As I examine my media habits I realize, like many people, that what and how I consume my information has drastically shifted.
In my previous post, Where do we find the time?, I mentioned the role of the Internet and how it can alter how we utilize our time. After I wrote that post I started to think.
If I have shifted my media consumption habits from passively watching television to actively managing, digesting, and learning from media online shouldn’t I think reconsider what media I pay for?
The reason I mention this is because I have been traveling a great deal lately and unfortunately it has been hard to find access to the Internet when and where I want it. I spend more time trying to find a coffee shop with wireless than I do actually on the Internet.
So, if the media I consume is primarily online and I am not at home as much, why should I pay for a traditional TV and Internet plan?
Since I carry my laptop with me virtually everywhere, wouldn’t it make sense to simply purchase a top of the line wireless Internet card as my means of connection? Everything I watch or read is online, from TV shows on Hulu.com to my favorite contributors on my Google Reader and Twitter.
I spend my time watching, reading and contributing to the web. In this economy, it only makes sense to purchase a plan that fits my needs more appropriately.
By getting rid of my cable and home Internet I can access and contribute to my media anywhere and I will no longer have to search for a coffee shop with wireless. Although a good chai latte will go a long way.
I’ll let you know how it goes. Good-bye Charter Communications.
If you have suggestions on a good wireless card and carrier please lend me your expertise via the comments.
I remember when I was a kid and one of my teachers would show a 8mm film from the 60’s in class. Those film strips were painful to watch. Not only were they boring but they lacked any substance. Later, with the advent of cable and the hundreds of TV channels, our options increased. Now better shows could be recorded on VHS.
Now as many of you are sure aware, the Internet can provide those shows to us for free and on demand. No longer do you have to have a pile of VHS tapes laying around. With the creation of tools like Slingbox, which brings live TV to your computer, and Hulu.com, access to relevant shows has never been easier and simpler.
While Hulu.com may not have access to all the shows you want yet, the model itself is worth acknowledging. As we move further into the 21st century, it will be Internet’s ability to provide the resources we need for education to greater and greater numbers of people that will truly change the world. The equity that an Internet connection has brought will not only enhance education but provide more and more people with the opportunities to learn.
While streaming video and it’s potential cannot be overlooked as a fad, it’s potential is only as good as how it is implemented. As educators we must make sure that while we provide access to these tools, they do not stand alone as the only means of instruction. The video is a tool that must be supported by the proper activities and methods of reinforcement for a true educational impact.
Because of the Internet and the minimal cost of online storage, more and more stuff is not available to a wider and wider audience. Anderson’s thesis in The Long Tail is a groundbreaking one. But his new book, Free will have even great implications.
So if the Long Tail Destroyed the idea of the 80-20 rule (that is 20% of a companies products make up 80% of its revenue) what will this concept of free economics do to the future of the marketplace?
Google
Nick Carr sums up Google’s economic model like this:
“Google’s protean appearance is not a reflection of its core business. Rather, it stems from the vast number of complements to its core business. Complements are, to put it simply, any products or services that tend be consumed together. Think hot dogs and mustard, or houses and mortgages. For Google, literally everything that happens on the Internet is a complement to its main business. The more things that people and companies do online, the more ads they see and the more money Google makes. In addition, as Internet activity increases, Google collects more data on consumers’ needs and behavior and can tailor its ads more precisely, strengthening its competitive advantage and further increasing its income. As more and more products and services are delivered digitally over computer networks — entertainment, news, software programs, financial transactions — Google’s range of complements expands into ever more industry sectors. That’s why cute little Google has morphed into The Omnigoogle.
Because the sales of complementary products rise in tandem, a company has a strong strategic interest in reducing the cost and expanding the availability of the complements to its core product. It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say that a company would like all complements to be given away. If hot dogs became freebies, mustard sales would skyrocket. It’s this natural drive to reduce the cost of complements that, more than anything else, explains Google’s strategy. Nearly everything the company does, including building big data centers, buying optical fiber, promoting free Wi-Fi access, fighting copyright restrictions, supporting open source software, launching browsers and satellites, and giving away all sorts of Web services and data, is aimed at reducing the cost and expanding the scope of Internet use. Google wants information to be free because as the cost of information falls it makes more money.
There’s one more twist. Because the marginal cost of producing and distributing a new copy of a purely digital product is close to zero, Google not only has the desire to give away informational products; it has the economic leeway to actually do it. Those two facts — the vast breadth of Google’s complements, and the company’s ability to push the price of those complements toward zero — are what really set the company apart from other firms. Google faces far less risk in product development than the usual business does. It routinely introduces half-finished products and services as online “betas” because it knows that, even if the offerings fail to win a big share of the market, they will still tend to produce attractive returns by generating advertising revenue and producing valuable data on customer behavior. For most companies, a failed launch of a new product is very costly. For Google, in general, it’s not. Failure is cheap.”
How will Google’s business model shift our perspective towards the future of economics?
Clay Shirky
Failure is cheaper… The average quality of what is produced is much lower but the average quality of what is consumed is much higher.
What is the implication of this change? How will it impact the future of economics?
As I examine my media habits I realize, like many people, that what and how I consume my information has drastically shifted.
