August 2005 Archives

I might get into trouble for this, but this kind of thing bugs me. Steve Garfield is a videoblogger (or 'vlogger') who's another member of the Blogging at Berkman group over at Harvard. A couple of weeks ago, Steve was interviewed by E-Media, "Austria's leading magazine about internet, high-tech and multimedia", and the interview went like this. Most of it's pretty decent, but then you get to this part:

Why - in your opinion - are vlogs the next big thing on the internet?

Vlogs give people a voice. Vlogging gives people a distribution method that isn't controlled by others. Vlogging allows people to get feedback on their productions. Vlogging brings people together. Vlogging makes the world smaller.

Vlogging is the next big thing on the internet because it promotes the ability to get to know people in other countries on a personal level.

Vlogging brings pen pal corresponding to a whole new level, and allows the whole world to join in on the conversation.

Now, what bothers me so much about this is that it's essentially a stock answer ripped from a generic blogging fluff piece circa 2002. Swap off one little letter and you get this:

Why - in your opinion - are blogs the next big thing on the internet?

Blogs give people a voice. Blogging gives people a distribution method that isn't controlled by others. Blogging allows people to get feedback on their productions. Blogging brings people together. Blogging makes the world smaller.

Blogging is the next big thing on the internet because it promotes the ability to get to know people in other countries on a personal level.

Blogging brings pen pal corresponding to a whole new level, and allows the whole world to join in on the conversation.

See what I mean? Where's the deep insight on the psychological impact of being able to actually see and hear the person doing the reporting? Where's the discussion on how vlogging is bringing weblogging to other media formats that were previously ill-suited to textual weblogging (like phones or TVs)? Where's, you know, the thought and analysis?

There are two sentences earlier in the interview that provide a little of this, but only a little: "Video allows others to really get to know you. The intimacy of video gives you a glimpse into our lives." Aside from that, he spends the rest of the interview talking about the revolutionary fields of commenting and international community-building. Oooooo. Again, how does that differ from what weblogs have been doing for the last couple of years?

C'mon, Richard. You tout your weblog as being "seen in TIME, BusinessWeek and the NY Times", but is the only reason you've garnered so much attention that you've mastered the art of providing easily-accessible predictable sound bites?

So for various reasons, my brain has been moving further and further from web development and closer and closer to storytelling. This is fitting, seeing as how I'll be starting classes in Cambridge in three weeks, but it's problematic since I'm also feverishly trying to cram in all the stuff I want to do here in Chicago before I go and polish off all my client stuff. Jeezus. So it didn't help when this morning I stumbled across the weblog of John August, who happens to be the screenwriter for Corpse Bride, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Big Fish. The next thing I knew, it was 11 o'clock and I'm still sitting in my bathrobe going click, click, click. Rats.

Fascinating, fascinating stuff, but do not start reading unless you have a little time on your hands. You have been warned.

This is undoubtedly an optical illusion, but it's so cool to have even a slight hope for something like this...

A photo of two peculiar dragon-shaped objects taken from a plane flying over Tibet’s Himalayas piqued many users’ interest when displayed on a Chinese website. The photographer is an amateur.

On June 22, 2004, the photographer went to Tibet’s Amdo region to attend the Qinghai-to-Xizang Railroad laying ceremony, and then took a plane from Lhasa to fly back inland. When flying over the Himalayas, he accidentally caught these two "dragons" in a picture that he took. He called these two objects "the Tibet dragons."

Looking at the photo, these two objects appear to have the characteristics of crawling creatures: The bodies seem to be covered by scales, the backs have spine-like protuberances, and also they have gradually thinning rear ends. Although the photo caught only a portion of the entire scene, it was sufficient to create the appearance of two gigantic dragons flying in the clouds.

The full story and the photo in question here: The Epoch Times, "Dragons in the Tibet Sky".

I gotta say, traveloregon.com is one hot piece of web design. And how cool would the Oregon Shakespeare Festival have to be? I mean, seriously? Othello among the pines? Badass.

There's an interesting piece in The New York Times today on Relying on Video Game Sequels. The article states that Electronic Arts, one of the largest game companies out there, is suffering a sales slump which might be attributed to something Janco Partners analyst Mike Hickey calls "franchise fatigue". Basically, if I bought Madden 2003, 2004 and 2005, do I really need to pony up another $50 to own Madden 2006?

IMHO, video games need to learn from the comic book industry. Why has no one created a subscription game yet? $10 a month delivers a game disc to your door with the latest chapter of a massive story arc. It's like an expansion set every month. Further, there could be any number of games in this series, each one starting anew at the end of the year. Wham! Recurring revenue stream, a bold new step in entertainment, and an all-new addiction for us Square-Enix junkies.

Thoughts?