Digital Media Manifesto
Comments to 030828carmichael01
These are my comments to S. Carmichael's responses. They are written in blue in the same cell.
L. Chiariglione Comment
S. Carmichael Response
|Comment1||I would say: they are less needed||So you agree? And are
qualifying it to say there are less Producers needed?
I mean that the function Producer is less needed
|Comment2||Is this true? Yes, theoretically it is possible, but we have enough evidence that an intermediary is always needed even on the web||I think the widening of
presence happens with or without intermediary, and with the help of the
Theoretically yes, in practice no. But if you give me an example I can change my mind, I do not have any.
|Comment3||By content repository I really meant "libraries". I do not understand the meaning of "studio" here.||Studios have large
repositories, as you probably know. I suppose the difference is access.
Libraries provide a particular type of access, typically to the public in a
non-profit sort of way; while studios provide access to the public, and will
increasingly with DRM, in a PPV/VOD format. They also make their
repositories available to other businesses – b to b. I would also include
photo archives like Corbis, Music libraries, etc.
OK, but in that case I would not say "studios", but "media companies". Indeed it is a degenerate case of aggregator.
|Comment4||I do not understand "e-commerce, data asset; consumer application sales"||When it comes to new media,
DM and so on, I have been developing a theory for a while relating to media
companies, that includes these elements. The stronger DM and DRM become the
more viable these elements are. A) E-commerce involves ability for certain
media companies to expand merchandising (e.g. sony selling more / different
CE as DM expands); b) considering here that the value of the media co’s data
asset increases as media companies tie DRM and CRM together; data starts to
have a quantifiable market cap, and becomes an increasingly valuable metric,
ie rights under management; C) application sales relate to web based
players, lockers, management tools, and so on that media companies become
positioned to sell outright or with a subscription. These elements combined
with ad sales, and media sales, make-up – in my mind – the 5 elements of the
new media model.
Sure, I agree
|Comment5||I do not understand "game". This is a type of DM. I would add Middleware here||Game device manufacturers –
game boy, PS2. the actual plastic…
As the entry is Device manufacturers (SW), that is not the right place. This is because you meant infrastructure devices (HW) in the previous entry. But I see from below (comment 8) that you agree to split Device manufacturers (HW) in 2, one for infrastructure HW and one for end user device HW. "Game" would fall in this latter. On the other hand I believe MW is an extremely important component for Device manufacturers (SW) (even though not much has happened so far) and this should appear under Device manufacturers (SW)
|Comment6||This should go to "apps providers"||I agree. What would you put
here for Device Manufacturers (SW)? Or would you remove the item, and make
No, OS, MW and any SW that comes native with the box are produced by different companies that make apps that are downloaded or bought in the shops
|Comment7||I would add: Easier to create and distribute content||Agreed!!! This is a great
one. I think a big piece of this overall equation is personal DM. Pictures,
audio, the works.
This has an impact on Connectivity providers, because this would create a trend for more upstream bandwidth. I see now that you suggested mering Connectivity providers and Network service providers. The two are different (even though they often merge). The former owns the physical access, the latter manages the IP layer.
|Comment8||I would separate "end user devices" from other "infrastructure" devices||Agreed|
|Comment9||I see one function that is missing in the value chain and that is promoter of "artists/content"||Perhaps. Is it separate?
Media companies promote. In essence, all aggregators and conveyors (HW/SW
too), as long as there is a consumer outlet, are promoters. And is a pure
promoter, separate from those presently in the value chain, adding, or in
some way advancing the digital media itself?
I do not have strong feelings, but it is clear to me that the functions that appear in the first column are often bundled with other functions. So I think that the promotion function should appear explictly. I would even say that the major function of a record company is discovery/promotion of artists/content.