re: Vision
March 4, 2009
When launching the new version of Amazon's book device the Kindle, Jeff Bezos offered up the vision that the company has for the device: "Our vision is every book, ever printed, in any language, all available in less than 60 seconds." It's a message that Amazon has been consistently advocating since the device's initial rollout, and meshes nicely with the early Amazon vision of being the world's biggest bookstore.
Others have noted the audacity of the Kindle's vision. That kind of vision obviously evokes Google's early mission statement of striving to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". In truth, Google doesn't talk much about that mission these days, which might explain why a lot of their recent efforts do pretty well with the organizing the world's information part, but can be downright abysmal at making it useful. Virginia Heffernan articulated this quite well in the New York Times recently in regard to Google's image archive of old Life photos:
Google has failed to recognize that it can’t publish content under its imprint without also creating content of some kind: smart, reported captions; new and good-looking slide-show software; interstitial material that connects disparate photos; robust thematic and topical organization. All this stuff is content, and it requires writers, reporters, designers and curators. Instead, the company’s curatorial imperative, as usual, is merely “make it available.”
But at least Google's trying. That does count for something. And articulating that vision in cultural terms, phrased in language that explains the benefit to society, not just to stockholders, is important. Now, I think Google has a gap between their intention and their reality because the organization lacks theory of mind, but perhaps that's a problem that can be fixed.
And hell, I still even have a soft spot for Microsoft's old vision of "a computer on every desk and in every home", not just because in retrospect it seems so modest. It's also because it was a more ambitious vision that, if realized, would mean benefits even for people who never gave a single dollar to Microsoft. (As turned out to be the case.)
And these statements of vision are particularly resonant to me because we seldom hear any sort of similar vision from Apple. When the iTunes store was launched, the vision wasn't to "make every song in the world easily available". Instead, the clear goal was purely commercial, to make people buy music from Apple instead of Walmart.
And the truth is, Amazon, Google and Apple all make billions of dollars — that doesn't happen by accident. They should have clear goals about how to make money as part of their efforts. But since all of these companies also traffic in commerce derived from the artistic and expressive works that shape our culture, it makes sense for us to evaluate their efforts based on how well they articulate a desire to give back to our culture. They should make something meaningful for the world while making their money, at least as a happy byproduct if not as an intentional output. It's a lot easier for me to believe that employees at Amazon are doing something that's meaningful to the world at large than to feel that way about Apple's similar efforts.
I point this out not to be harshly critical of any of these companies; Indeed, I regularly give my time and money to all of them. But we often rush to describe Steve Jobs as a "visionary" for being the best showman in an industry where most people have the stage presence of a bowl of oatmeal.
The truth is, Apple has a chance to redefine what it considers vision while Steve Jobs is on leave. He could return and say that every copy of Garage Band will have the ability to instantly upload a user's songs to iTunes, unleashing an immense market of independent music to the world, and using their enormous market presence to let individuals help create culture, not just consume it. Or Apple could use its leverage with the record labels to impress upon them the importance of getting all of their back catalog of recordings online and available for people to consume — most of the music that's ever been released on any record label isn't available for purchase today, at any price, by anyone.
And just as importantly, we can use this criteria of vision, of responsibility for culture, as a way of analyzing announcements and releases in the technology world. So, last night, Amazon released their Kindle software for Apple's iPhone. Most of the reviews understandably focused on the readability of the text, or how well the synchronization features work. But I'm hoping that at least one or two lines of future reviews will spare a moment to think "is it a good thing for the world if this thing takes off?" My sense is that we're more likely to get positive answers to that question if the teams that are making these products are led by an appropriately ambitious vision.
11:44 PM
|
5 Comments
Leave a comment
- Earlier: You Didn't Miss Anything
- Next: Whoa Unto Thee
Your proposal that companies "should make something meaningful for the world while making their money" baffles me - in a free market economy, a company can not make money without producing something meaningful. If consumers (human beings) did not find their product or service meaningful, they would not purchase it.
Why should Apple spend their money providing access to songs that no one wants to buy? If people wanted to buy them, someone would be selling them. That's the way a free market works.
PLC: Why should Apple spend their money providing access to songs that no one wants to buy? If people wanted to buy them, someone would be selling them. That's the way a free market works.
That's demonstrably wrong. There's an enormous noncommercial black market for out-of-print music in digital form. Much of it is conducted over P2P networks (see the AGP for an impressive example), some via mp3 blogs. And actual records and CDs of this sort continue to be sold by collectors at indie stores, conventions, and auctions, of course, but in those cases, the prices are inflated by the limited supply. And why is the supply limited? Because the copyright holders are clueless.
Similar shortcomings in the book publishing industry are what make Google's efforts so potentially valuable.
"If people wanted to buy them, someone would be selling them. That's the way a free market works."
I want to buy the 27-minute extended version of Prince's "America", which has been out of print since (roughly) 1987 and was never released on any format except 12" vinyl. Warner Brothers refuses to sell it to me. So, the free market doesn't work -- it needs to be lead by people with vision and ambition.
I think what PLC must have meant was "If ENOUGH people wanted to buy them..." That is, of course the free market won't support everything anyone ever wants to buy.
A few years ago, a company called Piaggio (maker of the Vespa since 1946) surveyed a bunch of scooterists, asking their opinions on a few different models they were thinking about putting in to production. One of the models proposed was a sort of re-release of a rare and highly sought-after model that was discontinued in the 60s. Dozens of people who collect old scooters urged them to "bring back the GS". They ended up instead going with a different model - one that was easier to drive and looked like the last four models they'd produced.
Why? Two reasons, I believe. For one thing, it'd just wouldn't be worth it. There wouldn't be a single part on the GS that was common with any other model they were producing at the time. They'd have to re-tool a whole section of the factory just to meet the demand of a hundred or so people. There was no guarantee they'd sell any more than that. Further, their last few models had been selling like the proverbial hotcakes. They could easily get away with making the new model similar to current models, thereby making it cheaper to produce, while having good reason to believe it would sell well (and it did). So in this case, even with a hundred customers and tens of thousands of dollars on the table, it just wouldn't be worth it.
The second reason - and I'm speculating - is culture. The rarity and desirability of the Vespa GS is part of Vespa's, and Piaggio's, folklore. It's one of many things that make the company and their products special and interesting, and fun. If suddenly everyone who wanted a Vespa GS could have one, they wouldn't be as exciting anymore, and Piaggio's culture stock would fall a little.
So take Prince. Knowing that you're out there, Anil, with probably a few hundred other people, wanting the 27 minute version of "America" - is it worth Warner Brothers' time to get it to you? Or, I guess more accurately, is it worth the opportunity cost? Even if they decided to release it only digitally, there's some production and overhead involved, and it's probably the same amount of production and overhead involved in releasing something else with wider appeal and more sales potential. Until they have every person involved in getting the piece from master tape to downloadable just sitting around doing nothing, it's a question of opportunity cost for them.
Beyond that, I think that a lot of artists and their labels like having some rare stuff out there. Just like the scooter scenario, it gives them a sense of collectability (I made that word up), which automatically has a degree of desirability built in. And for some artists, it's nice to be able to bank that stuff until your coke habit hits full stride so you can release a "Rarities" disc to pay for it.
All that aside, I was really impressed to see that Amazon released a Kindle iPhone app. They had to do that with the realization that they were cannibalizing at least some of their own market. I certainly have no reason to buy a Kindle at this point, where I was definitely considering it before. If not for the price of the Kindle, I'd say they were going for a razor/blades model, which makes total sense. Whatever the reason, I'm with you in that it's cool to see a company market a product that is good for society, as well as their bottom line.
The nut of this reasoning is a bit disingenuous. I certainly believe that the reason iTunes doesn't hold every song ever recorded (or an amount far closer to that than the current few million songs) is the same reason Google Book Search doesn't hold every book ever written: the stigma, stubbornness and tradition of "rights-holding".
I seriously believe that within two years, there will be more songs on iTunes under "independent" (outside the Big Four) than under the Big Four, if it hasn't happened already.
And the reason Apple hasn't said that it's their vision to make every song accessible via iTunes is because that's not the kind of stuff they're prone to say. It's *everyone's* vision in that industry to do so. The kind of stuff Apple's prone to say is that a) what they have right now is awesome, b) it took hard work to get there and c) in fact it's so awesome that we're x times better, broader, wider, higher quality than our competitors. The reason they don't talk about the future is because they want everyone to feel as if the future's already here, embodied within what they offer right now.
It's true that stating that vision boldly and repeatedly and never leaving its side could help tremendously because you can revisit the idea as you get closer and closer, which lends you credence and which reinforces the concept in everyone's eyes, and I certainly thank Microsoft and Google for what they've achieved towards their ends, as described. But you don't have to state it publicly or explicitly.