Skip to main content

Less for More in Media

I think this is appropriate, because my favorite software is a transport for media. YouTube, music downloads, blogs, and web comics are all old media turned new. TV and movies are old and web videos are new. CDs are old and downloads are new. Books and magazines are old and blogging is new. Newspaper comics are old and web comics are new. Why did I single out comics? Because, Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame (who has an excellent, non-comic-centric blog) took fledgely comic cartoonist, Scott Meyer, under his wing. This is old teaching new, and is interesting to watch.

On the first post from Adams, I commented about how many cartoonists might not even want the traditional route of syndication, and will choose to stay with web formats. On part 2, I commented as follows:

It is becoming one of the defining characteristics of the New Media that more people can make less money. To the eyes of the Old Media, this is obviously a Bad Thing. No one gets quite as much attention or makes quite as much money, but if you look at how many more people can make it at least to a good level, and you sum it all up, I'd be sure the overall industry makes more. To add to that, huge chunks of the money aren't going to syndication agencies and other central entities. More of the less money stays with the artists. The same is happening in moves from newspaper comics to web comics, music from CD to download, and sixty dollar video games being pushed aside for dozens of ten to twenty dollar smaller titles, each. The end is more variety, and a better chance of finding something that you like, more people make a living on what they love, and more of the profits staying with the people who are actually doing the creating. The old media will not go away for a long time, and we still need it, but the model simply changes. Cartoonists aren't supposed to make a million dollars a year any more, and that's OK if, instead, twenty or more cartoonists can make a very decent living with their craft, don't you agree?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

Announcing Feet, a Python Runner

I've been working on a problem that's bugged me for about as long as I've used Python and I want to announce my stab at a solution, finally!

I've been working on the problem of "How do i get this little thing I made to my friend so they can try it out?" Python is great. Python is especially a great language to get started in, when you
don't know a lot about software development, and probably don't even know a lot about computers in general.

Yes, Python has a lot of options for tackling some of these distribution problems for games and apps. Py2EXE was an early option, PyInstaller is very popular now, and PyOxide is an interesting recent entry. These can be great options, but they didn't fit the kind of use case and experience that made sense to me. I'd never really been about to put my finger on it, until earlier this year:

Python needs LÖVE.

LÖVE, also known as "Love 2D", is a game engine that makes it super easy to build small Lua…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…