What Now? My Role?

3. What role do I see MYSELF playing, possibly even as a content creator?

Once again, I'm not sure. Will I continue to contribute to social networks like Twitter and Facebook? Sure, because I like to think that I'm at least an infinitesimal portion of the conversation. Does that make me a content creator? In a sense, I guess it does. Does it make me an important content creator? Absolutely not. I'm psyched if 20 people read something I post or write. Kevin Rose's tweets are read by 1.1 million people. Not bad for a guy who helped create a website.

I think I get Twitter and how to use it. Does that mean that I use it to my best ability? Probably not. I'm willing and excited to learn how to, which is something I think people need to realize. Some of these apps and services are fairly innovative and original. We're not all going to pick them up instantly with a full understanding on how to use them to maximize our life. Does that learning curve mean that we should just shut them all out and ignore them? I'd like to hope not. Written text was once a foreign, even ridiculous concept. I'm glad that some of the more intelligent people in society decided to take the time to master it and subsequently, teach that mastery to others. People have scoffed at new technologies throughout time. The people who don't are those who end up making a difference. I don't mean to place myself in the latter group, far from it. I'm as much of a follower as anyone else. Twitter was founded in 2006. I joined in late 2008, making me two years late to the party, well past the fashionable limit. But I'd rather be late than not attending.

Who am I looking towards to lead the way? Leo Laporte and friends aren't a bad place to start. Neither are the folks at Revision 3 (there is a great deal of overlap between the two). They present accessible information while also discussing the most cutting edge techs. Most of them were on Twitter, with a solid understanding of what it is and it's potential well before much of the population. Laporte's crew is a huge group of industry insiders, journalists and up and coming developers. The discussions are informative and entertaining, if you're into that type of thing. Many of them have utilized UStream well before people knew what it was. These guys have been and continue to be on the cutting edge of content produced specifically for the 'net. There is no reason to think that they'll stop. While the live broadcasts leave a bit to be desired from a visual standpoint, the content is excellent.

What Now? Consumption Habits?

2. What are MY content consumption habits, at that point?

Not sure. I'm guessing that I'll still rely on blogs a great deal. I like the idea of blogging and there is a plethora of legit bloggers producing really excellent work. I have no reason to think that blogs will suddenly cease to interest me. Cover your eyes and ears blog-haters but maybe blogs are going to be the newspapers of my generation? They're not going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm ok with being entirely online. With the advent of internet TV, both in original and syndicated content, I'm wondering if everything won't come from the 'net? Windows 7 is heavily emphasizing home networks as something even the most tech-handicapped (this was found on the Official WindowsVideos channel) can create/use/maximize them. Now, we can link together our computer, gaming system, Blu-Ray player, television and stereo into one large network, streaming video and audio both ways to every device in our house, with all of the content coming from the net. Cable TV should be bracing themselves for a big change.

In undergrad, having not the money to subscribe, the time or energy to walk across campus to my tiny mailbox to pick up a stack of paper with day-old-news, I made the jump to an almost all-online news consumption habit a few years ago. I can't remember the last time I sat down with a mainstream paper to read about the news. In the past couple of years, almost all of my news consumption is online as even the slowest newspapers have finally begun to realize that this internet thing may be for real and as a result, have digitized their content for internet reading. While I can enjoy and sympathize with the nostalgia for the good ol' days of newsprint, I'm not sure its continued existence is as important as some of the Armageddon forecasters seem to think it is. Journalism will be ok without newspapers: there are enough journalists that care deeply enough about their craft and jobs that they'll figure out a way to make it work and even the most skeptical folks will come around eventually.

I am guessing that I'll be using mobile devices a great deal more to consume my news. As smartphones continue to evolve and tablets become more prominent, mobile users will be in heaven. You'll be able to consume your news wherever you go. Even now, you can watch live sports on the go with the correct subscription. This idea of mobile content is where we're headed. It's nice to sit at your computer watching streaming video. It'll be cooler to do it while walking down the street.

Mobile Options

I was thinking that either an app or mobile site would be a must, although I lean more in the direction of a mobile site. Most phones are still without Flash support for their browsers, although it is supposedly coming to the Mobile Windows, Android, etc. based phones (Pre, Blackberry) but not the iPhone, which has posited Apple as the fastest growing company in terms of market share in the mobile phone industry. The lack of Flash support renders an increasing number of websites nearly unusable, formatting aside. While we discussed that its possible to scale and scroll through a site, it's undeniable that a website designed for viewing on a larger screen has a dramatically different experience on a mobile device without a mobile option.

Take ESPN.com, which according to Alexa, is the 61st most visited site worldwide, 16th in the US. ESPN's site is loaded with Flash video and without the mobile option, it loses much of its appeal. However, that mobile option streamlines the site significantly without removing much content. It's formatted for a smartphone's screen, not a lap or desktop's. As more and more people buy into the smartphone idea (7m iPhones were sold in 3Q 2009 alone), we need to somehow acknowledge and cater to this growing segment. While the browsers on these devices are becoming increasingly powerful and are less of a limitation, the size of the device and more specifically, it's screen is. Links are unusable without sizing and scrolling and only the most dexterous of users can click on a small hyperlink without a zoom. The mobile option (or app) eliminates the step of zooming, scrolling, etc. While it may only be my own laziness, I much prefer visiting sites with mobile options than ones without.

Almost every major site on the web has one. I'm thinking we should have that option as well if the user so desires it.

The iPhone Experience

Colin asked in a post how many people in class have iPhones so I'll weigh in with an emphatic yes. Why so emphatic? Because it's literally changed my life and my ability to consume information. Prior to the iPhone, smart phone (more or less the Blackberry) users were left to surf the net with a pseudo-browser that butchered whatever website you would be reading, reducing whatever carefully designed thoughts that existed within into a mess of text blurbs and bad pictures. One would have to scroll down through page link by link until you'd get to what you wanted. The connection was typically slow and some websites would be rendered useless by the butchered format.

However the iPhone launched with the same (more or less) version of Safari that Mac users had grown accustomed to. It allowed for websites to be viewed in their intended format (minus Flash) and gave the iPhone user a similar experience to browsing on a full-sized computer. Still, the iPhone was more or less an advanced phone. However, with the launch of the iPhone 3G and the App store, it became increasingly obvious that the iPhone no longer was a jazzed up phone, but a small, fully featured computer in your palm. One could play games, pay bills, etc. while keeping all the features of the phone and browser. It allowed an iPhone user to literally do whatever they wanted to do on their desktop while remaining wherever they happened to be.

Thus, if you want to read the news, pull out the iPhone. If you need a map, pull out the iPhone. Email? Texting? Internet? Banking? Gaming? Check, check, check, check, check. The way you consume information totally changes. Need to check a score? Screw going to a computer or TV, pull out the iPhone. Need to check stocks? iPhone. Need to read a book? Write a blog entry? You get the idea.

Now, do I think that the iPhone renders old-school journalism obsolete? Absolutely not. Does it mean that old-school journalists need to stop dragging their feet and get moving? Absolutely. Just because I have an iPhone does not make me immediately want to turn to TMZ or, quite frankly, trust anything they say. Far from it. But it does make me want my information faster. Do I still want it from a reliable, intelligent source? Without a doubt. Initially, this may make journalists have to worker harder and faster but every job is speeding up in the new century. It doesn't mean that it has to be done with shoddy workmanship. Other industries have learned to streamline and efficiently their processes and products. Those that haven't (American automakers, I'm looking at you), are failing. People can sit around lamenting the past all they want. It won't change where we're going and it doesn't mean that where we are going is a bad, destructive place. It can be a great, glorious place but only if people want to embrace it and use it effectively.

Google: The New Microsoft?

This idea has been a long lingering one but if we're going to be discussing Google, it deserves a mention and a look. I think it's been more or less established and agreed upon that when Microsoft achieved total market domination, the quality of their operating systems (and products in general) took a hit. Rather than not resting on their laurels and continuing to push the products that made the company what it was then, Microsoft sat back and lost most of its steam. Windows XP ended up a decent product, but it took many service packs to get there. Vista was an unmitigated disaster, nearly destroying the Windows name in the process. Now, with Windows 7, which I haven't used (a converted-Mac user) but have heard very good things about, Microsoft may have started to feel the heat again and push out a quality product during its initial release, not 2 years down the road.

Where's the heat coming from? As far as I can tell, two places: the fine folks at Apple and our study for the week, Google. First, Apple is as innovative a company that exists today (yes, even more so than Google). In roughly the past decade, Apple has completed the following:

1) The creation of the iMac in 1998, which almost single-handedly helped the company survive.
2) Threw total game-changer #1 into the mix with the iPod in 2001, the same year they opened their first retail store.
3) Threw total game-changer #2 into the mix with the iPhone in 2007, which has revolutionized the cell phone industry and even made people question what is possible for a hand-held computer.
4) Launched the iTunes Music Store, legitimizing digital downloads in the process and creating what-is-now the largest music retailer in the United States and potentially putting traditional record stores out of business.
5)Has continually improved and perfected upon their own OS, Mac OS X, now in it's 7th iteration, Snow Leopard.

Google, on the other hand, has seemingly revolutionized everything we think about the internet. With their search engine, Google Maps, Gmail, Google News, etc, internet computing has been Google's bread and butter. In terms of software, very few companies can hold a candle to what Google has done since it's creation in late 1998. However, their story is eerily similar to Microsoft's. Apple is relatively safe from this as most of their innovation this decade has come from the creation of game-changing hardware and their acceptance of being a specialty producer, in which their users pay a premium for the product. Microsoft and Google on the other hand exist much more strongly on the software side of the equation, which leaves the question. Can Google continue to innovate for the mass-market when there is no one else really innovating alongside them? Microsoft launched Bing this year and while it has enjoyed a good dose of popularity, I believe that there are very few that believe it will unseat Google as the de-facto search engine of choice.

Is there anyone else out there producing a quality, innovative product that will appeal to the mass market and cut into Google's dominance? I'm not sure. While there are many highly qualified companies producing exciting and innovative work, few, if any, are achieving mainstream popularity and success. While that may seem like a good thing for Google now, it may seem like a bad thing for the users in another couple of years, when Google launches Google Vista, to the world's horror.