I quite like this essay plan - solid grounding in theory here!
David Cameron backs whistleblowing site to crack down on raunchy ads
Prime minister calls media industry summit to hear progress on tightening rules on sexual content following Bailey review
David Cameron is poised to announce the launch of a "whistleblowing" website designed to make it easy for parents and members of the public to lodge complaints about the "sexualisation" of TV programmes,advertising and products that may be inappropriate for children.
The launch, expected on Tuesday, marks the implementation of a proposal from a report published in the summer by Reg Bailey, chief executive of Christian charity Mothers' Union, to crack down on overtly sexual messages in television and advertising.
The website will act as a one-stop online "triage" centre for the public to lodge complaints about content, products, services and advertising – by pointing visitors in the direction of appropriate regulators such as Ofcomand the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
The launch will coincide with a summit on Tuesday at Downing Street called by Cameron with between 25 and 30 senior executives from the media and retail industry, including broadcasters, magazine editors, trade bodies and advertisers. Cameron called the meeting in order to hear updates on industry progress toward tighter rules governing content aimed at or regularly viewed by children. Attendees are thought to include senior executives from Vodafone, BT, Primark, the British Retail Consortium, Ofcom, the ASA, Mumsnet and Girlguiding UK.
The agenda will include the use of sexual imagery used in outdoor advertising; the employment of young brand ambassadors to market products and services to children; permissable content in pre-watershed television programming; giving parents more control over limiting access to age-restricted material online; age ratings on music videos, and a retail code to crack down on sexualised slogans on children's clothing.
The Bailey review - commissioned by the government to look into the commercialisation and sexualisation of children, and assisted by Department of Education staff - has already led bodies such as Ofcom, the BPI, which represents the music industry, and the ASA to make pre-emptive moves to toughen policies.
The Advertising Association on Monday launched a code of conduct signed by about 20 of the UK's biggest companies – including Coca-Cola, Unilever and Vodafone.
On Friday the ASA published guidance to advertisers and advertising agencies tightening sexual imagery in outdoor advertising campaigns.
The four-page document outlines a new "two-tiered case-by-case" approach to sexualised images that will limit advertising with sexual content appearing near schools as well as the how raunchy the imagery is. Overtly sexual and suggestive adverts are likely to be banned.
Ofcom has already hauled music television broadcasters over the coals following several incidents of "highly sexualised" videos by artists such as Rihanna that aired when children were likely to have been watching. Broadcasters have also met the media regulator.
The BPI has extended the use of the "parental advisory" labels found on CDs and videos to songs and music on services such as Spotify and YouTube that contain explicit material.
• This article was amended on 11 October 2011 to clarify the status of the Bailey report as commissioned by the government and assisted by Department of Education staff.
There are a few issues here worth thinking about!
Facebook could face €100,000 fine for holding data that users have deletedSocial network will be audited by Irish data protection commissioner after Austrian law student registers 22 complaints
Facebook could face a fine of up to €100,000 (£87,000) after an Austrian law student discovered the social networking site held 1,200 pages of personal data about him, much of which he had deleted.
Max Schrems, 24, decided to ask Facebook for a copy of his data in June after attending a lecture by a Facebook executive while on an exchange programme at Santa Clara University in California.
Schrems was shocked when he eventually received a CD from California containing messages and information he says he had deleted from his profile in the three years since he joined the site.
After receiving the data, Schrems decided to log a list of 22 separate complaints with the Irish data protection commissioner, which next week is to carry out its first audit of Facebook. He wrote to Ireland after discovering that European users are administered by the Irish Facebook subsidiary. A spokeswoman for the commissioner confirmed its officers would be investigating alleged breaches raised by Schrems as part of the audit. If the commissioner decides to prosecute and Facebook or any employees are found guilty of data protection breaches, the maximum penalty is a fine of €100,000.
Among the 1,200 pages of data Schrems was sent were rejected friend requests, incidences where he "defriended" someone, as well as a log of all Facebook chats he had ever had. There was also a list of photos he had detagged of himself, the names of everyone he had ever "poked", which events he had attended, which he hadn't replied to, and much more besides.
The information was broken down into 57 categories, including likes, log-ons (a list of when he logged on and which IP address he used) and emails, which included some email addresses Schrems had never personally uploaded to the site but which he assumes were discerned from another user's profile.
"I discovered Facebook had kept highly personal messages I had written and then deleted, which, were they to become public, could be highly damaging to my reputation," said Schrems in an interview between law lectures on Thursday.
"I'm not saying there was anything criminal or forbidden there, but let's just say that, as someone wanting to work in law, there was stuff which could make it pretty impossible for me to get a job." By holding on to data its users assumed was deleted, Facebook was acting like "the KGB or the CIA", said Schrems.
"Information is power, and information about people is power over people. It's frightening that all this data is being held by Facebook.
"Of course, they are not misusing it at the moment, but the biggest concern is what happens when there is a privacy breach, either from hackers or from someone inside the firm?"
A spokesman for Facebook said in a statement: "Facebook provided Mr Schrems with all of the information required in response to his request.
"It included requests for information on a range of other things that are not personal information, including Facebook's proprietary fraud protection measures, and 'any other analytical procedure that Facebook runs'.
"This is clearly not personal data, and Irish data protection law rightly places some valuable and reasonable limits on the data that has to be provided."
Facebook says any user can download their "personal archive".
But Schrems, on the campaigning website he has set up to encourage others to follow his lead, claims that: "This tool only offers access to a fraction of the data Facebook holds.
"It even falls short of providing the amount of data we already received from Facebook."
Facebook later said: "As part of offering people messaging services, we enable people to delete messages they receive from their inbox and messages they send from their sent folder.
"However, people can't delete a message they send from the recipient's inbox or a message you receive from the sender's sent folder. This is the way every message service ever invented works.
"We think it's also consistent with people's expectations. We look forward to making these and other clarifications to the Irish DPA."
• This article was updated on Friday 21 October to take in the second response from Facebook
Facebook could face a fine of up to €100,000 (£87,000) after an Austrian law student discovered the social networking site held 1,200 pages of personal data about him, much of which he had deleted.
Max Schrems, 24, decided to ask Facebook for a copy of his data in June after attending a lecture by a Facebook executive while on an exchange programme at Santa Clara University in California.
Schrems was shocked when he eventually received a CD from California containing messages and information he says he had deleted from his profile in the three years since he joined the site.
After receiving the data, Schrems decided to log a list of 22 separate complaints with the Irish data protection commissioner, which next week is to carry out its first audit of Facebook. He wrote to Ireland after discovering that European users are administered by the Irish Facebook subsidiary. A spokeswoman for the commissioner confirmed its officers would be investigating alleged breaches raised by Schrems as part of the audit. If the commissioner decides to prosecute and Facebook or any employees are found guilty of data protection breaches, the maximum penalty is a fine of €100,000.
Among the 1,200 pages of data Schrems was sent were rejected friend requests, incidences where he "defriended" someone, as well as a log of all Facebook chats he had ever had. There was also a list of photos he had detagged of himself, the names of everyone he had ever "poked", which events he had attended, which he hadn't replied to, and much more besides.
The information was broken down into 57 categories, including likes, log-ons (a list of when he logged on and which IP address he used) and emails, which included some email addresses Schrems had never personally uploaded to the site but which he assumes were discerned from another user's profile.
"I discovered Facebook had kept highly personal messages I had written and then deleted, which, were they to become public, could be highly damaging to my reputation," said Schrems in an interview between law lectures on Thursday.
"I'm not saying there was anything criminal or forbidden there, but let's just say that, as someone wanting to work in law, there was stuff which could make it pretty impossible for me to get a job." By holding on to data its users assumed was deleted, Facebook was acting like "the KGB or the CIA", said Schrems.
"Information is power, and information about people is power over people. It's frightening that all this data is being held by Facebook.
"Of course, they are not misusing it at the moment, but the biggest concern is what happens when there is a privacy breach, either from hackers or from someone inside the firm?"
A spokesman for Facebook said in a statement: "Facebook provided Mr Schrems with all of the information required in response to his request.
"It included requests for information on a range of other things that are not personal information, including Facebook's proprietary fraud protection measures, and 'any other analytical procedure that Facebook runs'.
"This is clearly not personal data, and Irish data protection law rightly places some valuable and reasonable limits on the data that has to be provided."
Facebook says any user can download their "personal archive".
But Schrems, on the campaigning website he has set up to encourage others to follow his lead, claims that: "This tool only offers access to a fraction of the data Facebook holds.
"It even falls short of providing the amount of data we already received from Facebook."
Facebook later said: "As part of offering people messaging services, we enable people to delete messages they receive from their inbox and messages they send from their sent folder.
"However, people can't delete a message they send from the recipient's inbox or a message you receive from the sender's sent folder. This is the way every message service ever invented works.
"We think it's also consistent with people's expectations. We look forward to making these and other clarifications to the Irish DPA."
• This article was updated on Friday 21 October to take in the second response from Facebook
Check out this article on The Guardian http://gu.com/p/338bx
'Gang recruitment' videos: MPs back call for police to have blocking power
MPs have backed a call for police to be given extra powers to block or take down YouTube videos that could incite violence.
Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, the Labour MP Heidi Alexander brought forward a private bill which calls for explicit powers to be given to police and internet providers, such as BT and Virgin Media, to remove online videos that act as a "recruitment mechanism for gangs".
Alexander has led the charge against social media since the riots across England in August. She told MPs that government policy on tackling criminal gangs was shortsighted and out of touch because it barely touched on the internet.
MPs voted in favour of allowing Alexander to bring forward her bill, which will receive a second reading in March. However, the proposals are unlikely to become law without government support.
The government climbed down on its proposal for gang members to be blocked from social networks following home office meetings with Facebook, Twitter and the BlackBerry-maker Research in Motion in the summer.
The home secretary said on Monday that the US internet firms had looked at their terms and conditions and "when they might be taking people off the network because they might be breaching those terms and conditions".
Alexander told MPs on Tuesday: "I am introducing this bill because I am appalled by the proliferation of online videos which glorify gangs and serious youth violence.
"Police, via the courts and internet service providers, need to be given explicit power to get these videos taken down or access to them blocked."
Similar powers already exist to take down or block access to websites that could incite racial hatred or feature extremist material. British police authorities requested the removal of three videos from Google-owned YouTube in the first half of this year over violence, according to Google's transparency report, released in October. Google said it fully or partially complied with 82% of the total requests from the UK government, police or courts, which included takedown requests for 135 videos over national security issues.
"I recognise the policing of the internet is always going to be incredibly difficult but unless we start to grapple with the online manifestation of gangs, I question our ability to really tackle the problem," Alexander said.
"We can talk about gang injunctions all we like, and yes, there may be a need to stop a certain individual or group coming into a certain area at a certain time, but don't we too need to recognise that the same individual may be causing an equal amount of fear by his or her actions sat on a computer at home, or spreading these vile videos through social networking sites?"
'Gang recruitment' videos: MPs back call for police to have blocking power
MPs have backed a call for police to be given extra powers to block or take down YouTube videos that could incite violence.
Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, the Labour MP Heidi Alexander brought forward a private bill which calls for explicit powers to be given to police and internet providers, such as BT and Virgin Media, to remove online videos that act as a "recruitment mechanism for gangs".
Alexander has led the charge against social media since the riots across England in August. She told MPs that government policy on tackling criminal gangs was shortsighted and out of touch because it barely touched on the internet.
MPs voted in favour of allowing Alexander to bring forward her bill, which will receive a second reading in March. However, the proposals are unlikely to become law without government support.
The government climbed down on its proposal for gang members to be blocked from social networks following home office meetings with Facebook, Twitter and the BlackBerry-maker Research in Motion in the summer.
The home secretary said on Monday that the US internet firms had looked at their terms and conditions and "when they might be taking people off the network because they might be breaching those terms and conditions".
Alexander told MPs on Tuesday: "I am introducing this bill because I am appalled by the proliferation of online videos which glorify gangs and serious youth violence.
"Police, via the courts and internet service providers, need to be given explicit power to get these videos taken down or access to them blocked."
Similar powers already exist to take down or block access to websites that could incite racial hatred or feature extremist material. British police authorities requested the removal of three videos from Google-owned YouTube in the first half of this year over violence, according to Google's transparency report, released in October. Google said it fully or partially complied with 82% of the total requests from the UK government, police or courts, which included takedown requests for 135 videos over national security issues.
"I recognise the policing of the internet is always going to be incredibly difficult but unless we start to grapple with the online manifestation of gangs, I question our ability to really tackle the problem," Alexander said.
"We can talk about gang injunctions all we like, and yes, there may be a need to stop a certain individual or group coming into a certain area at a certain time, but don't we too need to recognise that the same individual may be causing an equal amount of fear by his or her actions sat on a computer at home, or spreading these vile videos through social networking sites?"
There's been a pocket-sized revolution since Steve Jobs launched the iPod a decade ago.
WE LIKE to have our music wherever we go, but it hasn't always been easy. In 1956, car maker Chrysler in the US offered an enticing new accessory, an ''in-car phonograph''. Mounted on the bottom of the dashboard of its Dodge, DeSoto, Plymouth and Chrysler models, it played specially cut seven-inch records - courtesy of Frank Sinatra's label, Columbia Records - offering an hour of playing time per side.
No matter how spongy the Chrysler suspensions were, the spinning discs shook more than Jerry Lee Lewis and the in-car phonograph was dropped quietly from the options list.
The introduction of four and eight-track cartridges - single-reel tapes - in the 1960s put music in cars and then, in 1979, the release of the Walkman cassette tape player made audio truly portable.Fast forward to October 23, 2001, in Cupertino, San Francisco, where Steve Jobs walked on to a stage in his trademark black turtleneck and blue jeans and said he had a better idea: the iPod.That compact, unassuming device became something of a legacy for the Apple Computer co-founder and former chief, who died last week after a long struggle with pancreatic cancer.
Ten years ago he revolutionised not just the way we listen to music but set the scene for a generation of smart mobile phones and a new way of buying games, news and moving pictures, the products we now call ''digital content''.
In the decade since Jobs's announcement, more than 300 million iPods have been sold. In July, Apple reported reaching the download milestone of 15 billion music tracks. Apple, the No. 1 retailer of music in the US, now offers more than 19 million tracks to an eager global audience.
The iPod, in turn, laid the groundwork for the iPhone, which appeared in 2007 and has become the world's most popular smartphone, shipping 20 million units between April and June this year alone.
Apple subsequently created the App Store, which has more than 425,000 applications, including games, maps and restaurant finders. Then there is the iPad, which is based on the iPhone and has dominated the tablet computer market since its launch early last year, holding a 68 per cent market share. It has been a big decade for Apple.
Australian consumers have done their fair share of buying into Jobs's vision - perhaps even more than is fair. On the launch of the iPhone 4S last week, NSW Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts urged Apple to cut its Australian prices to reflect the strength of the local dollar against the greenback.
Apple, meanwhile, has become the biggest company in the world by market capitalisation, narrowly ahead of oil giant Exxon. Every pair of those white earbuds you see sitting opposite you on a bus, tram or train is testament to the market's valuation of Apple at about $US350 billion.
It was a different story a decade ago, when Steve Jobs's spruiker's enthusiasm masked the fact that Apple was merely a niche player in the high-tech industry, marketing clever but expensive computers. With a stale product line and faltering sales, it had been teetering on the financial brink only a few years earlier.
But if the first Apple computers in the 1970s and 1980s displayed Jobs's technical genius, the iPod revealed a brilliance for mainstream consumer gear. Digital portable music players had been available since 1997. Kids around the world were swapping ''mp3'' music files, and manufacturers including Sony, Creative and Sonic Blue had thrown players into the ring using CDs, flash memory or hard drives. But limited in the amount of music they could store, or being bulky and difficult to use, they had failed to capture the public's imagination.
By today's standards, the iPod launch was low-key. ''How many times have you gone on the road with a CD player and said, 'Oh God, I didn't bring the CD I wanted to listen to?' '' Jobs asked the Cupertino crowd. ''The coolest thing about iPod is your entire music library fits in your pocket. Never before possible.
''To have your whole music library with you at all times is a quantum leap in listening to music… This is huge.''
Huge and tiny. The Cupertino audience gasped appreciatively when he produced from his pocket the pack-of-cards sized box that held 1000 songs - but pundits found the device neither revolutionary nor attractive.
Technology Business Research analyst Tim Deal didn't like the $US400 price tag, when rival digital music players cost $US250 or less. ''I question the company's ability to sell into a tight consumer market right now at the iPod's current price.''
Stephen Baker, an analyst at sales and marketing information company NPD Intelect, said the iPod was likely to stand out, thanks to its large storage capacity, but predicted the device might have trouble carving out a niche in the market.
Tech website MacSlash reported the launch: ''The iPod sells for an absolutely hideously outrageous $399 and will be available to the two people who buy them at that price on November 10.''
That sales estimate proved conservative. Early figures were encouraging as Apple in 2003 took two massive steps. For one, it did the unthinkable, releasing a Microsoft Windows version of iTunes, the software that ran the iPod and organised the songs on your computer. Before then you needed an Apple computer to use an iPod, but now virtually anybody with a PC was a potential buyer.
Second, Apple released the ''iTunes Music Store''. Previously, to get music on your iPod you needed to copy CDs or download freely but illegally from a range of websites that were terrifying the music industry with their popularity.
By April 2005, less than four years since its launch, 10 million iPods had been sold. NPD Intelect reported that the iPod commanded 93 per cent of the market for hard-drive music players.
Its simplicity was the key, RMIT University industrial design lecturer Scott Mayson says now. The iTunes software was easy to use and the packaging compelling. ''It's interesting how the iPod became the ubiquitous digital music player,'' he says.
''There were plenty of rivals around at the time that could deliver high quality audio but Apple found something that connected with the broader market.''
Long before touch screens, the original iPod was controlled by a click-wheel - a circular control that gave access to every song within two or three clicks - which survives to this day in the range's ''classic'' model.
''Apple's designer, Jonathan Ive, came up with a design that's timeless,'' Mayson says. ''The click wheel, when you spin it round, is so intuitive. There's quite a significant connection between man and machine.''
Fairfax technology writer Adam Turner says Apple's design was crucial. ''People talk about the iPod as if it was the first digital music player,'' he says. ''Of course it wasn't, but it was the first one to get it right. This is what Apple has done in a lot of spaces.
''They don't tend to be the first but they look at something that's not quite working right, tweak it to make it a mainstream device that's easy to use and profit from that. Their products don't necessarily do as much as their rivals but the things they do, they do extremely well.''
Turner says the iPod's ''ecosystem'' - the software that dovetailed with the device - was part of its advantage. ''With iTunes, Apple had all the pieces for an ecosystem: the hardware, the music content, the delivery platform and the billing system. Only a handful of other technology companies have been able to do that, such as Amazon.''
While Amazon pioneered purchasing goods online and sites such as eBay and Craigslist revolutionised classified advertising and online auctions, they all focused on physical goods that had to be picked up or delivered. The Apple ecosystem, quickly mimicked by rivals, delivers instant gratification and now extends beyond music into digital books, magazines and games that arrive at your desktop or phone within seconds.
Ten years ago, it was just about the music. Now carrying your entire music library around in your pocket is commonplace. The long-playing album, since the 1960s the hallmark of both artistic and commercial success, has been reduced to a bundle of songs that music lovers cut and paste into their collections.
In an age criticised for sound bites and reduced attention spans, the iPod's ''shuffle'' option, randomly selecting the next track for playing, appeals to restless listeners who can't stick with one artist for too long.
Record companies, terrorised by the growth in free downloading of mp3s, welcomed the way iTunes made buying music easier than pirating it. But they baulked at the hefty cut Apple demanded on all music sales.
Apple's move into the heart of the music business also raised an old spectre. Back in 1978, the Beatles' record company Apple Corps had sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with the condition that Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business.
The Beatles had kept their end of the deal but the parties were back in court in 2003, this time for alleged breach of that contract through the iTunes Music Store.
A settlement was eventually reached, and while the terms were confidential, newspaper accounts suggested that Apple had bought out the Beatles company's trademark rights for $US500 million.
A decent outcome for the Fab Four but Melbourne barrister, songwriter and former Australian Idol judge Mark Holden says the iPod has been catastrophic for music artists in general.
''The good thing about the iPod was it monetised digital music for the first time,'' he says. ''But where you used to sell a single for $5 and the writers got a percentage of that, with iTunes the songs were selling for $1.69 and 65¢ goes straight to Apple. You could have a big hit in Australia and the songwriter might only get a couple of grand. And for songwriters the situation is getting worse.''
Songwriters, he says, will continue to write regardless of the money. Performers, meanwhile, need to regard their downloads primarily as good marketing and instead make their money from other sources, principally live performance and merchandise.
As the music industry has shifted, so has the iPod. From that initial price of $US400 a decade ago, an iPod shuffle with room for a few hundred songs now costs $55. With music migrating to phones and tablets, iPod sales have dropped and some models face phasing out. Rumours that the $280 iPod Classic - which still sports a click wheel and can store up to 200 hours of video or 40,000 songs - would be dropped from the range, last week proved unfounded.
Tim Butcher, deputy head of RMIT's school for industry engagement, says the iPod's evolution reflects Apple's vision. ''The iPod was a huge leap into a brand new market. It looked like it was designed just to capitalise on that one market but it's turned out to be a stepping stone to where they are now.
''The iPod wasn't the first music player on the market but it was the game changer and they've continually innovated to build on that success.''
Speaking to Newsweek on the iPod's fifth anniversary in 2006, Jobs attributed the player's success to detailed preparation. ''We tried to make something much more holistic and simple. When you first start off trying to solve a problem, the first solutions you come up with are very complex, and most people stop there.
''But if you keep going, and live with the problem and peel more layers of the onion off, you can often times arrive at some very elegant and simple solutions. Most people just don't put in the time or energy to get there.''
It's a strategy that has sold more than 300 million iPods and in a decade turned Jobs's vision into the biggest company on the planet - all thanks to a music revolution that fits in your pocket.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/icame-isaw-iconquered-20111008-1leyu.html#ixzz1anQMjxvA
WE LIKE to have our music wherever we go, but it hasn't always been easy. In 1956, car maker Chrysler in the US offered an enticing new accessory, an ''in-car phonograph''. Mounted on the bottom of the dashboard of its Dodge, DeSoto, Plymouth and Chrysler models, it played specially cut seven-inch records - courtesy of Frank Sinatra's label, Columbia Records - offering an hour of playing time per side.
No matter how spongy the Chrysler suspensions were, the spinning discs shook more than Jerry Lee Lewis and the in-car phonograph was dropped quietly from the options list.
The introduction of four and eight-track cartridges - single-reel tapes - in the 1960s put music in cars and then, in 1979, the release of the Walkman cassette tape player made audio truly portable.Fast forward to October 23, 2001, in Cupertino, San Francisco, where Steve Jobs walked on to a stage in his trademark black turtleneck and blue jeans and said he had a better idea: the iPod.That compact, unassuming device became something of a legacy for the Apple Computer co-founder and former chief, who died last week after a long struggle with pancreatic cancer.
Ten years ago he revolutionised not just the way we listen to music but set the scene for a generation of smart mobile phones and a new way of buying games, news and moving pictures, the products we now call ''digital content''.
In the decade since Jobs's announcement, more than 300 million iPods have been sold. In July, Apple reported reaching the download milestone of 15 billion music tracks. Apple, the No. 1 retailer of music in the US, now offers more than 19 million tracks to an eager global audience.
The iPod, in turn, laid the groundwork for the iPhone, which appeared in 2007 and has become the world's most popular smartphone, shipping 20 million units between April and June this year alone.
Apple subsequently created the App Store, which has more than 425,000 applications, including games, maps and restaurant finders. Then there is the iPad, which is based on the iPhone and has dominated the tablet computer market since its launch early last year, holding a 68 per cent market share. It has been a big decade for Apple.
Australian consumers have done their fair share of buying into Jobs's vision - perhaps even more than is fair. On the launch of the iPhone 4S last week, NSW Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts urged Apple to cut its Australian prices to reflect the strength of the local dollar against the greenback.
Apple, meanwhile, has become the biggest company in the world by market capitalisation, narrowly ahead of oil giant Exxon. Every pair of those white earbuds you see sitting opposite you on a bus, tram or train is testament to the market's valuation of Apple at about $US350 billion.
It was a different story a decade ago, when Steve Jobs's spruiker's enthusiasm masked the fact that Apple was merely a niche player in the high-tech industry, marketing clever but expensive computers. With a stale product line and faltering sales, it had been teetering on the financial brink only a few years earlier.
But if the first Apple computers in the 1970s and 1980s displayed Jobs's technical genius, the iPod revealed a brilliance for mainstream consumer gear. Digital portable music players had been available since 1997. Kids around the world were swapping ''mp3'' music files, and manufacturers including Sony, Creative and Sonic Blue had thrown players into the ring using CDs, flash memory or hard drives. But limited in the amount of music they could store, or being bulky and difficult to use, they had failed to capture the public's imagination.
By today's standards, the iPod launch was low-key. ''How many times have you gone on the road with a CD player and said, 'Oh God, I didn't bring the CD I wanted to listen to?' '' Jobs asked the Cupertino crowd. ''The coolest thing about iPod is your entire music library fits in your pocket. Never before possible.
''To have your whole music library with you at all times is a quantum leap in listening to music… This is huge.''
Huge and tiny. The Cupertino audience gasped appreciatively when he produced from his pocket the pack-of-cards sized box that held 1000 songs - but pundits found the device neither revolutionary nor attractive.
Technology Business Research analyst Tim Deal didn't like the $US400 price tag, when rival digital music players cost $US250 or less. ''I question the company's ability to sell into a tight consumer market right now at the iPod's current price.''
Stephen Baker, an analyst at sales and marketing information company NPD Intelect, said the iPod was likely to stand out, thanks to its large storage capacity, but predicted the device might have trouble carving out a niche in the market.
Tech website MacSlash reported the launch: ''The iPod sells for an absolutely hideously outrageous $399 and will be available to the two people who buy them at that price on November 10.''
That sales estimate proved conservative. Early figures were encouraging as Apple in 2003 took two massive steps. For one, it did the unthinkable, releasing a Microsoft Windows version of iTunes, the software that ran the iPod and organised the songs on your computer. Before then you needed an Apple computer to use an iPod, but now virtually anybody with a PC was a potential buyer.
Second, Apple released the ''iTunes Music Store''. Previously, to get music on your iPod you needed to copy CDs or download freely but illegally from a range of websites that were terrifying the music industry with their popularity.
By April 2005, less than four years since its launch, 10 million iPods had been sold. NPD Intelect reported that the iPod commanded 93 per cent of the market for hard-drive music players.
Its simplicity was the key, RMIT University industrial design lecturer Scott Mayson says now. The iTunes software was easy to use and the packaging compelling. ''It's interesting how the iPod became the ubiquitous digital music player,'' he says.
''There were plenty of rivals around at the time that could deliver high quality audio but Apple found something that connected with the broader market.''
Long before touch screens, the original iPod was controlled by a click-wheel - a circular control that gave access to every song within two or three clicks - which survives to this day in the range's ''classic'' model.
''Apple's designer, Jonathan Ive, came up with a design that's timeless,'' Mayson says. ''The click wheel, when you spin it round, is so intuitive. There's quite a significant connection between man and machine.''
Fairfax technology writer Adam Turner says Apple's design was crucial. ''People talk about the iPod as if it was the first digital music player,'' he says. ''Of course it wasn't, but it was the first one to get it right. This is what Apple has done in a lot of spaces.
''They don't tend to be the first but they look at something that's not quite working right, tweak it to make it a mainstream device that's easy to use and profit from that. Their products don't necessarily do as much as their rivals but the things they do, they do extremely well.''
Turner says the iPod's ''ecosystem'' - the software that dovetailed with the device - was part of its advantage. ''With iTunes, Apple had all the pieces for an ecosystem: the hardware, the music content, the delivery platform and the billing system. Only a handful of other technology companies have been able to do that, such as Amazon.''
While Amazon pioneered purchasing goods online and sites such as eBay and Craigslist revolutionised classified advertising and online auctions, they all focused on physical goods that had to be picked up or delivered. The Apple ecosystem, quickly mimicked by rivals, delivers instant gratification and now extends beyond music into digital books, magazines and games that arrive at your desktop or phone within seconds.
Ten years ago, it was just about the music. Now carrying your entire music library around in your pocket is commonplace. The long-playing album, since the 1960s the hallmark of both artistic and commercial success, has been reduced to a bundle of songs that music lovers cut and paste into their collections.
In an age criticised for sound bites and reduced attention spans, the iPod's ''shuffle'' option, randomly selecting the next track for playing, appeals to restless listeners who can't stick with one artist for too long.
Record companies, terrorised by the growth in free downloading of mp3s, welcomed the way iTunes made buying music easier than pirating it. But they baulked at the hefty cut Apple demanded on all music sales.
Apple's move into the heart of the music business also raised an old spectre. Back in 1978, the Beatles' record company Apple Corps had sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with the condition that Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business.
The Beatles had kept their end of the deal but the parties were back in court in 2003, this time for alleged breach of that contract through the iTunes Music Store.
A settlement was eventually reached, and while the terms were confidential, newspaper accounts suggested that Apple had bought out the Beatles company's trademark rights for $US500 million.
A decent outcome for the Fab Four but Melbourne barrister, songwriter and former Australian Idol judge Mark Holden says the iPod has been catastrophic for music artists in general.
''The good thing about the iPod was it monetised digital music for the first time,'' he says. ''But where you used to sell a single for $5 and the writers got a percentage of that, with iTunes the songs were selling for $1.69 and 65¢ goes straight to Apple. You could have a big hit in Australia and the songwriter might only get a couple of grand. And for songwriters the situation is getting worse.''
Songwriters, he says, will continue to write regardless of the money. Performers, meanwhile, need to regard their downloads primarily as good marketing and instead make their money from other sources, principally live performance and merchandise.
As the music industry has shifted, so has the iPod. From that initial price of $US400 a decade ago, an iPod shuffle with room for a few hundred songs now costs $55. With music migrating to phones and tablets, iPod sales have dropped and some models face phasing out. Rumours that the $280 iPod Classic - which still sports a click wheel and can store up to 200 hours of video or 40,000 songs - would be dropped from the range, last week proved unfounded.
Tim Butcher, deputy head of RMIT's school for industry engagement, says the iPod's evolution reflects Apple's vision. ''The iPod was a huge leap into a brand new market. It looked like it was designed just to capitalise on that one market but it's turned out to be a stepping stone to where they are now.
''The iPod wasn't the first music player on the market but it was the game changer and they've continually innovated to build on that success.''
Speaking to Newsweek on the iPod's fifth anniversary in 2006, Jobs attributed the player's success to detailed preparation. ''We tried to make something much more holistic and simple. When you first start off trying to solve a problem, the first solutions you come up with are very complex, and most people stop there.
''But if you keep going, and live with the problem and peel more layers of the onion off, you can often times arrive at some very elegant and simple solutions. Most people just don't put in the time or energy to get there.''
It's a strategy that has sold more than 300 million iPods and in a decade turned Jobs's vision into the biggest company on the planet - all thanks to a music revolution that fits in your pocket.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/icame-isaw-iconquered-20111008-1leyu.html#ixzz1anQMjxvA
A series of videos from the BBFC discussing various issues dealing with regulation and censorship
The BBC's iPlayer has launched in Australia. Usually the service allows Brits to watch live TV or 'catch-up TV' - the term for watching shows which recently aired. The ABC has a similar service called iView which is now the third most popular section of ABC Online (and is growing, fast). Both, however, only allow access to people based within the host country. The Australian iPlayer is a very different beast and could start a revolution of sorts in global media distribution.
The new global iPlayer uses a commercial model (unusual for a public-funded broadcaster) and will only serve as a Video On Demand service. It will ultimately provide access to the bulk of the BBC's massive television archives, with over 1000 hours being available at launch and "hours" of additional footage being "regularly added".
Subscriptions will cost $9.49 per month or $89.99 per year. The first ten hours are free to allow 'try-before-you-buy'.
The new version is exclusive to iPad although new platforms will be catered for in due course: iPhone, web browsers, Android mobile devices, televisions and more.
Disappointingly, cold water was poured on the notion of potentially paying a global Television license fee to access live and catch up BBC TV - something British expats and international BBC fans have longed for, for years. Jana Bennett, President of BBC Worldwide Networks and iPlayer told the ABC, "There isn't a plan to have a license fee per se, but there is potential to answer the pent up demand by having something like this."
This global variant of iPlayer is being used as a pilot in Australia while the BBC gauges usage and demand before releasing it in larger territories like the US. The global iPlayer has previously been running in various Western European countries, where it launched in July. The Australian launch represents a step up in the pilot program as demand is likely to be higher due to native English speaking and a relatively high concentration of British ex-pats.
Video quality will be tailored to the iPad meaning that those who connect their iPad to HD TVs won't get HD quality. However, this could change as demand increases and internet infrastructure improves.
Content will be spread across eight genres: News Specials and Documentaries, Entertainment, Drama, Science and Nature; Family and Kids; Music and Culture Comedy and Lifestyle. There will also be special Collated Content Collections the first of which will be a Dr Who "Dalek" retrospective. Dr Who is an understandable choice as it is one of the BBC's most popular exports and demand for it has been largely responsible for driving the high adoption rate of iPlayer and iView in the UK and Australia.
Launch programs include the entire first series of Dr Who along with Little Britain, A Bit of Fry and Laurie, Ab Fab, Silent Witness, The Hairy Bikers, Charlie and Lola and Deadly 60. The BBC's renowned period drams will also feature and include Pride and Prejudice, Cranford and the House of Elliot. Also included is Holby City, The Blackadder box set, Top Gear specials, Gavin and Stacey, Torchwood, Walking with Dinosaurs, Bottom, Life of Birds, Panorama and much more. Where programmes overlap with existing Australian network licensing deals, we were told, all existing contracts would be honoured. EastEnders, the seminal UK soap remains exclusive to Foxtel within Australia.
It will be interesting to see how global commercial conglomerates react to the BBC's new commercial move - Rupert Murdoch's media empire is unlikely to welcome the incursion into its commercial territory. However, whether the BBC would even be able to notice an escalation in his organisation's already-hostile views on public-funded broadcasting remains to be seen.
There are plenty of existing Video on Demand services across the world, such as Apple's iTunes, TiVo and America's hugely-popular Netflix. However, the BBC's vast high-quality archive should rival if not easily beat any existing value propositions.
Full article here http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/09/28/3328262.htm
The new global iPlayer uses a commercial model (unusual for a public-funded broadcaster) and will only serve as a Video On Demand service. It will ultimately provide access to the bulk of the BBC's massive television archives, with over 1000 hours being available at launch and "hours" of additional footage being "regularly added".
Subscriptions will cost $9.49 per month or $89.99 per year. The first ten hours are free to allow 'try-before-you-buy'.
The new version is exclusive to iPad although new platforms will be catered for in due course: iPhone, web browsers, Android mobile devices, televisions and more.
Disappointingly, cold water was poured on the notion of potentially paying a global Television license fee to access live and catch up BBC TV - something British expats and international BBC fans have longed for, for years. Jana Bennett, President of BBC Worldwide Networks and iPlayer told the ABC, "There isn't a plan to have a license fee per se, but there is potential to answer the pent up demand by having something like this."
This global variant of iPlayer is being used as a pilot in Australia while the BBC gauges usage and demand before releasing it in larger territories like the US. The global iPlayer has previously been running in various Western European countries, where it launched in July. The Australian launch represents a step up in the pilot program as demand is likely to be higher due to native English speaking and a relatively high concentration of British ex-pats.
Video quality will be tailored to the iPad meaning that those who connect their iPad to HD TVs won't get HD quality. However, this could change as demand increases and internet infrastructure improves.
Content will be spread across eight genres: News Specials and Documentaries, Entertainment, Drama, Science and Nature; Family and Kids; Music and Culture Comedy and Lifestyle. There will also be special Collated Content Collections the first of which will be a Dr Who "Dalek" retrospective. Dr Who is an understandable choice as it is one of the BBC's most popular exports and demand for it has been largely responsible for driving the high adoption rate of iPlayer and iView in the UK and Australia.
Launch programs include the entire first series of Dr Who along with Little Britain, A Bit of Fry and Laurie, Ab Fab, Silent Witness, The Hairy Bikers, Charlie and Lola and Deadly 60. The BBC's renowned period drams will also feature and include Pride and Prejudice, Cranford and the House of Elliot. Also included is Holby City, The Blackadder box set, Top Gear specials, Gavin and Stacey, Torchwood, Walking with Dinosaurs, Bottom, Life of Birds, Panorama and much more. Where programmes overlap with existing Australian network licensing deals, we were told, all existing contracts would be honoured. EastEnders, the seminal UK soap remains exclusive to Foxtel within Australia.
It will be interesting to see how global commercial conglomerates react to the BBC's new commercial move - Rupert Murdoch's media empire is unlikely to welcome the incursion into its commercial territory. However, whether the BBC would even be able to notice an escalation in his organisation's already-hostile views on public-funded broadcasting remains to be seen.
There are plenty of existing Video on Demand services across the world, such as Apple's iTunes, TiVo and America's hugely-popular Netflix. However, the BBC's vast high-quality archive should rival if not easily beat any existing value propositions.
Full article here http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/09/28/3328262.htm
Change is happening in Australia. Listen to this podcast
The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has issued a discussion paper proposing fundamental reform of the classification system for media material.
The Commission is concerned that the increasing numbers of media platforms, often merging into each other, is confusing for industry and the wider community.
It wants Government regulation to concentrate on media contents that is of most concern to the general public.
ALRC Commissioner in charge of the National Classification Scheme Review, Terry Flew said the goals of classification in balancing individual rights with community standards and protection of children remained vitally important.
Paper published on classification “But we need a new framework that minimises costs and regulatory burden, and does not penalise Australian digital content industries in a hyper-competitive global media environment,” Professor Flew said.
Drawing on more than 2,400 submissions responding to its MayIssues Paper, the ALRC found that the existing classification framework was fragmented, approached content inconsistently across media platforms, and was confusing for industry and the wider community.
Its National Classification Scheme Review Discussion Paper puts forward 43 proposals for reform including the introduction of a new Classification of Media Content Act covering classification on all media platforms—online, offline and television.
The discussion paper suggests a greater role for industry in classifying content—allowing Government regulators to focus on the content that generates the most community concern, and ensure access to adult content is properly restricted.
It wants content to be classified using the same categories, guidelines and markings whether viewed on television, at the cinema, on DVD or online.
It also suggests changes to classification categories, with age references—PG 8+ and T 13+ (Teen)—to help parents choose content for their children.
Finally, it calls for the Federal Government to take full responsibility for administering and enforcing the new scheme.
The discission paper can be accessed at this PS News link and the closing date for public submissions is 18 November.
The Commission is concerned that the increasing numbers of media platforms, often merging into each other, is confusing for industry and the wider community.
It wants Government regulation to concentrate on media contents that is of most concern to the general public.
ALRC Commissioner in charge of the National Classification Scheme Review, Terry Flew said the goals of classification in balancing individual rights with community standards and protection of children remained vitally important.
Paper published on classification “But we need a new framework that minimises costs and regulatory burden, and does not penalise Australian digital content industries in a hyper-competitive global media environment,” Professor Flew said.
Drawing on more than 2,400 submissions responding to its MayIssues Paper, the ALRC found that the existing classification framework was fragmented, approached content inconsistently across media platforms, and was confusing for industry and the wider community.
Its National Classification Scheme Review Discussion Paper puts forward 43 proposals for reform including the introduction of a new Classification of Media Content Act covering classification on all media platforms—online, offline and television.
The discussion paper suggests a greater role for industry in classifying content—allowing Government regulators to focus on the content that generates the most community concern, and ensure access to adult content is properly restricted.
It wants content to be classified using the same categories, guidelines and markings whether viewed on television, at the cinema, on DVD or online.
It also suggests changes to classification categories, with age references—PG 8+ and T 13+ (Teen)—to help parents choose content for their children.
Finally, it calls for the Federal Government to take full responsibility for administering and enforcing the new scheme.
The discission paper can be accessed at this PS News link and the closing date for public submissions is 18 November.
Check out this article from The Guardian
BBC project aims to capture portrait of Britain in one day
People invited to submit pictures on 12 November for documentary to be broadcast as part of Cultural Olympiad
BBC project aims to capture portrait of Britain in one day
People invited to submit pictures on 12 November for documentary to be broadcast as part of Cultural Olympiad
Add Comment
You MUST watch this video
about the BBFC the UK's regulatory institution. A good place to start when researching this institution is the SBBFC. This site contains loads of information about case studies and how they make decisions regarding classification of films.
World motorsport boss Max Mosley argues the case for more legal protection in cases of privacy, and questions how the private actions of an individual could possibly constitute a public interest.
Contemporary Media Regulation
Candidates might explore combinations of: Film censorship, the regulation of advertising, the Press and regulation / control, computer / video game classification, contemporary broadcasting and political control, the effects debate and alternative theories of audience, children and television, violence and |
No comments:
Post a Comment