If there’s anything that new technology/devices can teach you quickly is that there’s a language to access that some people have, and others don’t. And maybe it has some to do with specific regions – as it definitely has something to do with the logos/brands placed on devices – because some languages are better understood than others.
For example, you can say to someone that you have an iPad, and the language that’s heard sounds like ‘affluence,” “American,” “arrogant,” or whatever comes to your mind when you see that apple logo. Or even terms like access, internet, social networking, and smartphone. These terms have some shape within our minds, and then as we learn more about the terms, the people and actions associated with them, and even their impacts, we begin to form some language towards those items that may or may not be so clear to others.
Those people who are IT-minded tend to know this very well. There’s a language that (depending on where in IT you sit), is either geeky, nerdy, or just flat out weird. When engaging people who don’t have that background, it can be a challenge for some to remove themselves from their “native tongue” to something more accessible to the listening audience. However, this is an endeavor that we should take on – for how does the Body get edified if the sound is harsh or foreign and not easily understood in its context.
That’s the challenge for mobile – as a genre of technology and culture. As a phenomena that has literally wrapped itself around every area of the world that reads and speaks, mobile has itself created this language of use and function that is sometimes easy to understand (applications, ringtones, costs, etc.) and other times is jumbled gibberish (APIs, plaforms, standards, policies, etc.). For those of us who are in mobile, its our challenge to make these areas intelligible to others who are apt to teach so that mobile doesn’t become stigmatized and that it can reach realms beyond just those who can attain it.
Many of the largest mobile companies (manufacturers, carriers, etc.) have been looking at how to drive mobile penetration rates higher. At this point, almost everyone who wants to own a mobile has one. The problem is reaching those who might want one, but have some non-addressed need. For example, they cannot read, therefore how would they operate the device. Or, they have an harder time with screen, input, or other service elements that would require substantial redesigns of devices and service layers. These companies have correctly identified that if mobile were to grow (in profit and influence) for their benefit, that they have to address these concerns.
In the same way, the Body (Christian faith communities) have to ask the question of not just mobile, but all tech – are we speaking a language that is easily understood by all. Or, are we subjecting the message to just the subset of people who have access to it? If we are doing this, how then do we exercise the fulfilling of Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-26?
Does Publishing Change or Do We
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010Composed in Evernote, this is a doc that I’ve been working on for a week or so. Hope it comes out nice.
Am sitting is a car at the moment talking about the kiosk project and some of the issues that relate to how the bible publishing industry can move forward. We know for certain that publishing the way that is has been going for the last 50-100 years isn’t going to continue in the face of advancements made digitally. From content distribution to monetization, there are questions to be addressed and none of them will endear easy answers.
Ownership and Access
The common perception of ownership is that of sovereignty and domain. When you purchase a product, you take responsibility of it’s upkeep and any additional service to fix or improve the initially purchased product is done for an additional fee.
Access is the ability to get to content, but not necessarily the ability to change or maintain it. Access usually has additional rules around it such as copying, sharing, and forwarded distribution. In some cases, access might be tied to another service agreement which allows for updates to the content (product) and some kinds of maintenance.
To be blunt, there has never been a model of publishing where we have owned the Bible. Access is granted through agreements we enter into with publishing houses. Distributors may also have a slice of this access pie, but it all ends up in the same equation – you don’t own your biblical material, you are granted access.
Access and Publishing
With that said, the publishing industry would seem to have an excellent heads-up on some of the upcoming trends in this information economy. They have the intent, the content, and the understanding of the marketplace to continue with this model for some time longer. Truly, there are many persons who don’t have access to the Bible or it’s associated materials who would prove to be solid markets for publishing houses to pursue.
Yet, as I look at the world around me, the question about information isn’t ownership, it is access. If I have the access to the source, when I need it, does it make sense to continue to purchase access in silos (books, applications, audio formats)?
The kiosk proposes that someone only needs to know where a central content distribution area is. The internet proposes that you only need to know the website, or at the very least be connected to a person who does have the access and will share it (that link) with you. To a publisher, how does their model of selling success make sense in the light of such changes in the receiving method?
Publishing’s Opportunity to Change
There have been a lot of calls for publishing to change. We’ve gotten into the fray here with our series item The Future of (Biblical) Publishing. And it is true to an extent that publishers are facing the moment of change, thing is, they still hold the cards (content). Therefore, anything that looks like change to them has to ultimately work in their benefit.
Monday Note recently posted an article in a similar scope to MMM’s and came to a similar conclusion:
Publishing’s opportunity to change isn’t just a matter of changing to a digital-enabled economy, but being a literal agent of behavioral change for authors/consumers. But, if I were a publisher, how could I go about changing something that was so embedded into the way we think/use content?
Or, is it us who need to change our viewpoint of what really is the reality of ownership, and modify our perceptions and use to that in light of publishing’s hold on content?
Tags: access, accessibility, behavior, censorship, connectivity, copyright, digital media, distribution, innovation, ownership, publishing
Posted in Commentary, Devices and Software, Future Trends | No Comments »