#Wall St. Jrnl-PhotoCD
27 messages in this thread
Perhaps I'm trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon, but I really want to
do SOMETHING about inane (if not stupid) reporting about new technology in
the press!
Viz., story on pg B-1 of Dec 18 Wall St Journal about "disappointing" sales
of Kodak's Photo-CD. We have discussed Photo-CD a lot here on the Forum,
and I don't want to focus on it to the exclusion of other products. But…
This article misses the point! Once again, we have so-called journalists,
who became experts yesterday when they learned to spell the product name,
counting sales and not taking into account other aspects of a new
technology intro. Photo-CD is not just a box, it is a disc format as well,
with far-reaching implications. More importantly, it provides new
functionality, is a real impetus for mutlimedia, and has impact far beyond
the sale of their players.
Kodak is not the only victim (in some cases, beneficiary) of such
simplistic thinking. CD-I has survived as long as it has because the press
has printed Philips' press releases without any critical eye. On the other
hand, CDROM in general has suffered because the press thinks it is merely a
computer peripheral with little or no understanding of its impact as a
publishing medium, and the promise it holds in innumerable markets.
Virtually every vendor has experienced this phenomenon – for good or ill.
Should we put together a Hi-Tech 101 class for journalists? Flood them
with mail when they do something absurd (but alas, we would have time for
little else!)?
We need a better educated press (including the computer trade press – hello
InfoWorld and PC Week!). Until that time, readers need to realize that,
just because a cub reporter gets their story printed, it ain't necessarily
gospel!
What do you think!?
Rich Bowers
Rich,
Your disappointment in the press when it comes to reporting on matters on
which you have personal or professional knowledge is widely shared. Its the
nature of the beast that reporters who cover a multitude of stories and who
were trained as journalists are not going to have the overview or
appreciation of nuances as someone involved intimately in the matter.
I read the story in question, and did not consider it unfair. It was
perfectly proper that the story concentrate on on the projected sales and the
fact that consumers were not sure why they should buy the product. To expound
on the "far-reaching implications" of the technology would have made the
reporter an advocate and been improper in the context.
For the type of informed coverage you seem to be looking for, have you seen
the quarterly review of computer technology in the Journal or the weekly
computer column by Walter Mossberg in section B. He reviews the products and
technology from the perspective of an informed end-user without an ax to
grind.
I really think your ire here should be directed at Kodak. They are doing a
lousy job of getting the product and the story out. I have a CD-ROM drive, a
laser disc player, and a CD-I player aand I am having a hard time remembering
where exactly Photo- CD is going to fit for me or where I go to get involved
and whether I need a new machine or the old ones will due.
Regards
Tim
Tim:
Thanks for your comments.
>>I read the story in question, and did not consider it unfair.<<
You're right, it wasn't unfair, except by omission. True, within the
limited scope of talking about the players, they did a "reporting" job. I
guess my complaint is that they they positioned the story as disappointment
in "Photo-CD" rather than "Photo-CD players." And there is more to the
story.
I don't own stock in the company, but I do appreciate – from personal as
well as anecdotal experience – that Photo-CD has done something very
positive for the masses who have never understood what this "multimedia"
noise was all about. That's at the core of the "far-reaching impact."
I do read Mossberg's column (and the other guy who fills in) and think they
are great. In fact, I might wish that more reporting were done by people
who admit upfront they aren't experts, instead of acting like the ultimate
authority on the strength of a few phone calls.
As far as Kodak's pr job so far, well no one's perfect. But again, from
the unsophisticated consumers perspective, I think they have found a way to
demonstrate multimedia better than most. And I wish them well for that,
because in the end the entire industry gains.
Dealing with people looking for hard information every day (and having to
admit there is little) I get overly sensitive to skewed news and inexpert
opinions.
Best – Rich Bowers
Rich
I agree with your comment about the press and Photo XA. You really can't
expect any one with a 3 hour deadline to come up with any insight.
I learned this the easy way when I wrote my first book (Other People's
Money) on the S&L Crisis. The publishers I took it too first explained
that all the other S&L book proposals were from very prominent journalists
(and started naming names and credits). Then they told me that they wanted
my book first because "it wasn't from a journalist" so they knew it would
contain insights into why rather than just what. (I went with Simon &
Schuster).
When it comes to CD-ROM publishing, like with any other revolutionary
medium, the people in the related existing field will lose the most and be
the last to understand its potential. When talking movies came out, they
were heralded as the "end of the piano player for the movie houses" and
basically only contained piano music for three years before the realized
that the actors themselves could talk on them. Few silent movie people
made it to talkies, and few existing publishers and journalists may make it
to CD-ROM multimedia publishing.
Paul:
Thanks for the comment. I collect historical vignettes that illustrate our
acceptance and absorption of technology, and this story will go into the
bag.
Have a great holiday!
Rich Bowers
If you collect historical vignettes on the incorporation of technology, I
have a lot for you. My last book has many such items and I use several in
each speech. I'll send you some as they come to mind.
Paul:
I appreciate it! I find that anecdotes from previous experience with new
technologies and products help us understand current challenges better, and
put them in perspective. We keep saying that we should learn from history,
but the techology business seems to feel it is so new that there are no
lessons to learn from the past. And I disagree heartily.
Take care!
Rich Bowers
Getting back to the original thread, I think you have to make a distinction
between the general press and the industry press. CD technology, as
Phillips is discovering, may not be the product for the home PC user that
they thought it might. Indeed, CD-I is getting its biggest response in
industry, where it is providing a time/cost saving service to those who use
it (ie – x-referencing drug interactions for doctors). I may take a lot of
flack for saying this, but I think that Kodaks photo products are a bit
silly to make such a big deal over. Sure it's neat to put your photos on a
new device to view them – but it's far from the wave of the future – or
maybe it is – but to me it's the difference between casettes and 8 track:
both delivered the music, the device with the biggest market ]share won.
The general press will deal with the general interest. Those of us who look
at this stuff with a much more educated eye will seek out the more educated
reporters.
– Matt
Matthew:
>>CD technology, as Phillips is discovering, may not be the product for the
home PC user that they thought it might. Indeed, CD-I is getting its
biggest response in industry, where it is providing a time/cost saving
service to those who use it (ie – x-referencing drug interactions for
doctors).<<
No offense, but I can't imagine what you are talking about. Maybe the
confusion is in your terminology. CD-I is a specific brand name developed
by Philips. It has recieved only the barest of interest from industry so
far, and primarily for training. The drug-interaction products you speak
of have been available on standard CDROM starting in 1987. And indeed
CDROM is enormously successful in industry for applications such as these,
and a multitude of others.
I think the words you've used are the result of some confusion in the
marketplace (cultivated by Philips' PR and advertising campaigns) that CD-I
(their product) is somehow "more interactive" than CDROM in general. This
is a misconception. Any CDROM application (whether CD-I or not), is as
interactive as the developer wants it to be.
As for your comments on Kodak, you may be right. I don't think so, but
time will tell.
Thanks for your input. — Rich Bowers
Good point, and I stand corrected.
I still contest that the technology (at this point) is not for the general
consumer. As you said earlier, this may be the result of it being a
"young" marketplace. Perhaps I, like others, am confining my imagination
and not seeing the far reaching possibilities. Maybe I just don't know
enough about the possibilities of the technology. Unfortunately, I see it
as a technological stepping stone. Then again, I like G. Gordon Liddy, so
you might get an idea of what I think
<big g>.
– Matt
Matt:
I really think we need to re-focus the analysis of "fitness for the
consumer." Just like any other technology, computers, CDROM drives and all
are neutral, they just sit there until they are put to some good use. (And
who is this elusive consumer, anyway!?)
So I don't think in terms of whether the technology is ready for the
consumer or not. What you haven't seen, perhaps, is a good _use_ of the
technology. And this is where the real problem lies. We are facing a
challenge of creativity in the use of the technology. And because the
developer community, to a large extent, has not figured out how to make
creative use of the technology, we find ourselves facing news stories and
conference speeches saying that the "technology" can't go anywhere until we
have full motion video, or whatever. Baloney! We simply haven't developed
a sense of the tools yet, or figured out how to exploit the limits of those
tools to create beauty, utility, and so on. There are notable exceptions,
of course, but we need more.
As for Liddy, from what I hear, as an undercover operative/toughguy, he
makes a good talk-show host!<g>
Take care — Rich Bowers
Let me jump in here if I may. It seems to me that part of the problem with
CD-ROM and computer technology in general is that the techies know how to
develop the products because they are experts in the technology. But the
experts in the fields of endeavour (such as law, teaching, sales, tennis,
you name it) don't know the technology, so they don't know what can be done
with the technology.
A good example of this is the trivial examples that often come with the
software we buy. One of the most powerful software tools I have is an
outliner/idea processor and the example in the manual is outlining an idea
for a company that does company picnics for other companies! The techies
have no idea what real people in real businesses need for computer
software. And the people who need the software don't know enough about the
computer business to know that there are software solutions for their
problems just waiting to be developed. Maybe true object programming will
bring the level of expertise down to the point where the tennis pro can
write his own tennis teaching software. 5 years?
JW
John:
I believe you are absolutely right. I have been pounding the podium for
years saying that the real challenge in making use of technology is not
more new technology (that will happen anyway, we just can't help ouselves).
Rather we face a crisis of creativity. Other media have well-developed
models for combining the skills of subject specialists with production
specialists. CDROM seems to be the only media business that thinks all you
need is a computer, and you're done!
No one would expect the guy who runs the printing press for Random House to
come up with all the good ideas for next season's book list. Random House
"hires" respected subject specialists to create the content. No one
expects a film editor to dream up ideas to make movies out of, that's what
the script writer is for. We have yet to develop these kinds of teams, and
working relationships in this business that meet the needs you describe.
Hopefully, now that we have concisely identified the problem….
Best – Rich Bowers
I just read your CDFAQ. Extremely helpful! Thanks for making it
available. Some real misconceptions were cleared up.
Matt de.
Matt:
Glad to hear CDFAQ helped! Please let me now what other issues you come
across that could use clarification, and I'll add those things to future
editions.
Best — Rich
<< Please let me now what other issues you come across that could use
clarification, and I'll add those things to future editions. >>
Well, to be selfish: what I need to know at this point is if any other
processing (CD-R to be exact) can duplicate or match the Kodak Photo-CD for
less money (Kodak lists its processor at 100K). I'm interested in the
ablility to do professional 4 color separation, and image manipulation
(removal of copy from art for example). Kodak, is, of course, no help!
Matt:
I don't have any special knowledge in this area. But anyone can buy the
CD-writer, and I have to assume that Kodak would be willing to license
their software. The problem for you may be that their pricing is based on
commercial production, not a single user. But obviously these are issues
that Kodak must decide.
Best – Rich
Paul, what's the book? I'm interested in the subject. Thanks
JW
Thanks for asking. My most recent book was Unlimited Wealth (Crown
Publishers, 1991) dealt heavily with technological change and had a chapter
explaining how and why technology advances (mostly during times of war).
My next book will contain many more anecdotes on this subject but will not
be released until late 1993. My last two books, plus over 300 related
articles, was just published in multimedia form on a CD-ROM called
MULTIMEDIA POWERTALK (by ZCI–800-460-4623). The disc will be featured in
PC MAGAZINE (February issue, due out Jan 20) plus reviewed in six other
computer magazines next month.
Thanks, I'll order it Monday! Then you can autograph it for me via
Compuserve. Somehow…
Rich
"I collect historical vignettes that illustrate our acceptance and
absorption of technology"
How about sharing a few with us. I have always wondered what really
happened to the proverbial buggy whip manufacturers.
John:
It's late, and I've still got some Christmas presents to wrap. But here's
a taste.
I am particularly interested in how often history repeats itself in the
technology world. We continue to think we are having unique problems, when
in fact they are common over the long haul.
For example, we talk a lot about the format wars in the CDROM world:
various computer-based formats vs tv-based formats. And wars among
tv-based formats like CD-I, VIS, Photo-CD. Edison fought a "format" war
for almost 20 years before he finally gave up. He felt the cylinder was
the right mechanism and configuration for delivering pre-recorded sound.
And then these johnny-come-lately French brothers named Victor came up with
a disc that served the same function, but had a number of conveniences,
including ease of storage and use. Edison sued, Edison screamed, and, in
the end, Edison lost to a superior idea.
Edison was incredible as a visualizer and conceptualizer, but he had blind
spots, and a wicked temper. Do you recall the almost literal war (on the
streets of New York) Edison fought with George Westinghouse over the
contract to provide electrical power to the city? Edison fought for direct
current, Westinghouse for alternating current. Edison assured the city
fathers that alternating current would burn down the city, cause health
problems, everything in the book. But in the end he lost because, while he
had the right idea, he would not adjust to superior execution. (The
dynamics of Tesla in this mix are equally fascinating. Did Marconi really
rip off wireless telegraphy?)
{continued in reply}
{continued …}
One lesson to be learned from these earliest days of directed, purposeful
research and development, is that we must stay focussed on functional
goals, on the task at hand. People and companies who get too hung up on
their own approach may lose out to superior execution. A few individuals
take their big ideas all the way to success (like Gillette). But too often
the people who originate the big idea lose out because they cannot adapt to
new ways to capitalize on their ideas. Did you know the earliest
principles of tv were demonstrated in the 1880's? Color tv in the 1930's?
FM radio in the 1920's? That the mouse, remote computer communications,
CRT's for computers and computer-generated graphics were all demonstrated
in the mid-1960's? And the people who developed all these ideas and
demonstrated them first, benefited only minutely from their
accomplishments.
A great book is "Getting It Right the Second Time" by Gershman. It is
fascinating to see how Pepsi, Kotex, ballpoint pens and a host of other
products evolved from their original failed executions.
I don't know if CDROM itself will be around in 20 years or not. And, to
some extent, I don't care. The fact is that the lessons we learn from
working with digital multimedia publishing today are pushing the envelope.
What we must watch for are the best ways to execute the concept, to its
ultimate success.
Have a great Christmas! — Rich Bowers
Rich,
Thanks for the history lesson. Never knew about the story about Edison and
the disc (or is it disk?).
— Albert
Albert:
I do tend to babble when I'm tired!
Rich
Rich,
All I can say is … Sony beta max.
Steve
Steve:
>>All I can say is … Sony beta max.<<
Can you say … a little more? Was beta max treated shabbily by the press?
Rich