Abstract

Healthy business environments breed competition. Two of the largest companies in the world have been competing for consumer and business interest for years. While many industries have stalled under the pressure of the global economy, the technology sector has seen significant growth. As broadband internet continues to growth rapidly throughout the developed world, Microsoft and Google outline opposite, yet overlapping strategies that will no doubt change the future of personal computing.
Google vs. Microsoft

The strategies of each organization are heavily influenced by their historical achievements. While there are many differences between these organizations, both have dominance in separate but deeply related industries. For decades, Microsoft has led the desktop computing environment with its highly popular Windows operating system and Office productivity suite. It is estimated these platforms are used by 500 million people worldwide and are deeply rooted in enterprise environments. Google, on the other hand, started as an internet search provider. Their influence rapidly grew due to the “effectiveness of its PageRank search algorithm and online advertising services, along with its ability to attract the best and brightest minds in the industry.” (Laudon, p.289)
Each organization has seen huge success in their respective specialties and both continue to develop their strategy to evolve those strengths. As the internet matures, Google believes the majority of the personal computing tasks will take place on the internet, reducing the reliance on a single piece of hardware (i.e. desktop). The actions typically handled by locally installed software would be completed on web servers accessibly anywhere in the world. The impacts to the end user are reduced hardware/software maintenance costs while reducing the reliance on a single machine. Microsoft understands opportunities which the internet presents; however, they feel the local desktop environment allows for a richer user experience. By integrating internet services within their highly popular core products, Microsoft hopes to increase its web based market share.

Internet Invasion

Both the personal computer and internet have fundamentally changed humanity. As of January 2010, over one billion personal computers have been supplied to eager consumers all over the world. The actual number of personal computers in today’s marketplace is significantly higher as corporate/enterprise systems are not allocated in this count. We simultaneously interact with both each and every day. There are few technological advancements that have has as significant affect, or continue to evolve at such a rapid pace. What began as a tool to allow the personal computing experience to be more efficient, has challenged the traditional interactions we have with our computers. As new web based services continue to evolve, the needs of the consumer transform. By Google’s estimates, roughly 90% of user experience is internet based; a value Microsoft quickly dismisses as overzealous.
In its current form, the internet provides opportunities to expand the capabilities of the more traditional computing environment; however, I feel there are still limitations as well as several issues that must be addressed before the internet (cloud) computing model can replace the desktop environment. Some of these issues include:

• Connectivity and Availability
• Data Security and Control
• Laws and Regulations
• Software Developer Buy-in

Attempted Acquisition

Microsoft maintains the personal computer will continue to benefit end user experience; however, the threat of internet computing is too great. As Google continues to bolster its web based offerings, Microsoft sought opportunities to increase market share. To combat losses and competitor innovation, Microsoft set goals to, “innovate and disrupt in search, win in display ads, and reinvent portal and social media experiences.” (Laudon, p. 290) and felt the procurement of Yahoo! was integral to success. While the acquisition was unsuccessful, it showed the willingness of Microsoft to adjust its business strategy to better position the organization in both cloud and desktop markets. Uniting Microsoft and Yahoo! would nearly double the conglomerate’s internet influence as well as provide significant infrastructure to aid in the transition to this new market type. The infrastructure was a key component in the takeover bid, and as Laudon identifies, “Developing scale internally is far more difficult than simply buying it outright.” (Laudon, p. 290) Now with little hope of a buyout, Microsoft has significant challenges ahead.

Future Success

The Google Apps suite offers significant opportunity for product diversification as well as increased enterprise market share. With the introduction of Gmail, Google not only entered the web based email provider market, it began creating an integrated suite of productivity tools. As with its search engine, the adoption was rapid among more technical users; however, the speed, efficiency and reliability of the service allowed Google to capture market share quickly. For most users, the integration of Google’s powerful search, coupled with speed and high storage capabilities provided enough lure to leave other free services such as Yahoo! Mail, Hotmail, Live, etc..While it may seem unsustainable to provide app services for free, the search engine giant is able to offset costs by capitalizing on several other opportunities such as:

• User search/browser patterns to enhance search and spam algorithms
• Identifying high frequency distributors
• Product and service cross-selling
• Contextual ad placement (Google is currently using email contents to provide relative ad placements)
• Large testing base (before instant search was implemented on the search engine homepage, it was tested in the Gmail interface)

I feel the tight integration between services is imperative for the search giant to remain competitive. In the last year, Google has significantly increased the delivery channels for their products and services. The deployment of the Android mobile platform, Chrome browser, Google TV, and soon to market, Chrome OS will enable the organization to interact with each user throughout their daily routine.

Personal Experiences

For over fifteen years I have utilized several productivity suites, and most have met the needs of the projects I was working on. During that time, I have grown familiar with the Microsoft Office suite and find the robust capabilities of the software to be a definite advantage in a personal as well as professional manner. In addition to my comfort, I have experience several critical errors while trying to utilize the Google Apps. Not only did this negatively affect my efficiency, I found even simple tasks to be relatively complex and extremely unintuitive (not usually a characteristic of Google products). Simply attaching a file as to an email required the file to be downloaded to the pc, eliminating one of the touted benefits of cloud collaboration. Other issues included formatting compatibility, printing and interrupted service. These failures coupled with the lack of power features required in my work forced me to abandon the Google Apps and purchase Microsoft Office.

Since my purchase, I have enjoyed full compatibility with educational and professional peers alike. While my experience with Google Apps was relatively negative, I am interested to see the suite grow and provide deeper integration into the other Google products I use on a consistent basis. When I feel the offering provides additional benefits to my individual situation, I will re-evaluate the need for the licensing cost of Microsoft Office.

Who Will Prevail

Each organization has significant market overlap and will continue to compete for business in the productivity suite, personal computing and internet priority. While Google is consistently increasing its market share, I feel Microsoft is too deeply rooted in the enterprise environments to ever be the second choice among power users. The Office platform is intuitively robust, allowing both power and standard users alike to work within the same compatible environment. As Microsoft continues to integrate secondary productivity suites such as SharePoint and Office Live into traditional computing environments with improved operating experience, they will continue to entrench their dominance by reducing Google’s relevance in the enterprise. Some reasons for this conclusion include:

• Data security and access control
• Service availability and support capabilities
• Compatibility
• Comfort

Inversely, I feel Google will continue to dominate the consumer search, advertisement markets while slowly gaining market share in the personal computing environment; however, sustained growth will be limited. I feel the “all internet, cloud computing” model has significant obstacles such as:

• Hardware intensive computing (gaming, design, video editing, etc.)
• High availability/relatively low cost of hardware
• Service availability
• Security and access control
• User comfort

One of the main features of cloud computing is the reduction in hardware complexity for personal computing tasks; however due to the relatively inexpensive cost of hardware, explaining the benefits of a handicapped system could be difficult. I think each organization with continue to explore ways in which additional market share can be acquired, but I feel Google has a much more difficult road ahead in its attempt to dethrone Microsoft.

References

Laudon, K, & Laudon, J. (2010). Management Information Systems. Pearson Education Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Internet Usage Statistics. (n.d.) Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Cloud Computing. (n.d.) Retrieved February 23, 2011, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

This is a repost from tripwiremagazine.com

Most photography uses extremely fast shutter speeds, only allowing light into the camera for a fraction of a second, but when longer exposures are used there can be some remarkable results. Static objects are revealed in heightened detail, while anything moving becomes a blur.Long exposure photography entails using a long-duration shutter speed to sharply capture the stationary elements of images while blurring, smearing, or obscuring its moving elements.

View the original post >

I needed a quick toggle for a jQuery powered site that does not have a full featured CMS, has older version of jQuery, don’t have access to the hosting environment. Luckily, I am able to edit the source in the WYSIWYG editor. This solution seemed to work well…

<script type=”text/javascript”>
$(document).ready(function() {
$(“.answer”).hide();
$(“.question”).click(function()
{
$(this).next(“.answer”).slideToggle(500);
});
});

</script>

(Originally found over at designgala.com)

This is an example of how I structured the content

<p class=”question” title=”Click to Expand”><strong>This is the question</strong></p>
<p class=”answer”>This is the answer to the previously asked question</p>

I ended up having to extend the script a little as I wanted the cursor style to change when a user hovered over the question. I did this by adding the following to the previous script.

$(“.question”).hover(function()
{
$(this).css(‘cursor’,'pointer’);
}, function() {
$(this).css(‘cursor’,'auto’);
});

So the final in body script looked like this:

<script type=”text/javascript”>
$(document).ready(function() {
$(“.answer”).hide();
$(“.question”).click(function()
{
$(this).next(“.answer”).slideToggle(500);
});

//Add cursor styling
$(“.question”).hover(function()
{
$(this).css(‘cursor’,'pointer’);
}, function() {
$(this).css(‘cursor’,'auto’);
});
});
</script>

Seemed to work well for what we were looking to implement. You could extend this with CSS, adding images or even additional elements from the jQuery UI

This is a quick paper outlining an abandoned research project for my freshman year project…

Architecture can be a lot of different things; beautiful, expansive, ugly, restrictive, unique, bland, etc. For professionals in the architectural industry, I believe one thing it must be is profitable. The goal of any capitalist business model is to provide a service or product for a profit, architecture is no different. However, in today’s business environment it seems profitability is becoming increasingly difficult to ascertain. Although there are numerous influences that affect the profitability of any given business model, I believe one of the most effective ways to address low margins in a proven method, such as the Design-Build approach, is to evaluate the current workflow, identify and correct inefficiencies that will increase productivity, accuracy and overall potential. For many it is imperative to continually audit business practices to aid in the adaptation of internal processes. This will inherently allow architecture firms, regardless of size, to maximize profits.

The business of Architecture is changing rapidly. There are many forms of project delivery in the architectural profession, but just a single method is quickly becoming the leading form in the United States. Over the last decade, the Design-Build method has become the preference of residential, commercial, educational as well as government clients. This preference has altered the way many architectural and construction firms conduct business. Prior to 1980, the Design-Build process was viewed as a method of delivery that was best utilized in agricultural and utilitarian projects. In fact, until repealed in 1978, The American Institute of Architects (AIA) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct2 stated that architects should not be allowed to participate in the construction aspects of any project, including Design-Build project delivery. (AIA, 2003, p.1) Due to this limitation, the growth of the Design-Build method was slowed. However, due to the aforementioned repeal and the inherent benefits for the client, its popularity soared.

Understanding the delivery approach is central to the evolution of delivery methods in the architecture profession. There are various methods of project delivery used in the design/construction industry today and a continual evolution of these methods is expected. However, each can be classified as a variant as one of three general types: traditional design-bid-build, construction management, and design-build. Although the client or project restrictions may require the use of a specific method, in The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice, Bernstein provides detail into the selection of delivery approach,

“The project delivery method chosen for a building project depends on two main considerations: What roles will the owner, architect, and contractor play during development and construction? Which variable factor(s) – cost, schedule, building quality, risk, and client capability – are driving the choice?” (Demkin, 2008, p. 257)

Using these questions as a guide in selecting the appropriate method of project delivery, the architect/firm can increase the efficiency of the project before it starts. Previously, only the cost of a project’s construction drove the delivery approach, and usually the contractor submitting the lowest bid was selected. Today, however, the aforementioned variables will affect the selection of a delivery approach. Identifying the impact of these variables will considerably reduce project hardship and aid in the selection of the most effective approach.

The traditional or conventional project delivery system, most commonly referred to as design-bid-build or D/B/B, is based on a chronological process of design, construction documents, bidding, contract award, and then construction. This approach requires a significant amount of time as each work segment must be completed prior to beginning the next. The construction documents, a direct result of the design process, are used by the contractor to submit fixed price bids on the project. In this approach, the lowest-bid contactor that is aligned with the project requirements of the contract documents is usually selected. The traditional project delivery system is best used when the project is divided into separate contracts for the design and construction phases (“AIA Contract Documents,” 2010, sl. 2). Currently, this is the method in which most projects in the United States are completed. Much like the hierarchy of project delivery, numerous variations of this method exist, such as the negotiated select team and cost plus fixed fee approaches.

Although limitations exist in this model, there are significant advantages to the design-bid-build process. The client can significantly reduce their involvement in the project, if their creative and functional objectives align well with the designer. The use of a bidding system inherently increases the competition with regards to project cost and scheduling, allowing for the architect to increase efficiency and quality of the project for the client. Some of the potential issues surrounding the traditional method include: absence of construction professional during design process and an increased project timeline which can cause significant project cost increases due to expenses on construction loans and/or seasonal material availability.

As previously mentioned, the design-build methodology has grown significantly in popularity in the past ten years (Jackson, 2004), and is frequently referred to as single-source project delivery. This approach requires a single contract; the client contracts with a design-build entity that will be responsible for both the design and construction of the project. Although growing in appeal, the design-build method is still just the second most common method of project delivery. According to a 2006 AIA Firm Survey, design-bid-build accounted for 59.3% of all projects while just 13.5% of gross billings were design-build projects (Demkin, 2008). However, owners are moving toward design-build delivery for a variety of reasons, including benefits such as these: single source for design and construction, quicker project delivery, guaranteed project pricing, minimized claims and damages, and extended product warranties (Quatman & Dhar, 2003).
An example outlining a client’s rationale regarding their choice of the design-build process corroborates the argument above. When asked about their choice regarding a recent design-build project, a University of Florida official responded:

Rather than having two sources of responsibility, with me trying to take documents from a designer and giving them to the CM—with me essentially being the middleman—the designer is working for the contractor. So if there are any errors in the design, the contractor is responsible for that, versus the University of Florida. It presents a different contractual arrangement and one that I really like. (Quatman, 2004, p. 1)

A Navy spokesman expressed a similar view,

Having a team approach to construction yields the best product because you are not handing off someone else’s design, which eliminates finger-pointing and it’s also great for fast project execution. (U.S. Military Delivering Smarter Construction, Design-Build, June 2003, p.40.)

In both cases, the motivation for utilizing the design-build process can be attributed to project efficiencies. In the first example, efficient communication and compartmentalized responsibility are provided as reinforcement to the decision. The second example highlights the benefits of single point of contact as well as the advanced project completion timeline. I feel that due to the current advantages already offered by the design-build process over the more traditional design-bid-build method the Design-Build method provides more opportunity to increase the efficiency of the process and methodology of project delivery.

Just as it is important to understand the various methods of project delivery to assess which processes have the greatest potential; it is also imperative the method in which research is conducted is comprehensive. While exploring the various methods of research that could be used to assist in the analysis of the Design-Build project delivery method, I believe a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches are necessary. In Architectural Research Methods, Groat and Wang describe qualitative research to be dependant on nonnumeric evidence, whether verbal, experimental, or artifactual whereas the quantitative research depends on the manipulation of phenomena that can be measured by numbers. (Groat & Wang, 2002, p. 25) As I am relying on numeric evidence, such as interview/survey results and nonnumeric evidence such as case studies, both classifications should be applied. Due to the large number of variables within the Design-Build process and the inability to numerically quantify human thought/interaction, the success of suggested process alterations must be considered within some level of probability. Because of this human element, modifications and accommodations will have to be made in the research process. (Groat and Wang, 2002, p.33) It is my opinion that this inquiry best correlates with the Postpositivism paradigm.

In addition to the type of information that is collected throughout the research process, it is vital to consider the quality of standards. The survey provided to the various industry professionals was administered electronically. To meet the internal validity standards, once inefficiencies have been indentified and corrected, the processes need be measured in a production environment to provide confirmation of the enhancement. Unfortunately, for this portion of the research, implementing new processes in a professional environment was not possible.

When requesting participation, architectural firms from across the United States were selected. I felt this was the best way to provide external validity of the research as it would ensure the responses were not bound by contextual constraints such as; geographical location, building type, industry, etc. As previously stated, the same survey was provided to various individuals for completion. Due to the way the survey was administered, I feel confident the results will provide sufficient information to propose alterations to current processes in the Design-Build method; however, given the amount of human interaction/decisions, I don’t feel it would meet the reliability standards outlined by Groat and Wang. It would be impossible to guarantee the processes will function in the same manor anytime or anywhere.

After carefully studying the various methods in which research can be structured, I was compelled to utilize the case study and the multi-method approach. The use of case studies allows the injection of historical data to support the qualitative information that is collected using various forms of individual interviews. One tactic that was utilized was an electronic survey to collect structured answers from the respondents. In addition to providing the validity to the survey findings, as one of the weaknesses of qualitative research is that the credibility of qualitative data can be seen as suspect with the postpositivist paradigm, the case studies give insight of the current attributes of Design-Build projects being completed today. Important project metrics such as: timeline, budget, size, geographic location, etc., can all be identified in case studies.

In conjunction with the case study approach, a qualitative method was also used. Although the aforementioned case studies aid in my efforts to justify the necessity to efficiently overhaul of the Design-Build processes, additional information was required to narrow the scope of research. I felt the best way to identify the various areas was to survey professionals currently practicing the Design-Build project delivery method. The ability to “take in rich and holistic qualities of real life circumstances” (Groat and Wang, 2002, p.199), is one of several strengths to the qualitative approach. As the Design-Build process is riddled with human decision, it is necessary to have the flexibility in the design and procedures of the research structure to allow adjustments for these incalculable deviations. In addition to the method of collection, the means in which I intend to display the information served as a guide when choosing the research design as well. Most qualitative research studies make use of data displays, whether in the form of charts, graphics, or tables.” (Groat and Wang, 2002, p. 194). My intention to provide results in an intuitive graphical representation can be viewed in the accompanying report.

One of the major issues I encountered while this research focus developed was challenge of dealing with an immense amount of data. I was able to limit the amount of scope creep that took place by adjusting the questions that were provided in the survey; however, moving to the next phase of research will require a significant effort of categorization. The necessity of categorization comes from the variables injected into the process by human decision and interaction. Assigning values to these decisions will require a tremendous amount of flexibility in the measurement structure that is created to identify whether a process is efficient or not. Another weakness to the use of the qualitative design method was the lack of guidelines or relevant case studies that could be used to aid in the setup of the research method. Without sufficient examples, I found it to be difficult when structuring the collection as well as analytical portions of the research.

The impersonal characteristics of the electronic format provided a significant setback in the first survey design. In most cases, respondents did not have an issue answering the survey with personal information such as; name, age, length of employment, etc., however, it was necessary to delete these demographic metrics from the electronic format due to lack of response. Once these questions were not required, the response rate quickly rose. In addition to the comfort level of respondents to the medium, I was also not able to account for the variations from the Design-Build process as defined by the AIA. Like many project delivery methods, many firms have adapted the process to fit more congruently with their approach to business. Due to these adjustments, it was difficult to correlate some of the responses.

Although the intention was to utilize only one collection method, I feel this is something I would adjust in the next round of research. The survey tactic, although helpful, could have received tremendous benefit from the injection of interviews with the respondents as well. Using both data sets, it would be possible to expand the analysis of the Design-Build process to include the current adaptations being utilized in today’s professional environment. Incorporating this data would provide the validity needed to justify the adaptation of the AIA defined Design-Build process.

The goal of this research is to identify, summarize and categorize the current inefficiencies of the Design-Build process in the business phase. In understanding how and why each process is inefficient, we can introduce more effective procedures and automation into the delivery method. Ideally the benefits of this exploration will provide a solid understanding of the methods of identification, categorization and implementation to aide architectural firm’s ability to increase profits while providing affordable services for their clients. I think the impact of this research would have tremendous effects on the architectural design world. Reducing the financial commitment required for clients can provide significant incentive for new developments. In addition to the benefit of inflated business opportunities, shortened project timelines will provide opportunity for internal resources to be distributed more effectively across all projects. From the client’s perspective, the benefits of a streamlined project delivery method will reduce the financial commitment and implementation timeline. It is my hope that architecture firms will be able to utilize this research as a guideline to audit additional project delivery types.

References
Advantages of Design/Build for Clients. (n.d.). Design/Build Business Training and Consultation for Professional Residential Designers, Builders and Remodelers in the Business of Home Improvement and the Remodeling Industry. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.mydesignbuildcoach.com/articles/advantages_of_design_build.htm
Architects, A. I. (2008). The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice (14 ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Architects, T. A. (2003). The Architect’s Guide to Design-Build Services. New York, NY: Wiley.
Beard, J. L., Loulakis, M. C., & Wundram, E. C. (2001). Design-Build: Planning Through Development (1 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Design-bid-build – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design-bid-build
Design-build – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved April 17, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design-build
Elvin, G. (2007). Integrated Practice in Architecture: Mastering Design-Build, Fast-Track, and Building Information Modeling. New York, NY: Wiley.
Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2001). Architectural Research Methods. New York, NY: Wiley.
Jackson, B. J. (510). Construction Management JumpStart. New York: Sybex.
Thomas, A. (2006). Design-Build (Architecture in Practice) (1 ed.). Chichester: Academy Press.

Paper written by Matthew Wehrly, Student at Lawrence Technological University

Abstract

Like many popular consumer products and services, the internet was first developed as a tool for the military. While some argue the true origins of what we now call the internet, many contend it was first developed in 1969 for computer research by the Defense Department (Histories of the Internet, para. 1). Others maintain the internet of today was spearheaded by DARPA in 1972 by utilizing the idea of open-architecture networking (Histories of the Internet, para. 3). Regardless of which implementation can be credited with the creation of today’s internet, both achievements aided in the creation of the largest collaboration effort and information repository in the history of humanity.

For users, the internet provides significant opportunities to share information instantaneously to an audience encompassing nearly 29% (roughly 1.97 billion) of the world’s population (Internet Usage Statistics, usage tbl). In the last ten years, the adoption rate of internet access has increased over 444%, adding roughly 200 million users each year, increasing the effective audience for content publishers. The popularity coupled with the inherent efficiencies of the internet has transformed not only how we collect, distribute and interact with information; it has transformed the way we do business. This case study explores the ways in which the internet has challenged the traditional practices of the media industry, specifically the broadcast and motion picture industries.

Introduction

The internet has changed the way we approach business in many industries. The rapid adoption, constant technical advancements and evolving delivery methods have increased efficiencies, opportunities and pioneered new industries. Users, companies and industries that do not adapt quickly, run the risk of being left behind. One such example is the struggle the music industry has had battling piracy and the integration of electronic content delivery within their more traditional distribution networks. The inability of major record labels to recognize the emerging opportunities of the internet has proved to be costly. The RIAA estimates the music industry loses roughly $12.3 billion annually to piracy and indicates additional costs (For Students Doing Reports, para 2):

• 71,060 Lost Jobs (United States)
• $2.7 billion in lost workers’ earnings per year
• $422 million in lost tax revenues per year
• $291 million in personal income tax per year
• $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes per year

It is my opinion that the lack of a viable delivery method caused the growth of music piracy among internet users. The introduction of music purchasing services such as iTunes and Amazon have proved users will purchase content that is reasonably priced, easily accessible and provides increased publishing capabilities to personal media devices. The technical frameworks of these services, coupled with advancements in digital rights management, aggressive marketing, pricing and selection as well as intuitive profit sharing business models have allowed the music industry to increase revenue and market saturation while protecting their copyrights.

With the increased availability of internet access, specifically high speed connectivity, the broadcast and motion picture industry has begun to realize the adverse effects of the internet. As Laudon states, “Increased levels of high-speed Internet access, powerful PCs with DVD readers and writers, portable video devices, and leading-edge file sharing services have made downloading of video content faster and easier than ever” (Laudon, 2010, p. 117). While this allows the movie industry to capitalize on new opportunity, slow adoption, flawed delivery and pricing models have hindered early efforts. Due to this, free and often illegal video downloads currently outpace paid video downloads four to one (Laudon, 2010, p. 117). It is estimated that 23.8% of global internet traffic is infringing on content copyrights (Envisional, p. 2). The introduction of new services such as YouTube, Vimeo, Blip.tv, etc. provide the broadcast and motion picture industries with popular delivery methods…but are they sustainable?

Analysis

Today, the movie industry faces several competitive challenges. A weak economy, advancing technologies, interpretation/enforcement of copyright laws, and what I feel is the largest threat to the movie industry; electronic distribution. With the advancement of technology and development of so many personal media devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops, media centers, internet connectable televisions, etc.); this broad delivery method has challenged the more traditional VHS, DVD, Blu-ray circulation mediums. A few of the electronic channels threating traditional business are:

• Online Media Stores (iTunes, Amazon, etc.)
• Video Streaming Services (YouTube, Vimeo, etc.)
• Subscription based Rental Services (Netflix, Blockbuster, RedBox)
• BitTorrent Services
• Hosted File Sharing Services (HotFile, RapidShare, 4Shared)

The introductions of online stores such as iTunes and Amazon have brought both opportunity and challenges to the movie studio. While this channel reduces production costs, operating expenses and reimbursement timelines, it has required the movie industry to adjust release timelines, reduce markup, and has restricted the control of distribution. The typical lifecycle for movie productions followed a standard release schedule. The first three months the production is presented in box offices, DVD release followed within six months and premium cable (Showtime, HBO, etc.) a year after initial release. To combat electronic piracy, studios must release digital content in conjunction with traditional DVDs. Due to the delivery method, the studios earn less money on downloads than physical media. By releasing the media on both channels simultaneously, it reduces the ability of individuals to purchase the DVD, decrypt the movie and publish to a piracy source.

In February 2005, YouTube was created and subsequently changed the landscape of internet video. However pure the intentions, the popularity of the service skyrocketed and copyrighted material began to surface. This proved to be a significant resource and burden to content publishers. This new distribution channel provided amateur, non-profit and non-traditional publishers the opportunity to showcase work to the ever growing internet audience; however it became an uncontrollable infringement liability for professional publishers. YouTube measures to discourage its users from posting illegal clips included limiting the length of videos to 10 minutes and removing videos at the request of the copyright owner (Laudon, p. 117). While these efforts curbed some content infringement, controlling user generated content is considered one of the most difficult things to accomplish on the internet. To aid in the efforts to reduce copyright infringement, YouTube introduced a system to compare uploaded videos to a database of copyrighted content. This newly created service coined Video ID was unable to prevent legal action.

Recognizing the potential losses services such as YouTube could cause, copyright owners took action against YouTube. In 2008, Viacom claimed that over 150,000 unauthorized clips of its copyrighted television programs appeared on YouTube in a federal lawsuit (Laudon, p. 117). This lawsuit was rejected in June 2010 in a summary judgment which stated that Google was protected by provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Currently, several movie studios and television networks utilize the YouTube service to promote new releases and shows. With over two billion (yes…2,000,000,000) video views daily, YouTube provides significant opportunity for publishers to generate excitement about products, services, shows, movies, etc. without a significant marketing investment. In addition, publishers are now able to generate ad income from uploads and while there has been limited success, this additional revenue stream will continue to grow as does the YouTube audience.

Recommendations

The partnerships between content providers and distributors benefit the entire entertainment industry as well as the end users. Using the internet as a delivery method, producers are able to streamline their revenue sources and distributors are able to implement advanced technical frameworks to protect copyrights while increasing the user experience. In my opinion there are several opportunities that still exist in the marketplace that have yet to be capitalized. Some of these include:

• Industry wide subscription models
• Ad supported BitTorrent profit sharing
• Device wide content streaming
• Personalize content delivery

In the marketplace, there are several subscription based services that currently exist. Unfortunately, due to the fear of market cannibalization studios and television networks are unwilling to share content. Services such as Hulu allow users to stream television content directly to their internet connectable devices such as televisions and computers; however, the content is limited to specific networks. I feel all providers would benefit from a single source/service distribution which provided tiered service levels. For example, a free service that restricts the number of hours per month that is also ad supported a paid service in which the time restriction is lifted but still contains ads, and a paid service that removes ads and time restrictions. In my opinion, a fragmented market reduces the effectiveness of content providers ability to reach the broadest audience.
Other considerations to a service of this magnitude are the demographic, psychographic, as well as technical metrics that could be collected. These metrics would allow studios/networks to analyze usage data that is more detailed and accurate than what is currently at their disposal.
Another area that content providers should continue to develop is the personalized user experience. Netflix has implemented a service that will provide movie suggestions based on the user’s previously selected movies and ratings; however, I do not feel this service has matured appropriately with market potential. Utilizing user preferences, the entire experience of selecting, watching and discussing content, as well as the user interface should be personalized. By increasing the personal involvement the end user has when using these services, the fee margin, customer loyalty and participation will increase.

Conclusion

While the increased pressure of the internet has hindered profits in the movie and music industries, I feel it has created an opportunity that far outweighs the disadvantages. Through the use of various technologies such as the internet, powerful computers, emerging devices, etc. content providers can utilize various digital channels to diversify their revenue streams. As Laudon states, “distributing movies online offers movie studios some cost-cutting benefits, including avoiding expenses from handling distribution themselves and from returned products. It may also allow movie studios to earn revenues where their products might otherwise have been distributed illegally” (Laudon, p. 118).

References

Leiner, B, Cerf, V, Clark, D, Kahn, R, Lynch, D, Postel, J, Roberts, L, Wolff, S, & Kleinrock, L.
Histories of the internet. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml

Internet Usage Statistics. (n.d.) Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

For Students Doing Reports. (n.d) Retrieved January 22, 2011, from http://www.riaa.com/faq.php

Envisional. 2011. An Estimate of Infringing Use of Internet. Retrieved January 23, 2011, from http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf

Laudon, K, & Laudon, J. (2010). Management Information Systems. Pearson Education Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

I recently read a post by Francios Lane over at Cake Mail, great post.

10 LESSONS I LEARNED AS AN ENTREPRENEUR
CakeMail is now three years old. This is the fourth company that I’ve bootstrapped, and I thought I would share 10 lessons I’ve learned along the way. Note that I never raised angel or VC money for my companies, so I’m only speaking in the context of bootstrapped companies.

Get a partner

Running a business is hard. Find somebody that is complementary to yourself. Having a partner increases chances of success, helps to remain psychologically sane and feels less lonely.

Keep your books in order

Make sure your books are well maintained from day 1. Don’t do it yourself though – you are far too busy for it and you’ll end up neglecting them. You may not have any employees, you may not be paying yourself yet, but if you can’t afford to hire someone else to maintain your books, don’t start a company. Ask for monthly income statements as soon as possible after the month closes. If you don’t know how much money you made or lost last month, this is a problem. The only thing that is worse than losing money is losing money and not knowing how fast and how much you are losing.

Don’t invent the business model

Don’t try to start something if you don’t know how you will make money. The first thing to do is figure out all your growth and profitability economics. If you can’t make sense of it on paper, the likelihood of failure is far too great. There is far too many unknowns to afford to leave that question open.

Be profitable at a small scale

Can your business be profitable with 2 employees and just a few clients? Or does it have to have 50 employees and tons of clients? The smaller your team and faster you can be profitable, the more likely it is that you will remain alive and have a solid ground to grow on.

Be the best at what you do

If your goal is not to build the best ___(fill the blank)___ in the world, you are either not ambitious enough or your competitors are too powerful.

Hire smart people and trust them

Hire only people that are smarter and better than you at what they are doing. Your employees are the ones that should tell you what and how things must be done. Every new employee must increase the overall IQ of your company, not just its capacity to do what it is doing. Your job as the entrepreneur is to set the context for your employees to perform at their best and let them shine.

Don’t operate yourself

Try to get out of as much of the day-to-day operations as you can, as early as possible. As soon as you can stop working “in” the company (dealing with day-to-day fires), you can start working “on” the company (doing strategy). And as soon as you start working “on” the company (doing strategy), you will realize what you should be really working on when you are back working “in” the company (doing tactics).

Think global

Don’t build just for your local market. I know it feels easier and more natural, but the potential of small markets is just too small. If what you offer is good, you’ll find buyers across the world. Plus, it’s easy to be local when you are a global company, but not the other way around.

Measure everything

Measure as much as you can. Every time you start measuring and analysing new data you’ll find insightful patterns you were not suspecting. A few things worth measuring: web traffic, conversion funnel, cost per acquisition, lifetime value of customer, product feature usage, API usage, profitability, customer satisfaction, etc. Read more about metrics.

Don’t sell – make it easy for people to buy instead

This is something we’re currently working on at CakeMail. How easy it is for potential customers to buy what you offer? How can you make it easier?

By Francois Lane, CakeMail CEO & Co-Founder. Follow Francois on twitter at @cakemail_ceo.

Original Post: http://www.cakemail.com/blog/10-lessons-entrepreneur/

Go Periscope is an Electrosynthpop band from Seattle, WA. Their debut album was released earlier this year; it can be purchased on iTunes or Amazon. They are featured on Rockin Romance Volume 2 with a cover of Taylor Swift’s “You Belong With Me,” which you can get oniTunes or Amazon. On September 7th, 2010 their Mixtape was released as a free downloadfrom Bandcamp.

You can listen to their songs for free online over at bandcamp or right here.

I am currently listening to the mixtape

Here are 3 good tips when reviewing, writing and posting copy to your website. The original post can be viewed at famousbloggers.net –>

1. The Copy Was Written from the Wrong Perspective

Some individuals make the mistake of writing web copy in first person. This is one of the biggest mistakes you can make in web copywriting. No offense, but the reader does not really care about the author. What the reader cares about is how the content relates to them and what they can take away from it.

Web content needs to talk directly to these readers. Without talking directly to your readers, they are not likely to be interested in what the author has to say about him or herself and will probably leave to surf somewhere else rather quickly. Instead, you should always engage your readers by using a “you” perspective instead of an “I” perspective.

2. The Sales Pitch Is Too Over the Top

Another common mistake web copywriters make is they write their content with too strong of a salesman slant. We all know how incredibly annoying pushy sales people can be in real life. Most average people find them utterly irritating. You should translate this common sense fact about how people react to pushy marketing to your web copy. If the sales pitch is too “loud” in your content, it is likely to drive away readers.

Exaggerated claims about what a product actually does will also be met with strong suspicion. If the sales pitch sounds bogus on the surface, the reader is likely to assume it is some kind of internet scam. Instead, go for a more low key approach. Write web content that accurately describes what the product or service does and how it can benefit consumers. If the article sounds more informative than “salesy,” the reader may be more likely to believe the claims that are made in the web content.

3. The Copy Was Written with Little Knowledge of the Business or Product

Despite not wanting to come off as too “salesy” in your web copy, the ultimate goal of web copywriting is often to market some kind of product or service. While web surfers don’t want to be pressured into buying anything, they are also unlikely to be swayed by someone who doesn’t even seem to know what they are talking about.

Before you even start typing, you should always perform the proper research into the business, the products or services they offer, and the makeup of the customer base. Only after doing this research will you be able to write convincingly to those customers to get them to act to purchase the company’s products or services.

You shouldn’t only confine your research to the company’s website either. Call the company and inquire about receiving a sample of their product or services as part of your research for writing web content to market their business. They are likely to agree. If you experience a business’s products or services for yourself, you are more likely to be able to write truly convincing web copy about the benefits of those products or services.

This is a repost…good list of resources. Hats off to the team over at SmashingMagazne.com.

There are tools that make our lives much easier. However, finding those obscure time-savers which would save time in every single project isn’t easy and requires a lot of time. At Smashing Magazine, we are regularly looking for such useful tools, gather them, review them and eventually prepare for a truly smashing round-up. Such posts are quite lengthy and extensive, but they are always worth checking out.

View entire article –>

This is a repost of an article by the very talented Amber Weinberg —

Every freelancer wants to make it to the big time with the awesome clients and the awesome pay. I’ve noticed that there seems to be an interesting division in the freelance world, regardless of what kind of freelancer you are. Our hourly pay (and if you charge by the project like me, you can still break it down to hourly) seems to be divided into three tiers:

• Cheap –$10-$40 an hour
• Affordable–$50-75 an hour
• Big Time–$75-$300+ an hour

I know a lot of freelancers who balk at the idea of charging $75+ an hour and don’t even believe you can charge over $100 an hour…

Read the rest of the article on FreelanceFolder.com –>