Occasionally towards the end of a project the anxiety of clients and also our team gradually increases until it reaches palpable levels.
Understandably so, budgets may be on the verge of being exceeded, timings and early mover advantage is slowly being whittled away, the frustration of moving towards the mirage of a release-able product, yet this oasis constantly moving towards the horizon.
Concerned clients might take to forums seeking an answer to the question “will my app ever be finished?”
Unfortunately some answers they find can suggest that developers make their cream by extending projects infinitum in order to charge more. It is sad but some people may have legitimately experienced this practice, but when clients receive this information it can be unfairly projected on the honest Developer.
In reality software development is quite nebulous and even very good work by client and developer doesn’t ensure that a vision is easily achieved.
I can tell you from my experience we love to complete a project. There is more joy and more opportunity in efficiently completed projects, than our extending projects by squeezing remaining drops of resources from our clients.
Instead our hope is to complete a project and only return to the project after the first version has been released, is enjoying good take-up and yielding returns so that our clients can invest these into additional development phases.
We also understand that developing the app is only the start, our clients need resources left to take the next step. Milking them is one way to ensure that repeat business is made impossible.
So to summarise:
– Every job we complete is a step closer to a new job and
– This job can take the form of a second phase because our client realises success
– or a new client through a positive referral by the client of the last successful job
– The closer we take a client to their limit, the less likely that any of these can happen.
In my post “Piracy – is no longer a Spade!” I challenged the increasingly accepted norm that content or software can be designated free by the choice of the consumer.
At the post’s conclusion my standpoint was we need a way to pay the creator for their craft. After all the prospect of a Zero Sum Game where the consumers of content can’t get any content because no one ever paid for it to be created in the first place, is not an attractive one.
I do have an alternate theory to the Zero Sum Game thesis, and that is we are slowly aligning with Star Trek.
What do I mean?
Besides the obvious touchscreens how is society beginning to parallel this bastion of Sci-Fi?
Stick with me kid and I’ll take you through it.
Consider Jean-Luc Picard, Captain of the U S S Enterprise from the 24th Century, who after chasing the Borg backwards in time is now in the year 2063 talking with Lily Sloane, a character from that time. This is their exchange from the Star Trek movie “First Contact”:
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century. Lily Sloane: No money? You mean, you don’t get paid? Captain Jean-Luc Picard: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.
Based on this Star Trek chronology we have yet to go through a devastating world war, but by the 24th century we have advanced so far that not only will money be redundant, but so will wealth.
But in order to achieve this state we need to follow a technological progression which slowly degrades societies ability to conduct any activities that can generate wealth.
Consider the irony when comparing my last two points. In order to advance, we require degradation of a goal which we presently hold as the principle indicator of getting ahead, a goal which is seen as a wise and sensible pursuit. This goal is Wealth Generation.
Today wealth is seen as a right, and even as a gift that the developed world can bring to its developing neighbours.
We should pile on an additional serve of irony here because even the developed world is still trying to obtain and then sustain wealth with little success. Just ask the nations who are on the verge of bankruptcy. Just an unexpected pothole in the capitalistic freeway perhaps?
Thus surely capitalism ensures that after needs are satisfied, wants arise and these wants can become unquenchable.
Further if the pinnacle of all wants is wealth and wealth is truly an unrealistic invention of capitalism, then from a global perspective wealth is a myth and rightfully unobtainable.
If this is so, then perhaps defending content rights from piracy is the wrong thing to do.
Maybe the system of global society is just righting the equilibrium that capitalism pushed out of balance.
If this is correct I can only assume in another four centuries content is free, so must be food, or anything for that matter, and acceptably so.
Should I then bring myself to believe that there is no moral dilemma with sharing content, that things being free should be enforced by society?
I can’t imagine that the capitalists out there will simply see the light, out of a desire to pursue wealth at all costs, some will barely admit to global warming.
Thus this progression must be involuntary and I expect it will be brought on by technology enabled cultural change.
If so, what other technologies need to come into being to take us to the utopia of zero wealth creation?
First let’s summaries what has already passed.
Photography: One of the earliest method of reproduction, in particular the photographic negative allowed multiple copies to be made with relative ease. For a time, it was difficult for additional reproductions to be made at the same quality without the original negative but digital representations are not encumbered by quality loss.
Result: fine art could be copied, and the reproduction of what the eye sees could be captured with less effort. The progression of photographic technologies then made it easier to copy. Consider the photocopier, fax, video recorders and when all this became digital the brakes were off.
Recording of audio: Originally onto wax cylinders then vinyl, magnetic devices, optical media and now solid state.
Result: When once you could only partake in music by attending a performance or participating yourself, sound can now be captured and copied with increasing fidelity.
You can spot the trend, as soon as something becomes digital, or stored as data, it can be copied, and combining this with the internet and lack of copy protection mechanisms (or culture), this can erode the ability to make income, in other words generate wealth.
In the case of the above examples we also have the technology to change the data back into a resemblance of its original form. Eg an image into photo via a printer, or a recording via playback through headphones.
For years we have already been storing the parameters of physical objects as data, originally as 2D schematics and more and more as detailed 3D models. Now that objects are represented as data these can be copied and shared as easily as a digital sound or image. But it has only recently been possible to change the data back into physical thing which resembles the original.
The arrival and commoditisation of three dimensional printing and object scanning is changing this.
As this technology matures, we will see whole sections of various supply chains disappear. Even now susceptible products are already at risk of consumers escaping price by sharing. Consumers indifference to price could eliminate complete industries.
These 3D duplication technologies no doubt will follow a similar improvement curve to what we have experienced with image and sound. All the way to the point where we would have trouble picking the difference between an original hand crafted sculpture and its duplicate.
Eventually our machines will construct objects at close to atomic detail, atom by atom. Meaning the only resources we need will be cartridges of basic elements we feed the machines and the electrical energy to run them.
Will the supermarkets and malls of today be replaced with a single franchise: “Material Cartridge World”?
You realise by this stage that the 2D printing industry will be no more. We could either print our own 2D printer, or better yet simply print the paper with the pigment already on it.
Consider also that we could solve our energy problems, simply print photovoltaic materials onto anything we want. Printing roofing materials which function as solar panels will supply all our energy needs. This means that the only things left to buy are the material cartridges.
By taking the technology progression one step further we are now knocking on the door of Star Trek.
All we need is to understand is how to skip the step of raw materials, eliminate the need for baryonic matter. All we need to do is work out how to change energy directly into matter. No small task I admit.
But surely though it must be the ability of converting energy into matter that removes all need for possession and thus all reason for commerce, transactions and acquisition of stuff.
What we here is the Star Trek Replicator.
You might say we will still need those corporations who own the big Replicators, the ones you need to make a car, or a house even.
No need, simply replicate out of your domestic sized Replicator, a Replicator Bot. These Bots need only be the size of a shoe and you let is loose with enough room and it will make you your car, or even a car sized replicator… your choice.
I am sure there will be an initial problem of too much stuff piling up because of the novelty of replicating for the sake of it. But hopefully people will soon rationalise their want for material possessions and replicate more on the basis of need.
So in a time when anything we can dream of can be created by us in our living room, all manufacturing, all sales, marketing and distribution, all wholesaling and retailing will be a thing of the past. What industries will remain?
How about service industries that are not so easily replicated? For example hairdressing?
Wait, what would a hairdresser need money for? Why would you need to pay them? They won’t be buying food with it? Will they only need money so they can buy services too? Or will they do it out of the love for getting all hairy on a daily basis.
Really unless it is for the sake of conversation why don’t you just replicate a hairdressing bot when you get home? Actually this brings up an interesting line of thought why would you even need to go out? Surely everything you now need is at home, and since we still use our Facebook neural implants, we are already connected everyone we “socialise” with.
It is a little repulsive but I expect some people will place their food reflector next to their bed so they don’t have to get up to make food. The dire cases will opt for intravenous feeding directly from their replicator.
It is at this point that I realise that I am beginning to paint the picture of how we establish the world depicted in another well know Sci-Fi franchise The Matrix. Only the Wachowskis got it wrong, it seems we never battle the machines, Asimov’s laws of robotics will ensure this war is not even possible. The robots will simply go about helping us do what we want to do, in this case get connected, stay connected, but yet stay alive. The third law then maintains that the robots should then take care of themselves and go about their business of sustaining the humans. From the robot’s perspective this may include breading new humans and plugging them into the matrix.
There are many who already have an addiction to being virtually connected, and will remain happy with a life of status updates. Picture this: “just woke up, am lying in bed connected to a drip & my neural interface #niceday for it!”
This picture is a little glum, and I am sure that many others will agree, so I am expecting there will be those who will want new and real challenges, and now unencumbered by the need for more frivolous activities, like performing SEO, or deleting spam about SEO, people will now accomplish these real challenges with tremendous speed.
Consider also that by this time all learning must be voluntary, because enforcing a society to go through school for the sole reason of getting a job to earn money is no longer rational. Thus it will only be the most motivated people who will even bother learning and their motivation will already be aspirational. Social interaction of these inspiring people would no doubt lead to couplings that produce offspring with similar cultural motivation and increasing cultural intelligence. This could accelerate our development even faster and with all areas of our now cooling globe explored, the only option is to overcome present limitations of faster than light travel and to head for the stars.
Voilà Star Trek!
Naturally there are some significant technology hurdles to overcome to reach such a positive outcome, and before this we are likely to go through some significant turmoil as technology, culture and global forces act to erode our current economic mechanisms. But I think we can all agree that like global warming this erosion is happening, and we need new lots of new ideas to care for humans and the planet.
Although I do expect that like the debate on climate there will be economic erosion sceptics too, in fact I believe they are already here.
In my last post “Piracy – is no longer a Spade!” I was appealing to consumers of content to help the creators of content earn a living. I also appealed for some new ideas to provide consumers a method of directly contributing to the costs of this creative activity.
In this episode host Glenn Fleishman talks to Jack Conte a musician and entrepreneur, and one-half of the group Pomplamoose.
Jack explains why going on tour as a musician has not been a sustainable way of allowing fans to contribute financially to their creative endeavors. With Glenn’s help he also explains the an artist-supporting platform Patreon.
This platform facilitates the direct and ongoing connection between consumer and creator.
Check it out.
P.S. another couple of direct support platform that have recently been tweeted to me are:
With an election looming in Australia, I visited the websites of number of political parties in an effort to make my vote more informed.
Instead of becoming more informed I felt a little discouraged, this was a result of the apparent homogeneity between the major parties.
My survey of their online presence felt similar to comparing mobile phone plans. On the surface plans may look different but when you adjust for variations in call rates, data quota, flag fall and cash back offers, they can amount to a very similar monthly commitment.
I stress this observation of sameness is more a sensation, I can see differences between parties but running a country has significantly more variables than a phone plan and the scope that I can examine in one sitting is limited, so the sensation remains.
I have some general ideas as to why, I feel that media, journalism and even our education system are suffering similar kinds of blandness for the similar reasons. Another blog post perhaps.
But it was a visit to the Pirate Party site that presented a new dichotomy of emotions.
First I must shamefully admit to my superficial application of stereotypes to the candidates photos, but after cleaning the judgemental grime from my prejudicial glasses, I headed to their policy section where I was pleasantly surprised. The party were putting up some fairly constrained and in my opinion were addressing warranted reform to intellectual property laws. They weren’t advocating zero rights of ownership, but aiming to reduce extensions to the term of exclusivity and suggesting other methods to curb the abuses of legislation, abuses that can hold back innovation, or make it unnecessarily expensive.
However after my initial pleasant surprise, I paradoxically begun to perceive my growing disappointment that even the Pirate Party could not resist the pull to moderateness.
In my imagination, this party by its namesake should have been championing everyone’s rights to ignore other people’s rights. That it isn’t stealing, it’s sharing or of the afforded democratisation that is assisting artists to take back the power from the large corporate pimp machines of music labels and publishing houses. Plus any of the other catchy excuse that the kids of today herald.
Perhaps I am being judgmental again.
This is where I depart for the time being from my exploration of politics to give more consideration to the topic of this blog entry.
I have in the past found myself using excuses for piracy. My all-time favourite was that of non-consumption, ie I can’t afford to buy this software, thus they wouldn’t have gotten my sale anyway, so really they are not considering me as a customer, therefore I am not cheating anyone of any income – It’s quite an effective argument.
The flip side, if everyone who used the software could be counted upon pay their dues, then quite possibly the price of the software would have reached an affordable range.
This missing income lost to non-consumption is the “cost” that industries quote as a key reason for establishing SOPA and the like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
However it is more accurate to recognise it is the poor cobber who pays the full non-disseminated price as the one who will experience the brunt of the costs. If more and more piracy occurs these costs may even become prohibitive for the remaining consumers leading to zero consumption or zero software.
Online music / app stores and the prevalence of devices have more or less proved this to be true. Where the price barrier is low and distribution is in the hands of the creators, direct access by customers makes it simpler and more gratifying to just purchase the content or software.
Ironically this behaviour is less true about the more costly to produce content and software, that being movies, TV and AAA titled games. Additionally it is often the most hard-core fans that are the biggest “sharers” of content, expressing the view “I torrent the episodes, but it’s ok – I buy the box set when it comes out.” This works fine until a favourite show gets pulled from the network and cancelled because it isn’t rating, even though it’s a hot seller in store as DVDs. My example, Firefly.
The traditional feedback device of “viewer survey” by networks is broken by online sharing, and I am sure that there is a significant percentage who torrented but didn’t buy the box set, so even that measure of popularity is broken.
This is the “Zero Sum Game” effect. The system is broken, the expensive process of TV production is not offset by the traditional mechanisms of ad paid for content, or paid access to the content across the networks.
Zero sales – zero income – zero TV
Perhaps this is because those greedy pimp machines are still in the mix and the prices are not as low as they yet should be, or worse that distributors hold back availability in certain territories forcing non-consumption. Groups such as, publishers, networks, and territorial distributors were all required in an offline model but are far less relevant today.
This is just disruption right?
Have not many industries distilled or disappeared because their model of business becomes unsustainable resulting from technology changes.
Does anybody still order ice for their ice cabinet? Or gas for their Car? Ok the second example is premature, but the car did on the large part disrupt the horse.
But unlike ice delivery and more like the petroleum industry, these pimping groups have power and connection that ties up the dissemination of content. So they are more shielded from disruptive forces and their demise is artificially slowed.
I can go some way to agreeing with pirates that fat can be cut from content distribution, but there is a fine line between those who want to pay for well-priced content and those who suggest “sharing” is fine.
Consider sharing with a more traditional flavour; Sharing is only possible when there is enough of something to go around. Sharing cake between 10 people is possible, between 100 requires a larger cake or less share to the eaters. This is economics, the rule is: resources are finite. Now let’s invent a cake copying machine (with 3D printing it probably isn’t too far away), but this fictional cake copying machine is perfect as it derives all required resources from zero point energy meaning more or less that it can copy cakes infinitum. Resources are no longer finite right? Wrong, there was one particular resource that I am most interested in considering, this is the time it took for the first person to invent the recipe and make the cake. Surely we want to protect this person and resource them so they can invent again. This is vitally important because I will certainly bore of eating the same cake.
I’ll leave it to you to amplify the same concept by considering the design and manufacture of a safe and reliable car.
It is important to recognise that in the cake and car scenarios, the baker or car designers are the ones spending resources that need to be distributed across all their customers and recouped, but in both cases cake or car, you keep costs lower if entities in the supply chain are few. Sure we will have to work out what to do with all the unemployed people displaced by disruption, but that is not a new challenge, just ask Detroit.
But is becoming closer to the customer a good thing?
Increasingly I hear from content creators, in particular artists in the music industry, there is a juxtaposition of having less supply chain. Being closer can develop stronger community and as this community are feely sharing the music, the artist’s popularity can quickly grow. However as a generation of fans have now grown up with the expectation that music is free and free to share, selling tickets can become the only sure source of income, leading to exhausted artists who literally sing for their supper every night.
In defense of some fans, I have heard that many recognise this and until we invent the Fictional Copying Machine , they understand artists too need to eat and buy necessities. These fans would love to have more direct ways of getting their contribution to the artist.
What about the movie actor, not specifically talking about the A-list variety, although they should really be the first to take a slight pay cut, but will they have to fall back to live theatre as a means to guarantee less sharing of their hard work?
This is where I think attention needs to be spent, not in changing legislation to protect redundant supply chains, but by installing better mechanisms for customers to directly compensate creative people. These viable alternatives will help these creators to bypass the traditional methods of product distribution.
This would lead to true and justified disruption of supply chains rather than just a symptom of a corrupting society who has lost its ability to respect others, a society who now call the “Stealing” spade a “Sharing” spade.
So before you sit down to an episode of Game of Thrones, or the like, instead spend the time thinking about how you can create new technology or methods that help creative people to put a few dollars in their pocket so they can create the content you enjoy. After that the episodes will be sweeter, I promise.
Regardless of your stance, since moving into further into the content and software business myself, I work very hard to ensure that my company is equipped with legitimately purchased software and that my personally consumed content is acquired through legitimate means. It’s just my policy.
By the way, because of this I haven’t yet watched any Game of Thrones, mainly because it hasn’t reached the legitimate channel for me. That channel being a family member who buys the box set so I can have a lend 😉
Recently I was asked to provide feedback towards a Strategic Review Paper put forth by our State’s film funding body the South Australian Film Corp.
Personally I have a mixed attitude towards governments handing out funds especially if it is a commercial venture, however investing into a project that has merit for the common good might win my permission. Regardless careful consideration to its portioning is needed.
The elements of the paper I had largest concern with was the SAFC’s hope to get more bang for their buck by avoiding the new players who are trying to prove themselves and instead put it in the hands of those who are recognised as mature practitioners.
My point is that in the turbulence generated by emerging technology new players need to be considered, even looked to for the direction of story telling.
I would like to take the opportunity to provide some feedback on behalf of AIMIA towards the Strategic Review Paper.
This email is my personal summation of the feedback.
On the whole I agree with the proposals of the Strategic Review to best deploy the reduced available funds.
However I would like to challenge the use of some key terms to help the SAFC consider the future of this industry.
The use of the term “emerging” development is quite understandable but I would briefly like to touch on the use of the word “speculative”.
I apologise if it seems a semantic argument, but all production is speculative and I am not just referring to the speculation related to establishing and pleasing the eventual audience.
Those of us who operate in the technology industry are familiar with the dynamic and turbulent evolution of both the technology and the resulting culture surrounding its use. It is these factors which are having a direct impact on Filmic storytelling.
The trouble begins with the Strategic Review describing the South Australian industry as showing signs that it has matured.
From a global perspective we can demonstrate that it is this evolution of technology which is bringing even mature players (with a few exceptions) to be no more ahead of the curve than those just graduating or even those with amateur skills.
More importantly and through my personal conversation with a few, there is an aspect of infancy to these mature SA players. Conversations have demonstrated an understanding of the old models of film and TV production but show considerably less ability to make sense of the factors caused by evolving technology. These factors relate to funding methods, digital distribution, transient social memes and overcoming zero earnings through trends of “sharing” (piracy).
This is before you even consider broader interactive / second screen implications of which traditional business models cater little, but are yet beginning to be expected.
As a demonstration, within 4 years of the emergence of the app stores three considerably differing business models have already transitioned. With the long lead times of production there is no guarantee that the model perused at the outset will remain the presiding one at the end.
There is also a considerable mismatch between the traditional models of production financing, and the demands placed on producers by digital practitioners who operate in a demanding fee for service model.
Currently we do not propose a firm solution and as I have said we agree with removing the silos and ceasing the separation between the distribution channels.
The future is in flux and it belongs to those who make it. As such we do agree it will be the entrepreneurial producers/ groups that will continue to cut this path.
Thus we recommend there should remain a strong investment in programs (not projects or producers) that help foster this experimentation on a multifaceted front, investigating aspects of storytelling, platform choice, funding methods, and building links between entrepreneurial practitioners across industries.
Should the creation and management of this activity be best carried out by partnering entities such as the MRC or industry groups such as AIMIA, then we more than welcome these funds. We would also appreciate the assistance in creating some of these new initiatives. It will be this assistance which can help ensure synergies between the SAFC and partners. Simple facilitation of collaborative exploration with the SAFC and interchange between the partnering entities would be a simple example of this.
It is hoped that this investment and facilitation by the SAFC may actually prove more fruitful than funding mature players who’s business models are being disrupted.