Skip navigation

Tag Archives: NYT

Apanhado interessante do Digidaily:

New Media Math: There was a time when smart, ambitious young people dreamed of starting magazines and building an audience. Nowadays, a slightly different group is building media through technology. The efficiencies can be breathtaking. Take Instagram, a photo-sharing app for iPhone. The entire venture consists of four people. It has 5 million users, an astounding 1.25 million per employee. It did this in eight months. Whether this kind of media has the same staying power of old-time media remains to be seen. But it’s clear that the nature of aggregating audiences is quite different in the digital era of ubiquitous distribution on platforms like Apple, Facebook and Google. Figuring out how media in a more traditional model — ie, paying people to create content — can compete is a daunting task.

Media Agonistes: Speaking of the troubles facing traditional media, New York Times writer David Carr and director Aaron Sorkin have an interesting chat in Interview that touches on the challenge traditional media organizations like the NYT face when it comes to the rough-and-tumble digital world. Both are decidedly old-school in approach, although in distinct ways. Sorkin actively distrusts all “new media.” He calls citizen journalists “two of the scariest words to me right now,” paints bloggers as untrustworthy and Twitter users as malcontents. Carr, who is a main subject in the new film about the future of the NYT, Page One, takes a more nuanced view. “Well, the Web is like a self-cleaning oven in that it will correct itself over time. The theory is that if you have lots of inputs of information, then the truth will gradually emerge from these thousands of points of light, and people will assemble from them an idea of the way things are. But my worry is that people will not do that, and instead gather what they need in order to reinforce their existing notions of the way things are, and there won’t be a civic common anymore where fact rules. I mean, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the facts are not up for grabs.”

Porous Paywalls: One thing lost in the paywall debate is how embarrassingly easy most are to evade. Hit a subscription prompt of a Wall Street Journal story, plug the headline into Google News. There are several ways around The New York Times subscription plan, too. These publications are trying to strike the balance of building a needed extra revenue stream while not cutting themselves off from the wider Web. The NYT hasn’t shut down “NYClean,” a toolbar addon that eradicates the paywall overlay that appears over articles hidden behind the paywall. It only takes one click. The latest simple evasion tool is a Google Chrome extension for the WSJ. As BetaBeat explains, all a user has to do is download the extension. When clicking on a paywall article, the extension redirects the browser to perform a Google News search, a brief hiccup before the full article appears for free. There’s no telling how many people use these tools, but their ease will undoubtedly cut into any subscription revenue publishers hope to collect.

Impressionante como a homepage de 2005 soa tão retrô.

Via Tiago Dória

Andrew Rossi acompanhou por um ano a rotina dos jornalistas do NYT que cobrem a área de mídia. Promete.

Via Tiago Dória

Dev Patnaik of Jump has his own answer to the [innovation] why-now question. He contends that advances in technology over the past three decades have gradually forced management to reconceive its role in the corporation, shifting its focus from processing data to something more esoteric. “My dad was a midlevel manager for I.B.M.,” Patnaik explains, “and I remember him in the ’70s, sitting there with plastic 3M transparencies, by hand, with marker, to make presentations. For years, the good manager was one who had data at their fingertips. What’s our sales in Peoria? ‘It’s actually 47 percent above last year.’ People say, ‘Oh, he’s a good manager.’ ” By the early ’90s, though, companies like Microsoft and SAP were selling software that digitized this task. The days when a manager at, say, the Gap could earn a bow just for knowing how many sweaters to ship to Seattle were over. “When that happens, what is the role of the manager?” Patnaik asks. “Suddenly it’s about something else. Suddenly it’s about leadership, creativity, vision. Those are the differentiating things, right?” Patnaik draws an analogy to painting, which for centuries was all about rendering reality as accurately as possible, until a new technology — photography — showed up, throwing all those brush-wielding artists into crisis. “Then painters said: ‘Well, wait, you can tell what is but you can’t tell me my impression of what is. Here’s how it looks to me, like Seurat. Or the Cubists who said, ‘You can’t capture what is going on from multiple angles.’ ” Technology forced painters to re-evaluate, which transformed their work. Something similar has happened in corporate America. As Patnaik puts it, “We’re in the abstract-expressionist era of management.”

Do NYT, via Noah Brier

Via Tiago Dória

Tiago Dória escreveu um post interessante, como de costume, sobre um livro de Nick Bilton, um dos líderes da guinada do NYT. Lá pelo meio do post tem esse trecho interessantíssimo:

Citando o cientista político Benedict Anderson, o pesquisador do NYTimes lembra que a mídia impressa sempre teve uma capacidade de ser “social”. Por utilizar uma linguagem comum, tem a competência de criar “comunidades imaginárias” e um senso de nação.

Com esse raciocínio, Bilton aponta para um detalhe histórico importante. Alguns dos primeiros jornais na Inglaterra vinham com uma folha em branco para que o leitor pudesse escrever algo quando passasse o jornal para frente, para outra pessoa ler.

Ou seja, os jornais vinham com “espaço para comentários”, já havia um senso de conversação e interatividade na mídia impressa.

Para fechar, um trecho interessante sobre storytelling:

Para mim, o livro tem dois pontos altos. Um deles, quando o autor deixa claro que um dos principais desafios da mídia não é mudar de plataforma ou dispositivo (antes papel, agora digital/antes carta dos leitores, agora página no Facebook), mas trabalhar com novas narrativas, conseguir se manter atraente em meio a tantas opções. O desafio é narrativo.

Fun­da­men­tally, I think, a media inven­tor is some­one who isn’t sat­is­fied with the suite of for­mats that have been handed down to him by his cul­ture (and econ­omy). Novel, novella, short story; album, EP, sin­gle; RPG, RTS, FPS–a media inven­tor doesn’t like those choices. It turns out a media inven­tor feels com­pelled to make the con­tent and the container.

Robin Sloan, via Noah Brier, que por sua vezs mostra uma interface foda do NYT sobre documentos da crise financeira.

Uma matéria foda do NYT sobre Singularity e Ray Kurzweil:

“We will transcend all of the limitations of our biology … That is what it means to be human — to extend who we are.”

E um post foda do BBH Labs sobre esta matéria, com uma citação foda do Chris Anderson:

“This was one of those freaky moments when the future sneaks up and smacks you….Technology wants to be invented and we are almost powerless to stop it. We are hard-wired to create the future, be it good or bad. Invention is its own master.”

Se você gostou, alguns links sobre “computer simulation“.

One of the concerns is that, unlike their parents — many of whom recall having intense childhood relationships with a bosom buddy with whom they would spend all their time and tell all their secrets — today’s youths may be missing out on experiences that help them develop empathy, understand emotional nuances and read social cues like facial expressions and body language. With children’s technical obsessions starting at ever-younger ages — even kindergartners will play side by side on laptops during play dates — their brains may eventually be rewired and those skills will fade further, some researchers believe.


Em um post anterior eu falei sobre a estratégia da Apple e agora me deparei com um texto foda do Steven Johnson que saiu no New York Times:

FOR about a decade now, ever since it became clear that the jungle of the World Wide Web would triumph over the walled gardens of CompuServe, AOL and MSN, a general consensus has solidified among the otherwise fractious population of People Who Think Big Thoughts About the Internet.

That unifying creed is this: Open platforms promote innovation and diversity more effectively than proprietary ones.

In the words of one of the Web’s brightest theorists, Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard, the Web displays the “generative” power of a platform where you don’t have to ask permission to create and share new ideas. If you want democratic media, where small, innovative start-ups can compete with giant multinationals, open platforms are the way to go.

Over the last two years, however, that story has grown far more complicated, thanks to the runaway success of the iPhone (and now iPad) developers platform — known as the App Store to consumers.

O Steven Johnson defende que o fato da apple limitar os parâmetros de desenvolvimento contribui para incrementar a inovação.

…by just about any measure, the iPhone software platform has been, out of the gate, the most innovative in the history of computing. More than 150,000 applications have been created for it in less than two years, transforming the iPhone into an e-book reader, a flight control deck, a musical instrument, a physician’s companion, a dictation device and countless other things that were impossible just 24 months ago.

Perhaps more impressively, the iPhone has been a boon for small developers. As of now, more than half the top-grossing iPad apps were created by small shops.

The fact that the iPhone platform runs exclusively on Apple hardware helps developers innovate, because it means they have a finite number of hardware configurations to surmount. Developers building apps for, say, Windows Mobile have to create programs that work on hundreds of different devices, each with its own set of hardware features. But a developer who wants to build a game that uses an accelerometer for control, for example, knows that every iPhone OS device in the world contains an accelerometer.

Mas este post não vai contra o que eu escrevi antes, não. O Steven mostra a mesma preocupação em relação ao sistema de aprovação:

None of which is to suggest that the iPhone/iPad ecosystem couldn’t benefit from a little more openness. Apple should stop blocking apps that compete with the iPhone’s default apps — e-mail clients, for instance — as this is the one area where innovation has truly suffered.

Apple could certainly quiet a lot of its critics by creating some kind of side door that enables developers to bypass the App Store if they wish. An overwhelming majority of developers and consumers would continue to use the store, retaining all the benefits of that closed system, but a secondary market could develop where more experimental ideas could flourish.