I got exposed to the Linux about 10 years back. My college-mate Adi was a Linux-lover, (and wasn't a Windows hater), and he exposed the entire class to Linux, whose latest flavor used to RHL 6. Though I personally liked it for being open source and free, I always had a problem with having to get under the hood to get it working properly.
Well, its been a decade and things have changed a long way. Ever since ubuntu has come along, all installation issues have pretty much gone out of the window. And since it is virus proof for most part, I can give it off to my father and he could keep clicking on whatever he wants and I don't need to worry about a crashing OS. In fact, I handed over a Linux desktop to my almost-computer-illiterate father and he has been using it 5-6 hours daily and hasn't brought it down. He uses the Internet to find any application he wants and hence he needs nothing except the browser (and probably a media player for playing music/videos which are not streamed).
Taking the cue, I have moved to a Windows-less life myself. I switched my laptop to Mac sometime back and am most happy. I also have a desktop at work which is a RHEL machine, which I use only through terminal consoles. I am happy with the arrangement and don't miss Windows.
Having said all this, (and I have not even got to where I wanted to), I have always admired Microsoft for producing an easy-to-use OS and hence allowing a lot of computer-illiterate people to get onto the computer revolution. However, a lot of companies were stereotyping Windows and its users and were getting away with it. The "I am a Mac" ads are a classic example.
And I always hoped Microsoft fought back. And they have. Here are the videos of the latest bunch of "I am a PC" ads. I am loving them. Have a look:
ps: Thanks to TechCrunch for exposing me to these ads. I don't think they are running on Indian TV.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Alternative Business Models for Media
For some time, I have been arguing in debates that Media companies should adopt different distribution and pricing mechanisms to keep up with changing times. Essentially, there are two kinds of media. One for which you pro-actively pay - films or Music CDs and others which you implicitly pay (by buying the endorsed products) - TV serials, Radio etc.
My primarily problem is that both these kinds of media should be available in different forms also. For instance, I should be able to download the latest movie and I am willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for that - say Rs. 100 for a doanload. How do I come up with that number. Well, I am taking into account two sections - one is what would the film-maker receive from my buying two tickets at the theatre - possibly around Rs. 50-60. The rest is for covering the cost of setting up the Infrastructure for people to be able to download the movie.
Why am I proposing this alternative? Primarily because I hate going to theaters. They are way too costly for me to afford (I am including the cost of transport and the popcorn-Coke to the ticket cost), and is too much effort in a crowded city like Bangalore. So I want to watch the latest movie and willing to pay for it.
The problem is that no film-maker is willing to even experiment with this method. The fact is, that hardly deters anybody from still watching the movie at home, and that for free. There was a time that people would make significant efforts to download a movie online, but I realized it's so much more easier these days with reliable-fatter bandwidths and ever-improving codecs. A full 3 hour movie is probably 400MB these days and thats not too difficult to download on a 512 Kbps pipe.
Anyhow, going further with our discussion, I also propose that the second kind of media, for which you don't pay directly, should be freely available for people to watch it at alternative times. The media can contain the same ads as shown in the original (with probably better targeting and improving conversion rates). Movin997.com streams live the Movin 99.7 San Fransisco radio station. I loved this station when I visited the Bay Area earlier this weekend and I pick up songs regularly on the Internet while sitting in India.
In fact, most popular Indian TV shows are already available on Youtube, and with a little ingenuity, not only can you download a video from Youtube, you can even convert it and have it in iPod, iPhone, where you can watch it whenever you find time. Most TV serials are just content driven and hence the quality of the screen or the picture hardly makes a difference. And hence I wouldn't mind watching the latest episode of the "Great Indian Laughter Challenge" on my iPod on my way back from office (I use the company shuttle, so no driving :-)
Alas, the media companies have hardly picked up this business model, in spite of this having been suggested enough times on the blogosphere. Having said that, I feel elated that Hulu.com (the legal media streaming site) is picking up traction - close to 9M people visiting the site.
My primarily problem is that both these kinds of media should be available in different forms also. For instance, I should be able to download the latest movie and I am willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for that - say Rs. 100 for a doanload. How do I come up with that number. Well, I am taking into account two sections - one is what would the film-maker receive from my buying two tickets at the theatre - possibly around Rs. 50-60. The rest is for covering the cost of setting up the Infrastructure for people to be able to download the movie.
Why am I proposing this alternative? Primarily because I hate going to theaters. They are way too costly for me to afford (I am including the cost of transport and the popcorn-Coke to the ticket cost), and is too much effort in a crowded city like Bangalore. So I want to watch the latest movie and willing to pay for it.
The problem is that no film-maker is willing to even experiment with this method. The fact is, that hardly deters anybody from still watching the movie at home, and that for free. There was a time that people would make significant efforts to download a movie online, but I realized it's so much more easier these days with reliable-fatter bandwidths and ever-improving codecs. A full 3 hour movie is probably 400MB these days and thats not too difficult to download on a 512 Kbps pipe.
Anyhow, going further with our discussion, I also propose that the second kind of media, for which you don't pay directly, should be freely available for people to watch it at alternative times. The media can contain the same ads as shown in the original (with probably better targeting and improving conversion rates). Movin997.com streams live the Movin 99.7 San Fransisco radio station. I loved this station when I visited the Bay Area earlier this weekend and I pick up songs regularly on the Internet while sitting in India.
In fact, most popular Indian TV shows are already available on Youtube, and with a little ingenuity, not only can you download a video from Youtube, you can even convert it and have it in iPod, iPhone, where you can watch it whenever you find time. Most TV serials are just content driven and hence the quality of the screen or the picture hardly makes a difference. And hence I wouldn't mind watching the latest episode of the "Great Indian Laughter Challenge" on my iPod on my way back from office (I use the company shuttle, so no driving :-)
Alas, the media companies have hardly picked up this business model, in spite of this having been suggested enough times on the blogosphere. Having said that, I feel elated that Hulu.com (the legal media streaming site) is picking up traction - close to 9M people visiting the site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
