Digital is affecting my perceived legacy

This is not a full commentary on the “digital revolution” that is occurring or the mad dash towards the tablet or great digital phone- this is more a summary of how my attitude has changed towards something that I have stated very publicly up until now: that I would never use a digital device to read a book, period.

Let’s begin at the top.

I am a firm believer that digital will take over as the primary channel for content.

Now, content is a very interesting word:

dictionary.reference.com

1.       Content (noun): the topics or matter treated in a written work

2.       Content (noun): substantive information or creative material viewed in contrast to its actual or potential manner of presentation

So, in order for me to explain my complete 180 in terms of digital content, I will refer to the definitions provided.

I consume content(2) either with a laptop, my cell phone, my internet connected media server, tablet, etc.-  literally technology that I can get my hands on. The types of content that I consume with these devices include movies, tv, blogs, websites, recipes, online retailers- again, anything that is available. The common link between most of these is that the content is delivered in small snippets, consumable in short bursts of time. Yes, I have succumbed to the behaviour that is driven by digital media; a pictogram that outlines a complex idea in simple terms, a news article in short-form, even reviews of products that I am interested in. Only when my interest is piqued do I dig further and look for long form writing, talk to people about their experience using a product, their opinions about an idea, or trying to solve problems. I even cancelled my physical magazine subscriptions as they are replications of content I can find online.

But I draw the line at books. I will always buy hardcopy books. I love the “romantic” idea of flipping pages. I am even building a library for all the books that I own (and I own and still collect a lot). I grew up with the notion that a personal library was a legacy for my children; reading the books that I read, gaining the same feeling of enjoyment with each story. Then...

I brought a tablet home, played with it a little, and found that it was a great device with which to consume content. Anything that I wanted to view or listen to I could, and quickly. Since I am curious by nature, I wanted to understand what this whole “digital reader” thing was. How could I possibly give up the tactile experience of reading a book?  (side note: I collect vinyl and love handling the artistic album covers). How could I give up the idea of having a physical reminder of an adventure I took without leaving the couch? How could I dismiss my personal library legacy for my children? Here’s where I concede...

I LOVE READING BOOKS DIGITALLY.  I can read a book in the dark without one of those archaic book lights. It remembers where I left off and I don’t have to “dog ear” (a term soon to be archaic itself) or use a book mark to get me back to where I left off, and when I fall asleep and the book closes I don’t have to search for my spot. Better yet, when I am finished a book I can check out the online retailers immediately to buy another book when and where I want it. I am a convert. The key point here is that although the tactile experience isn’t the same, the book is the CONTENT(1) – not the physical, but the story and my journey with the story.

I will still purchase books like I always do at used book stores (probably not as much), and I won’t be abandoning my library. However, I am content with consuming the content of a book, digitally.

Here’s what I have read recently (digitally)

Ready Player One – Ernest Cline

American Gods – Neil Gaiman

The Meg Series – Steve Alten

                Meg: A Novel of Deep Terror

                The Trench

                Meg: Primal Waters

                Meg: Hell’s Aquarium

Rework – Jason Fried; David Heinemeier Hansson

(Reread) Ender’s Game – Orson Scott Card

"Spray and Pray"

I read an interesting article regarding the opinion of some tech guys out of the US. Well, some pretty substantial tech guys actually- Sean Parker, from the early Facebook days, and his partner Jim Breyer. The gist of the article is how early stage VC funding is really based around funding anything and everything tech related- “spray and pray” investing. What is really interesting is how this type of funding mentality bleeds the top talent, spreading it out thinly across many start-ups.
What I take away from this interview is that imitating what an industry is doing is not always the right thing to do, and may in fact create a false sense of economic “upswing.” It also creates a generation of people that potentially believe that if they have a good idea, they should get money to make the idea real without understanding what it takes to create, develop, and productize, or provide the desired value. I am seeing a movement away from business fundamentals.
Take for instance the realization of an idea.
How is the idea translated into something that can be sold? Is there a market? What does the market look like? For every dollar that I put into the idea, what can I expect in return? Is it sustainable? Can it evolve? What does the product lifecycle look like? What do I need operationally to support the idea? The list goes on.
If we lose sight of these business fundamentals, how does this affect the economy? We saw this in the early days of the internet, where anyone could create a website and have a presence. The ones that survived understood what it took to create a product, market the product, and provide sustainable interest in their goods and services.
This isn’t meant to be a criticism, just a warning. When talent is spread thin and money is thick, is there really an incentive to build a sustainable business? Don’t mistake my sentiment- building, growing, and managing through all this isn’t easy. However, building a strong company that provides real value is where my stake is staying.

Just for Fun

Isn't it great what creative minds can do.

"7FT Gundam" - Beyond The Paper from Taras Lesko on Vimeo.

“Future Vision"

I spend a lot of time reading about technology; what the big guys are doing, the little guys, and pretty much anything I can get my RSS feeds to grab for me. But when I saw MS Future Vision I was immediately confused. I like the idea of AR being able to tell me where an appointment is, or a board in my kitchen that is tied to my monthly calendar; I even like the idea of “intelligent surfaces”. What confuses me is that the family that was represented here didn’t REALLY seem to be interacting. At least, not the way I want my life to be.

Let me break it down. It’s great that the parent is travelling, seemingly on a business trip. She arrives at night, and is seen in the hotel room during the day “interacting” with her daughter remotely. Here’s where I get confused: This video depicts interaction as being remote. I actually travel a fair chunk and I do video call with my kids- but it isn’t something that I enjoy doing. I keep my travelling to a minimum, as I don’t like being away.

Additionally, what bothered me was the idea that the other parent, who is home, is interacting less with the daughter than the remote parent. Again, there is an overtone that “remote” connection is just as good as being there.

Some may argue that since the parent has to travel, any interaction is a consolation to not being able to interact at all. Sure, this seems valid, however technology should not define the interaction, it should purely exist to augment it. Idealistic, maybe, but instead I believe that we should be with our children, with our families. Yes, I know, the video doesn’t negate being with our families since we really are “there” virtually, but what it does for me is provide a new definition of family interaction- one that confuses me.

Maybe this is a traditionalist view, maybe an overreaction, but what it made me realize is that a TV, iPad, iPhone, kids games, etc. are only technologies that can enhance my children’s development and not define that development, and this goes for me as well.

Just one man’s opinion about a quickly changing world.

"Going outside is highly overrated."
Ernest Cline, Ready Player One

Trying to link "social" to my world

I have spent the last couple of years involved with mobile development, consulting, and solution design. I find that through the various endeavours that I embark on there is always the pull toward social and having an online presence. This is really going to be a test of how I deal with linking my day-to-day with an online communication medium....we'll see. I admire everyone that can keep up with consistent postings and actually hold the interest of their readers.


With all that said, I always thought I was social. As a matter of fact, the telephone was the first social network that I ever used. Apparently, social has many definitions as of late, so I can't wait to see how this one plays out :)


I aim to share my interests, thoughts, and opinions on how I see technology changing the face of business and how business changes the face of technology as they are not mutually exclusive. I may be stating the obvious, however I am not convinced of this.