaord here at work for a bit and found that my typing speed increased by about 20% vs. my Microsoft ergonomic keyboard. The travel distance and action of this Apple one is fantastic and the lack of barriers between keys means my fingers can fly from one key to another really well. Now, if this one was split and ergonomic, with the same key action and spacing, I’d be set.

As it is, I’m not entirely set and I need to figure out what my next step for keyboarding is.

Did that really just happen? Really now? Is he so self centered to have to reach out, grab the attention by the nuts and sling it back toward himself for no other reason than to hear himself talk?

Well actually.

Yes.

Technorati Tags: gnomedex

I’m sorry, but this needs to be said.

Has anyone really visited TechCrunch lately through their browser? Lets run it down. The total requests made for the page is 56, and the total download size of all assets is half a megabyte. Of that, 43k is Javascript.

Techcrunch seems to have every “wow!” Javascript utility known to man included on their site. SnapShots on links, Sphere It, etc. Not to mention all the code for different ad networks, widgets, etc. I’m all for the use of cross-site scripting and handy tools, but its getting kind of ridiculous.

In the beginning stages of this “web 2.0″ shit, it used to be about a clear definition of what a site was, with the fludity of the data from that site to transgress the boundaries. It never was the aggregation of this fluditiy on any given site, but the ability for people to make their own tools which could mash these things up into wholly new things.

I don’t think the intention was to use the fluidity of data as window dressing on content for the sake of saying you could. I don’t think it meant laying tool over tool over tool for the sake of aesthetics and “just because.” Minimalism dictates one using the minimum amount of aesthetics to get a singular job done.

A blog such as TechCrunch is for the purveyance of information, not for the aggregation of randomness for the same of randomness. It seems that sites have lost this, and we’ve entered the arms race in terms of data heterogeneity. An arms race littered with Javascript, browser freezes, 6 second load times on an OC-3 and more cross-domain scripting than a script-kiddie vbulletin party.

Here is my proposal:

Stop.
Refocus
Think purpose outward.

Please.

This means: take your blog/homepage/etc. Remove anything that is referencing extra-domain Javascript, third party utilities or random cruft. Strip your blog down to its content and then sit back and go through these steps:

1) Given the context of the site, what do people need from it?

a) Meta-information about the author?
b) Meta-information about the subject?
c) Meta-information about the site?

Make a decision on that, and act.

2) Given the context of a post, what do people need from it?

a) A way to share it?
b) Inline contextual information?

Make a decision and act accordingly.

3) Given the context of the author, what do people need to know?

a) Status updates?
b) Meta-information about their physical context (location, photos, music?)
c) Biographic information?

4) Given the context of monetization, what is the least obtrusive means, and most congruent with the aim of the site?

I think if we all did this, our sites would get much better. I did it already to some extent, removing the Twitter flash thing. I stopped using Twitter, so it was rather stale. I’m also doing this on other sites I own and we’re applying these methods to Warner Bros. Records sites.

So my call for this week:

Strip your site down
Refocus
Reimplement.