Update

I know, I know... I've been quite lazy lately regarding this blog, and have been posting mere links instead of proper blog posts. Sorry, but that isn't going to change soon. On the other hand, I'll try to explore a bit more the story behind each of those links.

One of thinks that I tell a lot regarding iPod's and the iPhone is that, while I understand that some people don't see any problem at all with having a device that will only work in a certain setup and under certain circumstances, I don't see myself getting a music player or a cellphone that would force me to use a certain program, Operating System or stuff like that. I mean, if it was a technological issue... but it isn't! Any music player can be designed to work just like any other USB device, be USB mountable and work as an USB disk and at the same time play its files. That will make it work in any operating system, in any piece of software. Now, iPod's or iPhones... Fred Emmott wrote an HOWTO [1] on how to make your iPod Touch or iPhone (and, I guess, later iStuff) work with Amarok. While I think it is awsome that he had the work of writting it, the biggest value of this HOWTO is just to prove my point: why the hell should a buyer have to do all that mess to make the piece of hardware they bought work?

Last100 also talks about the iPhone, but regarding the mobile web [2]. It doesn't bring as nothing really new, but it's quite a good overview of what's the state of "mobile web", a term that I don't really like: we're not really talking about something called "mobile web", only about "the web" as viewed in mobile devices... My question regarding these matters is: the biggest problem with the adoption of mobile devices as web clients is the services or the devices? In other words: if you don't use your mobile devices as web terminals, is it because your service isn't as good as you wanted to (bandwith, price, ...) or is it because your device isn't really fit for the job? (keyboard and screen limitations, usability, ...)

While we're walking towards a more digital future, the record industry simply does not get it. One great example of that was given yesterday, when Doug Morris, Universal Music CEO, admited he knows nothing about the music industry of nowadays [3]. The article is called "Universal Music CEO Doug Morris Speaks, Recording Industry in Even Deeper Shit Than We Thought", and the title says it all.

In the same veign of digital weirdness, we still have the ODF x OOXML war. An e-book is being written about the whole issue, so you might be interested in reading it [4].

Finaly, the new trend in social networks: Facebook. If you're a regular reader of this blog you already know by now that I don't like it nor its privacy policies so I decided to suspend my account. Also, you'll notice that there's a lot of fuss lately regarding facebook's privacy issues. TechCrunch tells us that the privacy issues will continue [5], but in Mashable we have an article about what's happening to Facebook business-wise [6]. But the most important thing about this, in my oppinion, came from Cory Doctorow, that tells us not only why is FaceBook going to die but also all the other (generic?) social networks [7]. It's a social issue, really: as Pedro Custodio said in his presentation at the Web 2.0 Expo Berlin, we're kind of afraid of refusing "friend invites" from people we don't really consider friends... Of course that this is something easily fixed, but they must think about the issue first, and I don't see them doing such.

Oh, today is the release date for the new book Exodus to the Virtual World: How Online Fun Is Changing Reality" [8], which I'm probably going to buy as soon as a paperback edition comes out. The author says this about the book [9]:

I try to project the medium-term impact of virtual worlds on daily life in the real world, especially in regards to politics and policy. To make projections, I rely on the history of human migration: knowing in general what happens when people migrate, we can forecast what?s going to happen as people migrate to virtual worlds. To explain why many will migrate, I propose a psycho-physiological theory of fun. Then I argue that the people who design virtual worlds are actually doing public policy. As such, their innovations will bleed over into real-world policy-making. You get some odd outcomes when you suggest that real world governments will try to please citizens raised in virtual world policy environments: things like zero economic growth, huge estate taxes, and full-employment economies, all at once. Bottom line: big political change is coming.

[1] - http://www.fredemmott.co.uk/blog_121
[2] - http://smallr.net/mobile-web
[3] - http://smallr.net/DougMorris112007
[4] - http://smallr.net/war-of-the-words
[5] - http://smallr.net/facebook-privacy
[6] - http://smallr.net/facebook-business
[7] - http://smallr.net/facebook-death
[8] - http://smallr.net/exodus-virtual-world
[9] - http://smallr.net/about-exodus-vw

Open Letter to Trent Reznor

Dear Trent Reznor,

I've read your words, and I agree with you, I really do. I also think that record labels are getting more and more desperate, and they're are screwing music lovers more and more. I agree that "Year Zero" is way to expensive, and I agree with the fact that Interscope Records, ownerd by Universal Music Group, don't give a damn about their artists and their artists fans - those who give them money. Oh, and the concept of MAXI-singles? You're right, it's completely bullshit, a product designed to extort more money from those wanting to get access to art.

The point is, you say that you're trying your best to make sure the products that NIN puts in the marketplace are worth purchasing, but you're failing miserably. Why? Well, while I really think it's awsome (and having the label you have you surely show you also have balls) all the Year Zero's concept and the whole world built around it, awsome that you're going to give for free to your fans, one way or another, all Year Zero's songs, and I really think you understand that goes inside the mind of your fans... You criticize your record label, but you're still sticking with them. For me, any product you put in the marketplace under Interscope aren't worth buying, even for one cent. It's plain simple, I don't support Universal in any way, so I don't give them money, while you criticize them but still put money in their pockets. Those guys don't consider your work as art, but as products, and they don't give a damn about you or your fans, they only care about profit. That's way too obvious when you know that they want to minimize consumers freedoms to maximize their profit. I'm sorry, but being signed with a major, the message you're passing is that, while you don't like your label's attitude, you prefer dealing with it and make more money than being nice to your fans.

Are you really against Interscope and Universal as you look like? Please, do a favor to your fans (and yourself): go indie. You'll even sleep better.