Apple: the new Microsoft

Posted on by

Those who are salivating about Apple’s new tools for creating iTextbooks ought to first of all have a read of this.

For nearly two years, Apple has wooed digital book publishers and authors with its unconditional support of an open, industry-leading standard. (The EPUB standard is managed by the International Digital Publishing Forum [IDPF], of which Apple Inc. is a member.)

With last week’s changes, Apple is deliberately sabotaging this format. The new iBooks 2.0 format adds CSS extensions that are not documented as part of the W3C standard. It uses a closed, proprietary Apple XML namespace. The experts I’ve consulted think it deliberately breaks the open standard.

I’m inclined to agree. Like Mr Bott, I see this as a variant of Microsoft’s old strategy of “embrace, extend and extinguish”.

The tyranny of hindsight

Posted on by

This morning’s Observer column about Kodak’s demise.

A good way of inoculating yourself from the wisdom of hindsight is to read Clayton Christensen’s seminal book, The Innovator’s Dilemma, which is the best explanation we have of why and how successful firms can be undermined by disruptive innovations – even when they appear to be doing everything right: listening to their customers, watching the marketplace, and investing in research and development.The really sobering thought to emerge from Christensen’s book is that good decisions by great managers can still lead to corporate disaster. The reason is that while big companies are often good at fostering “sustaining” innovations – ones that enhance their positions in established markets – they are generally hopeless at dealing with innovations that completely disrupt those markets.So the question that Kodak’s demise raises in my mind is this: would any of us have done any better in 1976 after our R&D guys had come up with an idea that would cannibalise our core business and reduce our margins to near zero?

Blackout

Posted on by

It’s strange how shocking this is. It’s a reminder of how dependent we have become on our networked environment. As a sardonic colleague put it this morning, some of his students are going to be mightily discombobulated today when they realise that (a) an essay is due and (b) Wikipedia isn’t available. But that’s too cynical. He and I use Wikipedia every day, and it often saves us a lot of footnoting and explanation.

The blackout served a useful purpose — that of drawing attention to the SOPA and PIPA Bills now before the US Congress. I wrote about these on January 8. Joi Ito, Director of the MIT Media Lab, has posted a really good essay explaining why he — and the Lab — oppose the Bills.

Is YouTube really a threat to conventional TV?

Posted on by

From my piece in yesterday’s Observer.

The big question is whether YouTube poses a strategic threat to the traditional television industry. Up to now, most observers have been sceptical about that. They see conventional TV and YouTube as inhabitants of parallel universes. TV is all about marshalling scarce and expensive resources, exerting tight editorial control and charging for content. YouTube is all about the absence of editorial control, not charging for content, harnessing the abundance of free, user-generated (and sometimes copyrighted) material and extracting value from it by attaching personalised advertising to video clips.

The parallel-universes theory appears to be supported by comparisons of how people use YouTube and conventional TV. While a lot of people visit YouTube every day, they stay, on average, for only 15 minutes. Conventional television viewing, on the other hand, at between four and five hours a day in the US, seems to be holding up quite well. On the basis of these numbers, can TV executives continue to sleep easily?

Maybe. But Google, which owns YouTube, has plans to increase the “stickiness” of YouTube by getting into the content-creation business…