The Print Revolution

I've been actively researching about forth coming iPad and what it could mean to the print industry for work. It occurs to me we are approaching the start of the print revolution.

We've been in the digital revolution for a while and it can be broken down into several small revolutionary movements, such as the digital music revolution.  this however could be the most pertinent as the the oldest medium of print starts its move to digital form.

You could say that it started a while ago with the launch of kindle and if you want you can say even further back with the launch of the internet. These are both good points but i think its the start of the end of print as a physical format that is the point.

I'm an Apple fan and make no excuses for that but what I think Apple are good at, are finding a digital market and pushing it to a common international standard. In terms of the forthcoming iPad they are taking the book and providing a form to read it on. The iPad isn't perfect as it doesn't yet help bring magazines, newspapers and comics to the device natively as it does with books. Thanks to the App Store this won't be much of a problem but i can't help feel an app called Newspaper stand that allows subscriptions to newspapers and Magazines in a way iBooks does is missing.

So the great thing is the future will see digital editions of our favorite print publications coming to us for a reasonable price. The down side is the past. What about old books, editions not currently in print or even ones that never will be again. Of course we could scour e-bay and old book shops but we are used to things at our fingertips. This is the problem being addressed by the Gutenberg Project and to an extent Google Books. Now both projects have their faults and their advantages. Google Books is probably the most publicized due to the copy-write back lash by authors and publishers.

Here is my proposal, all publishers agree to bring all editions of their back catalog to digital format. In response to that these digitizing projects will only digitize out of print books that, a) don't have a publisher who still exists, b) who's copy-write is out of date and c) won't be available in a digital format without these projects such as university and public libraries.

These companies can work together to bring archived material into the public domain at a lower cost to themselves and bring the print to an larger audience. Local newspaper archives would most benefit from these. I personally would like to research local newspapers without having to spend days at the library, looking through thousands of papers, when the internet takes seconds.

As I said we are on the cusp of the Print revolution but its only by bringing as much of the old print to the new format that we will truly benefit. True it will eventually kill off the print medium but its better to preserve the knowledge than loose it due to arguments over money.  Also true it will eventually kill off the library (which I'm a fan of), but this will only happen if the library doesn't evolve but the benefit is a library run at cheaper costs with more books than any one building can currently hold.

So I say embrace the change, push for digitization even if it is only to preserve the past for the future. 

Not so problamatic Project Canvas

Many months ago a number of TV broadcasters got together to help standardize the future of TV and particularly VOD/IPTV.

Lets start this story at the beginning, many years ago TV was invented, it was all live broadcasts and it was all in Black and White. Many years later colour TV was introduced and with it pre-recorded programs became common place. Then VCR's were introduced much like cassettes had been for music players and people enjoyed their favorite programes at their own leisure as repeats were few and far between. TV trundled along for many years with pay TV stations on cable and satellite being introduced and a raft of programs from around the globe on our sets.

Then the digital age hit, DVD's gave us access to more of the programs and films long since forgotten, the government forced us to switch to digital, but for once it brought benefits like more channels (though not all good but we were used to that on cable and satellite) and more opportunities to access our favorite programs from around the globe. The internet then opened up more opportunity to share those videos we couldn't get on terrestrial TV, or on DVD, or in our own country. We now had access to all those old show and new internet only material, like we'd seen happen with music online, access to the content we wanted when we wanted.

The broadcasters pushed the government to bring HD to the terrestrial mold, the government dragged their heels for years until they saw the paid TV channels were leaving everyone else behind, then almost too late for the majority of people they created a new standard that was so individual people won't actually get HD for five more years, when they upgrade hardware again.

But the another standard was launched by the internet and cable companies in the form of Video on Demand, ways people could access vast amounts of legal video (not the bootleg copies) without buying lots of DVD's. It brought digital files more inline with the music industry.

So all the terrestrial broadcasters got together and tried to make their name in Video on Demand with a project called Kangaroo. It could have saved British TV from its own sliding figures and brought high quality programs back to another screen. Alas it wasn't to be (but that's another rant) instead it became another commercial operation. These broadcasters were not beaten they knew their next stage was to bring the internet video to the TV set so they launched Project Canvas.

What we know about canvas is little, the reason being, simple politics. BBC Trust, Office of Fair Trade, Competition Committee and anyone else you can think of won't just support a format that could possible bring money to the UK, no that would be silly when American companies do so well taking it out.So the project has had to be secretive until it can get over all these hurdles, but who can blame them after Project Kangaroo was so shamelessly knock down.

What we know about Canvas:

1. It's designed for freeview, freesat, IPTV - does this mean I only need one piece of equipment for all saving me, the consumer money to spend on paid services.
2. It brings Video on Demand to TV - meaning I can never miss a show, plus there will at last be something good on as older shows should be available, increasing my enjoyment and their life span. 
3. All the major terrestrial players are involved - great, at least I know it will work.
4. It will be up datable software- sorry up datable you mean I get new services without paying for new equipment, its too good to be true.

This all sounds good, if I can access all these services in one place and it can grow, then I can access paid content too I'm whatching TV how it should be right? Wrong.

While canvas will bring everything to a standard that will update and improve regularly over time, and whilst it will straighten out the random manufacture specific interfaces not everyone is happy. Mainly cable and satellite companies.

So lets ask why, satellite doesn't like it. Satellite doesn't like doing anything unless a) its profitable or b) it prevents others gaining on their market. Well I say wake up, this is an opportunity for you to help mold something very successful, that could increase your profitability and what have you got to loose, err stubbornness. Your a company who could make international profit from this by taking it out of the UK and making it a global standard, you could also make all your brands accessible to all countries, again being a profitable trend setter whilst saving you money.

With cable companies why are they moaning its mainly due to them making a new interface with Tivo. Lets be honest we hate Tivo in the UK, it never took off and I hate to say it, but it might never do again.  I'm a big fan of cable TV as they introduced me to Video on Demand and through friends, many weird and wonderful shows and guess what? I paid for content because of it. But you've been slow on moving on, you brought video on demand to the masses but never continued to push up with it, you brought forth HD, but now your only thinking about pushing it to viewers properly. You needed to do more sooner, your behind the times and loosing because of it.Canvas could help you catch up and push you forward quicker and cheaper.

So both of you just stop bloody moaning your the heavy waits in comparison and as we all know there is safety and more affect in numbers so how can you blame the project canvas group. Quit getting defensive and look at the possibility of joining the ranks of project canvas, if I could buy a box that meant just popping in cables and viewing cards to watch premium content then I'd be first to do it but I'm sure I wouldn't be the last. And if it was a familiar interface it just makes it easier for me to access it all.

I'm sure I'll talk more about project canvas in the future and I'm sure there will be things I will hate about it, but anything that will help me access more of the programs I love on my TV can only be a positive. Particularly if those are programs from long ago, rare or ones I've not seen since broadcast.

So bring on project canvas.

Media and Employment

So it's been a while since my first post, mostly as I've been swamped but also that I've been on a little vacation with some old school chums. 

Before I even went away I started thinking about what I wanted to blogg about and I've got a little list of things to write about but today I've sat reading a newspaper, I know its old fashioned but there is something still compelling about a good written article.

Within the first few pages there were the UK's current unemployment figures, tallies on types of unemployment and benefits. This got thinking back to my time unemployed straight out of Uni and my struggle finding work, fast forward and though employed I still have the same problems looking for work as I did back then.

Let's look at the problems:

1. You need training for well paid jobs.
2. If you have qualifications the job centre would rather put you in any job short term than find you a viable long term job. 
3. You don't get proper help with job hunting unless your unemployed for three months, by which point those employing see you as unemployable.
4. You can loose benefits within six weeks if you don't work the system, yet you can't look for jobs without spending money.
5. Too many places to look as no employer can target more than one employment database.
6. Every one wants CV information but not necessary in CV form.
7. Fill out an electronic application form or a site for applying that doesn't work in the way its supposed to. Making it even more difficult to fill out professionally unless you have an IT degree.
8. Showing your skills on paper for a job you could easily do doesn't work as well as you doing a trial for the job. I know so may people who lost out due to interviews where the ones who got the job we're crap actually doing the job.
9. Your told to apply for ten jobs a day as for every ten jobs you apply for you get one interview, for every ten interviews you get a job offer, but it takes at least a day, possibly more to fill out a good job application.

All of this is even before you get a interview.

I myself have a website, CV, online profiles on site like LinkedIn, many subscriptions to job site, logins to company job site. In fact so many I can't keep track and i always rediscover ones I've signed up to in the past.

So in a world where media and online can get you any information is it so dam hard to apply for a job.

My very first job I walked into the shop in a tracksuit and got the job, the next one I was recommended by a neighbor, the one after that I covered sick leave and they created a job for me.

Is it me or is it crazy that the Job Center doesn't list jobs from every site or at least help those with the skills find the jobs, even crazier there isn't a computer standard, like there is for creating calendars, for job applications that will fill in all the CV info and just leave you to the important questions about the job.

Media should be making job hunting easier but its the opposite as employers spy via facebook and put up pdf applications that you have to print off, but still put an email address on the application. The employers should be finding me not the other way round.

I don't care if someone had an affair it doesn't stop them doing their job unless they are a marriage councilor, so why spy on people via facebook, it doesn't show how professional they are. If you give me an email address for a job application I expect it to be easy to fill out that application, not take me a couple of days to fill it out, just for you to throw it away without giving me an interview. Come on job descriptions are crap anyway, no one does what's in their job description. They always do more or they have had it so long they do a different job completely. 

I know I'm moaning but I want to pose one last question before my next blogg.

How is it I can travel away with friends, half way round the would, and I'm able to get some paperwork emailed to me and printed off for my friends from one sixty second phone call, but it takes me days to fill out job applications with the same information that's on my CV and a dozen other job sites?

Politics vs BBC

I've been spending most of my time today reading about BBC cuts. As with any license fee payer I want to get the most out of my BBC license fee. In the majority of cases I think I do. Like everyone there is a program that I'm not a fan of (total wipeout & hole in the wall) that just aren't must see TV for me but I can see the majority of people enjoying them.

What annoys me is the politics that are trying to kill what is clearly one of the best broadcasters in the world.

For example here are just a few:

BBC cuts 6 Music & Asian - well Tories are saying they should be cut back.
BBC Trust delaying Project Canvas review - Well the government put them there because BBC didn't do them.
BBC Worldwide could be sold the government to cover banking debt - rubbish BBC worldwide is corporate arm that keeps our license fee low and its not owned by the government.
BBC Three should be cut - Written by a Tory backed review, oh hang on if you cut that what is the alternative for over 12 year olds (age cbbc ends programs for, again due to government pressure) till you reach an age appropriate for watching other shows, oh well suppose its teenage sex and drinking again.

Notice a Pattern.
Do you see the problem if your big and successful like the BBC you should be cut back. I'm not implying the BBC is perfect it is just competitive in the broadcast industry. But political groups pull your heads out of your arse's and come into the real world. Your cutting things or forcing things in place that stunt this countries growth and more importantly the industries the BBC is part of. Want proof lets how about this.

BBC cuts 6 Music & Asian - Brings new music to people increasing record companies profits and supplying audience to a £3billion entertainment economy in UK. Also covers equality and anti racism by supplying a cultural knowledge to a large part of our UK residents, hang on isn't that a government policy to tackle racism and prejudice in the UK.

BBC Trust delaying Project Canvas review - why, it could be creating the UK version of Google. Again a government policy to bring technical innovation and a UK version of silicone valley to the UK.

BBC Worldwide could be sold the government to cover banking debt - Why, we didn't look after the banks that was the governments job. And if you do sell BBC worldwide does that mean you could sell my house, cause you don't own that either, also my license fee will treble to cover the cost. I get we need to make back the debt but isn't innovation and proper financing the way to go. Last time politicians sold things we ended up with major job losses oh and a poorer public transport system than in the first place.

BBC Three should be cut - it's aimed at the young, your not it, it aims to create innovation and new program forms by experimenting. Again political promises of innovation and opportunities for the young If you cut their TV channels no wounder they won't vote.

So to all politicians and to everyone who wants to attack the BBC. Get a life do something positive to improve the UK, not destroy it.