I. Don't. Get it.

Here are a few things that I just... don't... get.

1. Twilight
 - It's not that I don't get Twilight, as a movie.  I just don't get the fanaticism with it, especially by anyone over age 19.  What's the deal?  I mean, you're showing up to your HOA meeting wearing a Team Jacob T-shit?  Really?  And for the record, I feel similarly about the Harry Potter series.

2. Netbooks
- So let me get this straight.  I want a laptop computer that's slightly smaller than a regular laptop, but not enough so that it fits in a purse or a pocket; it's got a weak processor, less memory and a smaller hard drive than even a low-end laptop for almost the same price; it does about everything that my smart phone does, except make phone calls; and this is a well-spent $400 why??  (here's more from someone who agrees with me - http://tinyurl.com/whynetbooks)

3. The Hills
- I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. What is this show?  Is this reality television?  "Blurring the lines" of reality TV is an understatement.  They're rich, attractive, privileged and we watch them skip around town doing a whole lot of nothing in sort-of-natural/sort-of-staged situations?  At some point TV production companies stopped needing a "hook" to get a show on the air.  Is Ryan Seacrest somehow to blame for this?

4. Daylight Savings Time
- You're a liar if you say this has never bugged you.  Not the time itself, but the changing back and forth every year.  What's the point?  Nobody ever seems to know the reason why we do this.  Supposedly, it has something to do with taking advantage of extra sunlight in the summer afternoons, so people don't have to get up earlier to take advantage of the extra sunlight in the mornings.  And although it was conceived before mainstream electricity, it (supposedly) helps conserve energy as well.  But is this all really true?  In the modern world we live in, are we really reaping any benefit from this anymore?  Even if you are in favor of the "extra" afternoon sunlight in the summer, then why do we need to change back in the winter?  Are you telling me you like when it gets dark at 4:30pm?  Why not just keep it all year round?  Why do we need to change back and forth every year?  The act of changing the clocks twice every year seems to create more problems than any perceived benefit.  Ridiculous.

5. Facebook Poking
- I've touched on this before.  Go poke someone on Facebook then come back and tell me what the point was.  Exactly.  There is no point.  Basically, you're saying, "hey, I want to contact you, but I have nothing to say.  So maybe, if you have something to say to me, you'll reply.  Or if you don't have anything to say to me either, then just poke me back.  Then we'll have established that we're still alive, we know each other, and we both have nothing to say to each other.  Then we'll move on.  Sounds good."  I used to do this all the time before Facebook was around.  I'd call my friends on the phone and say nothing when they answered, hoping they saw the caller i.d. and had something to say back to me.  The best was when it would go to voice mail because I could just leave a silent message.

6. Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" button
- Do they have numbers supporting the continued existence of this stupid thing?  Do you ever go to Google in search of something, but rather than seeking out exactly what you're looking for, you think to yourself, "Hey, I've got some extra time here.  Let's play a game of chance and see if Google can correctly guess the exact page that I'm trying to find.  I mean, the web's not that big, is it?  I like my chances."

7. Tagging people in Facebook notes
- What does this mean, exactly?  You're not really in my note and I'm not talking about you.  But I just felt compelled to list your name next to my note for all to see and speculate about why you (and they) were tagged.  I'm going to go experiment with this now and tag a bunch of my friends, whom I will handpick for very secret and poignant reasons of course, and see if they can figure it out.  "Tag!"  There you go.

Is Twitter doomed?

Twitter, doomed, you say?  What gives?  I thought this was the next big thing?  Bigger than email, right?  I mean, I just tweeted from the delivery room that I named by new baby "Tweet."  Bad move??

Okay, well maybe "doomed" is too strong of a word.  Twitter is not going away and still is entrenching itself firmly into the lexicon of that group of people we so technically refer to as, "almost everybody."

But hear me out on this one.  There have been plenty of concerns over the past year about the proper direction for Twitter to move and what the next big step for Twitter should look like.  Mashable reported last month that Twitter's #'s have flatlined for several months, just as they should be picking up steam.  Why is it happening?  Is it just a glitch or a concerning trend?

Several bloggers and commenters in the Mashable community point to the size constraints and "stripped down" features of Twitter vs. Facebook.  I think that's part of the story.  But my take is more that Twitter is harder to explain to people and harder to get "everybody you know" to use it, as opposed to facebook.  With less to do and less "clutter" than facebook, you'd think that "less is more" would help Twitter.  But in fact, it's just the opposite.  You can only "sell" FB or Twitter so much to somebody until they just have to go on and do it themselves.  Once they do, Facebook is much more self-explanatory, whereas Twitter often elicits an "okay, now what am I supposed to do with this?" response.

Twitter is fantastic for broadcasting to an audience (i.e. celebrities) and for everyday people to get news and info from celebrities and/or media outlets.  HOWEVER, it is difficult for the average Joe to build an audience and thus, find good reason to Tweet regularly.  I know many people who created Twitter accounts and then abandoned them shortly thereafter because they "didn't get it" or simply "did not see the point."  But with Facebook, once you get a friend to join, they usually get sucked in and latch on easily.

Unless you have a business to market or an existing audience derived from another medium, it is very difficult to embrace Twitter (as an active tweeter, not follower).  In essence, Twitter is at risk of defaulting to "just another broadcasting medium," a "one-way street" if you will, as opposed to Facebook, which is a truer embodiment of the multi-directional "connect" aspects of a social media tool.

Netflix - Trying to beat their competition to the punch that defeats them

You could see it coming with Netflix.  You got it, you loved it, you embraced it... it basically changed your life.  But you could always see it coming.  While they set the home video market ablaze this past decade, leaving the big bully Blockbuster scrambling for answers and struggling to keep up, still, you could see it coming.

What I'm talking about, of course, is their own downfall at the hands of mainstream VOD.  While we all fell in love with Netflix, and stared in awe at its brilliant, innovative business model, deep down in the back of our minds, there was a thought...

Isn't this physical act of needing an actual DVD - this round, plastic disc, to watch a movie (let alone mailing them back and forth) - going to be a bit too cumbersome for this rapidly evolving digital generation?  Hasn't the technology advanced enough that we can just stream and/or download movies directly to our entertainment center devices?

The answer to these questions, of course, is YES. On demand videos and movies is certainly nothing new, as cable and satellite companies have been offering them for years.  So why doesn't Netflix (or somebody else) simply allow you to zap your movies instantly instead of sending discs back and forth through snail mail?

Well, there may be several answers to that question that have to do with quality, HD quality, device deals and studio licensing restrictions.  I am not an expert on these things but certainly the last two are bigger issues than the first two.

BUT... they're on their way.  Netflix has kept themselves at the forefront of this circuit, doing their best to ensure that when the kinks get worked out and all parties involved are ready for this, THEY are the ones sitting there, ready to deliver.

They started by launching their "Watch Instantly" feature for select films, allowing the subscriber to stream movies on their home computer.  Then, and this part is key, they made deals with the likes of TIVO and Sony Playstation to allow subscribers to watch anything from their instant queue on their television set by accessing it through their HD Tivo or PS3.

I recently ventured into this world for the first time and was thoroughly impressed.  As a proud owner of both a PS3 and HD Tivo, I could use either, but elected the Tivo (will experiment with the PS3 in the future).  The movies played instantly (no waiting for a download like Amazon's VOD).  And the regular Tivo controls worked the same exact way as if it were a program that was saved in my Now Playing list on my Tivo.

There were two key drawbacks:
1. The video quality was not perfect - this one was not a big deal to me because it's only time and technology holding it back, two things that we are guaranteed to get past.  The quality wasn't terrible - it was definitely watchable - it just wasn't quite up to the standards of a DVD or blue-ray.  Also, on my 52" LCD, the flaws in the resolution were more apparent.  I'm sure on a 42" or smaller, you probably wouldn't even notice it.
2. The second drawback is the selection of titles that are available - Netflix only makes a percentage of their titles available for instant streaming and big hits and new releases are almost never included.  This has been the case since they first launched the "Watch Instantly" feature a couple years ago.

So what's the solution for problem #2?  Well, as noted before, there are legal and financial reasons that have to do with studio licensing and Netflix's "unlimited viewing" model.  Where do the answers lie?  I'm not sure.  But I do know this - We'll get there.  The masses won't stand for it not happening.  These developments will be the next major change in the home video world.  It's not good enough that we don't have to drive to a video store anymore.  People want instant access and won't put up with mailing DVDs and waiting 3 days for your next movie, especially when they know the technology is out there.  So I know we'll get there and we'll get there soon.  How it gets sorted out, I'm not sure.  But I do know this - Netflix is positioning themselves to be the one to give it to us.  Smart move.  If only Blockbuster had this foresight back before Netflix came along to rain on their  parade.

Facebook decides what you want... again.

Okay, so Facebook made another big change that is confusing everybody.  They've done this before, everyone complains in their status updates for a few weeks, a few hundred new "bring back the old Facebook" groups get created, and then eventually everyone gets used to it and shuts up.

You may have noticed that a friend's post from yesterday is appearing above one from 5 minutes ago, or certain posts aren't showing up at all.  Well, here's the quick & dirty explanation of the latest change:
"News Feed" vs. "Live Feed."

The central "meat" of your facebook home page is now divided into these two tabs.  The default is "News Feed," which is a filtered feed of what FB has determined to be of most interest to you.  The "Live Feed" is a more traditional stream in REAL TIME, of every single post within your network as it happens.

The initial reviews are VERY mixed for this latest change.  Some people (presumably the ones with hundreds, if not thousands of friends) welcome the selective "News Feed" addition so they don't have to get bombarded with all the useless status updates, quizzes, mafia wars invites, little farm requests, and other minutia that clogs up their feeds.

But others (myself included) are a bit put off by this and have quickly reverted back to the more comfortable "Live Feed."  My main problem with the "News Feed" is the question that most of you have probably been asking as soon as you realized what was going on...

"How the hell does Facebook know what I do and don't want to read in my feed??"

Well, of course, like so many other websites in recent times with an increased focus on metrics and behavior-based content targeting, Facebook thinks that they can do a pretty good job of it.  I disagree.  Now don't take that to mean that I fall into that "paranoid" group who doesn't understand the tracking business and considers this an unsettling, "big-brother" invasion of privacy.  That's not me.  I get it.  I just don't think FB is very good at it yet.  It's going to be a challenge with something like Facebook, believe me.  Just because I haven't interacted with a certain friend for a long time, doesn't mean I don't want to see their latest post that might be an important personal update or link of unique interest to me.

For now, I'll stick with the "Live Feed," and keep my own control of deciding what I do and don't want to read.  Where do you stand?

Coke Zero's Marketing "Ishtar"

Okay, so maybe "Ishtar" is a bit strong, since the jury's still out, but all signs are pointing to barfs-ville.

The concept, in this facebook-frenzy social media world that we live in, was, for lack of a better word, "cool."  Go to the Coke Zero website, upload your photo into the "facial profiler" database, and they'll use special "next gen facial recognition technology" (wtf?) to match you with your doppelganger from somewhere around the globe.  You can find your secret "twin."  The concept is, at the very least, "intriguing."  Is it really useful for anything, other than a few minutes of empty-calorie, time-wasting webtertainment?  Maybe not.  But that's pretty much the case with all interactive gadgetry of Marketing WEbsites.

But here's the RUB (and it's a big one).

There's no PAYOFF!  I mean, literally, you don't get ANYTHING.  WHY?  Excellent question.  When you upload your picture, you get a thanks and they tell you this:

"we haven't collected enough faces to begin the matching process.  When we do, we'll notify you directly.  In the meantime, invite your friends, family and co-workers to join this one-of-a-kind social experiment."

What?  They show a fancy status bar that tells me their database is 22% full, (two weeks ago) and is now up to 29% full.  Do they tell you how many that is?  No.  Do they tell you how full they need to get before they can start matching people?  No.  Does it need to be 100% full?  Who knows?  Are we ever going to get any results?  Maybe not.  If we do, will we have forgotten about it or will anyone care anymore?  again, No idea.

Maybe it's all just hype and there isn't actually any "facial profiling tool."  Perhaps this "one-of-a-kind social experiment" is actually just an experiment to see how many people will blindly fall for the empty gimmick that ends up being absolutely nothing?  Now that is a question that I can confidently answer, without a shadow of a doubt, "probably."

"Why do I need to be on Facebook?"

All of my friends/family/colleagues who still refuse to enter any aspect of the social media world need to read this:

http://mashable.com/2009/10/16/social-media-changing-lives/

We all have a few people in our lives who continue to throw out the following questions/excuses:

• Why do I need to be on Facebook?
• I don't want all these people from my past finding me.
• Why do I need that when I can just email people?
• I don't understand the point of Twitter.
• What is LinkedIn?  I don't get it.
• I don't have the time to go set it all up.

And the list goes on...

In about 5 years, all of these statements and questions will seem foolish.  They will be the equivalent of someone today saying "Why do I need to have an email account?"  (and I know a LOT of people who said that just 10 short years ago.)

RIP 800 Numbers?

I was just thinking, are 800 numbers becoming obsolete?

With the evolution of wireless phones and the evaporation of long distance and roaming fees, people are using their mobile phones for everything these days.  Many people are getting rid of their land lines at home.  "What's the point?" they ask.  "I use my mobile phone for everything anyway, right?"  It's true.  Why would you pay for long-distance service on a home phone when you can make limitless long-distance calls for free as part of your cell phone plan?

So, when I heard an 800 # advertised on the radio today, I had a similar thought - What's the point?

In the past, businesses would set up 800 numbers as a service to their customers, so that people could reach them easily without the worry of having to pay long distance charges for the call.  But personally, I don't even think about that anymore since I make all calls on my cell phone.  If I had to call an out-of-state business today, I wouldn't even take notice of whether or not they had an 800 # or a local area code #.  It wouldn't make a difference to me.  I'm sure this is already having an effect on certain businesses and small businesses choosing to go without an 800 # and I'm wondering if it's a trend that will continue all the way to the elimination of 800 #'s.  If we get to a point in this world where there is no such thing as "long distance" calls being any different than local calls, there will be no need for them at all. 

I predict we'll be there in 10 years.  At the end of the next decade, we'll say stuff like, "Remember 800 numbers?" and my kids will say stuff like, "What's a long-distance call?"  Or maybe even scarier, "What's a land line?"

Welcome to Pappy's Media Salad!

Pappy has a new blog. 

Online Media?  Social Networking?  Digital news? Computer stuff?  New technology?  Industry trends?  TV show reviews? Obscure pop culture references and comedy?  It's all here in 'Pappy's Media Salad.'

Be sure to also visit Pappy's Products when you're hungry for new food products
and Pappy's Politics when you're hungry for Political "insight" and debate.