Everything Lame is New Again: E-Books Edition
I really hoped we were collectively over the whole "e-book" thing. They are clunky to hold and stressful to look at, the screen glare makes them far from ideal for any sunny outdoor reading, and, once you get away from electrical outlets, their supposed convenience is really called into question. But I guess a lot of people honestly dig the concept, because several companies are giving it another shot.
First up to the plate is Britain's Orion Books, who are tying their first ever e-book in to a meta-tastic bonanza.
The Orion e-book is Web 2.0 by Paul Carr, co-founder of The Friday Project, and was bought for Weidenfeld by Publisher Alan Samson from Robert Kirby at PFD. Billed as an 'exposé of how a strange group of young opportunists, chancers and geniuses found instant fame and fortune by messing about on the web', it was Orion's Key Account Manager Mark Stay who suggested publishing it as an ebook ahead of the paperback edition. It will be released in April 2008 and Weidenfeld has UK and Commonwealth rights (excluding Canada).
See what they did there? It's an e-book... about people who use the INTERNET! That is one snappy idea, and sure to sell lots of e-books because maybe it will appeal to the cyberpunk crowd and they must be connected with every type of technology possible! Mark Stay, Orion's key account manager, had some things to say on the subject, including an interesting aside toward textbooks:
Stay told PN: We have the digital rights management software in place to block access from territories where we don't have rights. It seemed a good idea to publish it as an e-book first. It seemed the natural way to do it. I don't think e-books are going to take off until you have an iPod equivalent and you have students using it for all their books. But we want to be ready and I'm sure we'll learn from the experience.
I'm extremely conflicted on the prospect of All E-Textbooks, All The Time. On paper, it seems like it should save money. In real life, judging by the "academic savings" prices for software these days, I'm sure textbook companies will find a way to make your semester bills render you to a state of perpetual ramen-eating no matter how your books materialize. Not to mention that you can't exactly sell an e-book back. Or highlight on an e-book and attach sticky notes. Or draw mustaches on Cicero and blacken Pliny's teeth if you are so inclined. Ah, but I digress.
Speaking of textbooks, second up to the e-book plate is textbook staple MacMillan, who will be expanding their e-book repertoire with forty mainstream titles. Have you always wanted to read the Princess Diaries series, but just couldn't bear to look at ink printed on paper? Now's your chance!
Macmillan's titles include Meg Cabot's Princess Diaries series and the Richard & Judy pick The Abortionist's Daughter by Dorothy Koomson. Its Head of Digital Publishing, Sara Lloyd, told PN: This is a soft launch, an experiment as we wait to see how the market develops. At the moment, there is a proliferation of formats and devices and we don't know which one will be dominant.
Certainly, Amazon has the main shop window and colleagues in the US have seen their prototype reader. I can imagine that the whole picture will change when Amazon gets involved. We have been expecting a spring launch for their reader which will then make the Mobipocket format dominant.
Everyone seems so hesitant in these interviews with the "soft launch" and the "I don't think e-books are going to take off until...," as though they secretly want e-books to be successful but also don't want to look like optimistic old fools if the whole investment tanks.
Ms. Lloyd's speech does, however, segue us nicely into our final at-bat: book titan Amazon itself is rumored to be launching a delightful e-book device, called the Kindle. One can only speculate on whether the name is meant to suggest that real books shall soon be used for kindling, or if I'm just reading too much into it.
Either way, all I know is that while new technology is inherently novel and exciting, nothing really compares to the feeling of turning a page, and the satisfaction as they peel away until you reach the last. When the electronic revolution blows over once again and your books all short out and file-corrupt, I'll just be over here with my big wonderful stacks of old-fashioned paper. Only marginally gloating.
_DictionaryGirl_ is starting to feel like Andy goddamned Rooney. Get off her lawn!
Miss Manners 2.0
Last week, the creator of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and publisher Tim Web 2.0 OReilly proposed a set of guidelines to increase civility and manners in the blogosphere. The biggest recommendation was for the outright banning or curtailing of anonymous responses to public blogs.
Mr. OReilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.
Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.
If its a carefully constructed set of principles, it could carry a lot of weight even if not everyone agrees, Mr. Wales said.
This most recent call for rules and suggestions began when Mr. OReillys friend and fellow blogger Kathy Sierra received several death threats on her own blog. She subsequently canceled several E-Tech presentations. OReilly has posted a Call for a Bloggers Code of Conduct, which has used the conduct rules at BlogHer as its base. Along with the suggestions for containing and eliminating anonymous posts, OReilly and Wales also encourage bloggers to take ownership of not only their words, but also for the general tone and tenor of the discussions on their websites.
There's an attitude among many bloggers that deleting inflammatory comments is censorship. I think that needs to change. I'm not suggesting that every blog will want to delete such comments, but I am suggesting that blogs that do want to keep the level of dialog at a higher level not be censured for doing so.
There are many real-world analogies. Shock radio hosts encourage abusive callers; a mainstream talk radio show like NPR's Talk of the Nation wouldn't hesitate to cut someone off who started spewing hatred and abuse. Frat parties might encourage drunken lewdness, but a party at a tech conference would not. Setting standards for acceptable behavior in a forum you control is conducive to free speech, not damaging to it.
To be honest, I tend to believe that policing this sort of thing is nearly impossible. Weve all seen online discussions get derailed by the anonymous poster who cant resist calling someone a fag or leaving a racist comment. But perhaps the best answer to this is Wales Code of Conduct #6, Ignore the Trolls.
What The Hades Is Web 2.0?
Much like the annoying buzz of an alarm clock, Web 2.0 has become just as prevalent in internet users lives. How do I know? You're reading this article on a site that incorporates both the social and technical core of Web 2.0.
Socially, the proliferation of Web 2.0 has reached a tipping point, and has enabled the development of super publics as theorized by Danah Boyd. The essence of Web 2.0 is the social power granted to its users. Just to name a few sites: Digg.com, MySpace.com, YouTube.com, Flickr.com, Google.com, iTunes, and others have enabled unprecedented social interaction between millions of internet users. The concept of user defined interaction has long surpassed the infamous commenting systems of Slashdot.org, or forums and message boards. Users are now presented with an onslaught of powerful marketing tools to virtually market their digital identities, personal images, beliefs, and attitudes for the entire world to see. Meanwhile, those who prevail at crafting a suspiciously "unique" digital identity are now finding themselves in positions of pseudo-fame and/or potentially at the helm of Web 2.0 entities. Think Tom Anderson from MySpace, or Kevin Rose from Digg. Arguably neither of these web celebrities actually created the sites they now represent, but rather because of how they presented themselves through new media have reached celebrity status. Consequently, many users from said sites soon find themselves in positions of popularity as well (whether a gimmick or not).
Everything from finding a date, to scoring that next job interview can now be accomplished online using the same set of information users present for any number of purposes. A perfect example of this is how I got the opportunity to write for SuicideGirls. I was approached randomly by SuicideGirls' staff after they stumbled upon my personal blog. Space and time were transcended as they were able to find out everything about me in a relatively short period of time, and this is exactly the principal of networking enabled by Web 2.0 technologies.
Unfortunately, not all Web 2.0 stories are positive stories. Arguably, Web 2.0 has also given birth to Spam 2.0. Many of the sites defined by the term social networking are simply enablers for directing advertising at users, and subsequently allow their users to advertise themselves. Since the entire system is open to the world it is very easy for companies and groups to manipulate users for their own self-serving desires. In essence, many of these sites actually invite spam in, and call said spam profiles, blogs, spaces, or even news. Not to say all Web 2.0 content is Spam 2.0, but some of it is. To put it simply, Spam 2.0 is the selling and marketing of ideas and services, rather than goods such as Spam 1.0s physical herbal enhancers. Meanwhile, the users and companies that provide said content are rarely benefiting monetarily. Strangely, some of the enablers arent even making money yet, meanwhile others are bringing in millions.
Overall, Web 2.0 is also defined by the new interest of venture capitalists in web properties. This second round of funding is risky, but operating costs for Web 2.0 sites are lower since they are marketing virtual services rather than requiring the physical and costly distribution centers of Web 1.0. This decreased operating cost significantly lowers the total amounts that need to be invested. If a site is a flop, it isnt a huge loss. Where as if a site is a success, the potential for profit is overwhelming.
Whether you're a tech junky or not, Web 2.0 has had profound implications upon internet users experiences. The term Web 2.0 was supposedly coined by O'Reilly Media (thankfully, no relation to the fascist Bill O'Reilly), but its actual definition has arguably become distorted due to the massive scope of Web 2.0, for the term is now considered just a buzz.
A year back, Web 2.0 was either a catch-all for community-minded web services or a buzzword to make silly ideas sound revolutionary, states Nick Douglas from ValleyWag (a Silicon Valley blog). Now, it's just a phrase that bored and unfunny commentators use ironically to prove how they're SO over it.
The technical details of Web 2.0 rely on a variety of web languages that are capable of producing more efficient user interfaces (CSS, Ajax, xHTML, RSS, XML, Flash), essentially turning websites into dynamic pieces of software, rather than the static poster-board nature that was Web 1.0. A simple example of Web 2.0 is SuicideGirls' own homepage. Using a mixture of Ajax, CSS, and Flash members of this site can now shift through galleries without having to reload the browser as content is visually sifted in its designated space. Meanwhile, upon viewing a gallery users can now easily select individual images, easier set time controls, and ultimately have more control without having to reload the page. Even SuicideGirls' news page provides an RSS feed and links to Digg so users can easily track when new posts are made. Plus you can link to your Myspace account from your SG Profile.
Going back to Danah Boyd, Web 2.0 is about making connections where none previously existed.
Mock SG Web 2.0 logo courtesy of Web 2.0 Logo Creator
Lonelygirl15, Danielbeast and YouTube
Lonelygirl15 is every nerd boys dream. She is drop dead gorgeous, ferociously well read, interested in science and geek humor, and here's the clincher: she has repressive, religious parents who have home-schooled her and so she doesn't know she's hot or that you're a social pariah and undesirable.
Lonelygirl15 has only one friend in the world, Danielbeast. He is the awkward nerdboy who has hit the lottery in finding the homeschooled geekgirl with the supermodel looks.
As the two teens chronicle their lives on YouTube we see everything from music videos to angst at parental decisions to a budding romance between them.
Every week there is a new dramatic development between them that gets hashed out in their uploaded videos. They play like a teen drama directed by Zach Braff, with episode titles like "Daniel called my religion weird!" "My Parents won't let us go for a hike!"
But are these two for real? What religion is Lonelygirl15? Is this another internet stealth marketing campaign or a genuine look into two teens lives?
Before you decide watch all the videos on this "fan site", which was registered and set up a month before lonelygirl15 uploaded her first video to YouTube.