Why Email Clients Need to Change.

This is an interesting post that I had not thought about before.  Obviously, this requires a web-enabled scenario and not a proprietary application for a specific platform.   Google, like the post says, could do this fairly easily, except for the encryption part, already.  In fact, this could be done with inbound rules, but the ‘ease of use’ factor is compelling.

Certainly thinking about email communication as vital and archived data of a person that should show trends and statistical values is a radical shift to the traditional profession-based function of electronic mail.  Notifications take up more traffic than probably is necessary.  Transmitting that via RSS, for example, and keeping that statistical information while deleting the actual RSS info, would be a start.  Perhaps I don’t need to know what Jeff emailed me about six months ago, but I do need to know that I haven’t emailed him in six months, for example.  (That is completely hypothetical.) Similarly, bill notifications from a year ago are not important, but the price I am paying a year ago versus today is important.  I use a separate online service, called Yodlee, that I can run reports on my trends and pinpoint a particular category for historical data.  This service is free and very powerful, but the above post has a point.  All that data is coming into the inbox already, it is the programs we use that cannot parse it correctly.  Of course this is only because we haven’t asked it to yet.

Yesterday, I had an email communique from my father, informing me and others that a Wolverine workprint had been leaked online on April 1 and how disappointed he was with the situation.  I got on my high horse and informed him and the others on the email:

“What disappoints me is that the two ‘articles’ (and I do mean the quotes) are not news, just opinion.  No one knows how many times the file was shared, doctored and shared again.  [...] P2P sites share EVERYTHING, including crap that almost no one wants.  This could be in that category, only because it is such a rough cut.  One site has 2,500 users and only 50 have grabbed either of the two versions.  That’s not very many and does not mean that those 50 people will not buy a ticket.”

I also elaborated about the situation/symptom that created this:

“Now, who’s fault is this?  The guy (and I do mean guy) that uploaded it initially to the newsgroup anonymously?  I don’t think so.  Here’s the larger issue.  ANY movie that is produced and marketed without a viable digital option is begging to be copied.  ITunes/Netflix/digital distribution vehicle only allow me to stream or use on one computer.  I can rent a movie on Xbox 360, but I can’t watch it on my Mac/video iPod/iPhone/another Xbox 360.  ITunes does a little better with its Digital Rights Management (DRM), but I still can’t rent a movie on iTunes and watch it on my TV without an Apple TV device.  I certainly can’t watch a movie from Netflix on my iPhone, or even legally copy my own DVD to a digital file to watch on my iPhone.  There is disagreement among distributors regarding the restrictions for a consumer to digest digital content, to the point that unless you are locked into their hardware-specific solution, forget about transferring a digital file.  When consumers are treated like criminals, then they will act like criminals.  I borrow DVDs from friends and I have the opportunity to copy it and keep it.  What stops me is that the DVD is equally available to me at the store, cheaply and conveniently, and I can play it regardless of what DVD player I own (4).  A digital file is not available equally to all, it is based on your hardware.  This is because every company wants to be THE creator or distributor of digital content.  The exclusivity of the content distribution equals the exclusivity of the content itself.  This model, by default, assumes that the consumer will copy content if given the chance.  (Don’t get me started on federal laws being made for corporate benefit.)  The point is NOT to charge the consumer for each type of device the content is on, the point is to give the consumer your content on their preferred device at the moment.  That could be an iPhone, a living room computer, TiVo, whatever.  If I had to pay to watch a movie on my computer and then pay again to watch it on my TV, I would not be happy.  Blu-Ray has an option (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#BD.2B ) to limit the play device of a Blu-Ray disc.  This could be used to limit the device to specific manufacturers or worse, specific versions of devices.”

Finally, I give a two sentence taste of what I think the solution is:

“Fox could take the sting out of this type of situation by simultaneously releasing the movie on DVD/theater/digital download for all venues.  This would relegate the piracy to only the truly hardcore people that will rip a movie regardless of how easy it would be to get the actual thing.”

Later on, Ralph calls me and he mentions that studio execs are running around crazily because they are concerned about the ‘reviews’ of the Wolverine workprint that paint a not-so-rosy picture of the movie.

I still believe that a ubiquitous release concept of consumer content would take the wind out of a lot of pirate sails.  The old model of theaters first to network television last just won’t cut it in an age of digial media.  Potential loss of ticket sales is the ghoulish spectre haunting the MPAA.  Why?  That is how they rate the success or failure of a movie, not the DVD sales or iTunes downloads or NetFlix streams.  All this content is equal.  DVDs might have better extras than the iTunes download, but it is priced with that in mind (I am ignoring the secondary retail market).  I would rather pay once for digital media and have the ability to move it to whatever device I own, without restrictions.  We didn’t have this problem with VHS, they were too clunky.  Audio casettes were inferior media that wore out eventually.  Digital could be forever.  Why would I buy the same movie on Blu-Ray, a temporary media type, when I can download the file in a format that can be possibly converted for free?  Why don’t the studios get into the digital codec business and create a new business model?  If I could buy a digital file and be assured that it could play on my computer, iPhone, TiVo, Xbox 360 equally, I would be willing to pay a premium for it.

Its the business model that detracts from the studio making money on digital content.  The stodgy belief that theater sales are important and should be the primary focus of marketing is old thinking.  Moving to digital-only entertainment will only get easier.  I can’t predict when, but I can bet it will happen.