News You Can Lose: Financial Page: The New Yorker.

Surowiecki opens with some interesting ruminations about why newspapers are going down. Then, he goes crazy and lays the blame at the feet of the greedy consumer who wants it all for free! The bastards! Soon we’ll get what we pay for!

Here’s the dirty secret of newspapers: For a very long time, most of the content has been crap. Read your local newspaper lately? Remember why you stopped?

Most papers are a strange mix of not-that-great local reporting and columnists mixed with repackaged wire feeds and syndicated content, paid for by bundled advertising. Most of the news in local papers isn’t. At least, isn’t worth paying for. It’s nice that you won the county fair, but it probably doesn’t need to be in my paper. A newsletter for people who care about fairs would be better.

We’re not losing original reporting, we’re losing the middle men that bundled all the content together. Good riddance.

We don’t need to worry about the future of newspapers, we need to worry about the future of reporters. Will there be business models that allow individual or small teams of quality investigative journalists to earn a decent living while also breaking important stories? Will the class of amateur and semi-pro reporters be able to fill in any gaps?

So many redundancies in reporting and news. Do we need dozens of variations on the sports page? How many film critics do we need? How many reporters does it take to cover a press conference? More than zero, but probably less than we have right now.

Content creators in most other industries are going through the painful process of changing the way that they charge for their content, finding some equilibrium between giving a way their stuff for free to attract fans and charging for specialized, related or premium versions. Here’s my non-bold prediction: News reporters will have to do the same.

Cartoonists can survive the death of paid syndication, surely the important content can as well.

photo credit: striatic

A company of programmers produces code. A company of managers produces meetings.

Greg Knauss via Merlin Mann

Can we talk for a minute about how irritating this smarmy attitude is? It’s the conceit of anarcho-syndicalists writ small. It’s assembly workers complaining about supervisors, masons complaining about architects, and rogue cops complaining about The Chief. It’s Dilbert.

“We could get so much more done if only management would stop getting in the way.”

Look, if you are going to work on anything that has more than a few moving parts, someone is going to need to coordinate and make sure that everything is moving in harmony. If you are going to have clients or customers, someone is going to need to talk to them, process their needs and then filter them into design changes and requirements docs. If you are going to test your software, someone will need to do triage and fit feature-set to budget and schedule.

Every hour that you spend on this is an hour that you are not programming.

Are you going to too many meetings? THEN YOU HAVE CRAPPY MANAGERS. Good managers hold meetings only when they’re needed and spend a great deal of their time shielding employees from the minute to minute neuroses of clients, investors and the public. Good managers reign in the natural over-enthusiasm of programmers to realistic commitments and judiciously nudge development along the right paths, ensuring that time is not lost on wasted or unimportant features.

Good programmers understand that code is not software and see a value to maintaining an overall direction and vision for a project. Then they either hire good managers or sacrifice one of their own and ‘promote’ them out of active development.

photo credit: Paul Mayne

I don’t use their products, but I’m a big fan of the 37signals blog. Today’s post talks about exploiting different revenue streams.

Your self-imposed limitations on how to make money are often just that: self-imposed. Seek out other routes to your destination.

It’s one of the big advantages that small, agile companies have. They can experiment and change directions quickly. Plus, multiple revenue streams help you diversify so all your eggs aren’t in one basket.

I know a lot of web comics creators and diversification is their bread and butter. Most of them give the “main” product away for free (they rely on people passing the comics along for free word of mouth) and then sell secondary merchandise as the main source of income. Shirts, prints, books, a little advertising – these are the things that pay for most web comics.

Not many indie developers take advantage of the multiple streams thing. The Behemoth is an obvious exception. Alien Hominid was funded partially through house refinancing (risky) and partly because they made and sold the action figures before they finished development. Profits from the toys paid for the game.

More indie studios should consider at least selling shirts, I think. A lot of them have these huge fan bases who hunger for ways to show their allegiance between game releases. And with a year or more between releases, some interim cash seems like a good idea. The risk is that you end up spending too much time or effort on the secondary work (the creation and distribution of physical stuff is not the same as making downloadable games). On the other hand, the risk of leaving money on the table is that you run out of cash before your next project is finished.

(P.S. here is one where 37signals makes my “ideas are cheap” argument but, you know, articulately.)

I don’t normally link to Dilbert, but this is a pretty much spot on explanation of the Developer / Publisher relationship.

It seems like the key to being a tech columnist is having discussable opinions about things. Knowledge is for the sissies over in the reporting department. Making pronouncements of either Doom or Ultimate Glory for some new device is the kind of thing that puts (something I like to call “asses in the seats 2.O”) links in the blogs. It is in this spirit of prophecy for page views that Brian Caulfield of Forbes asks whether or not the Apple iPhone could kill the Nintendo DS. Showing the kind of visionary spunk that gets you employed at one of the top business magazines, Caulfield doesn’t let the fact that a clear answer, “no,” already exists.

It’s a good gambit. Like small town residents cheering whenever their name is mentioned on the Tee Vee, the industry, perpetually suffering from “hey we’re relevant too” syndrome, gets excited when one of the big players mentions us. Here is my prediction about Forbes’ prediction: lots of gaming sites will link to it and then it will turn out to be utterly wrong. Things start to go badly in the early paragraphs.

The Nintendo DS has had a good run, too, dominating the market for handheld gaming gizmos despite determined assaults by Sony and Nokia .

The DS didn’t HAVE a good run. It’s HAVING a good run. There are over 70 million of them out there right now. The PSP is doing well too, with over 30 million units sold. But to describe the sad joke that is the N-Gage – a failed Gameboy Advance competitor / phone that launched in 2003 and may not have even sold a million units – as a “determined assault” by Nokia is to severely misunderstand the market.

Apple is the first to master a pair of tricks that have made Nintendo’s latest products so compelling–a touch-screen interface and the ability to pick up on motion. The key difference: Unlike Nintendo, which has created a gaming console with a motion-sensitive controller and a touch-sensitive handheld gaming system, Apple has crammed both capabilities into its iPhone and iPod Touch.

Leaving aside motion sensing, which the DS doesn’t actually have, Caulfield’s argument is that the iPhone has a touch screen which the DS also has but you can download new software on to the iPhone, and he heard that some companies were making games for it, so it’s a DS killer.

Let’s compare them for real.

The DS is a rugged little single purpose gaming system that retails for $130 in Canada. It has two screens, including a dedicated touch screen and dedicated control buttons, plays GBA games as well as DS titles, has build in local wireless networking for multiplayer gaming as well as a connection to Nintendo’s ‘it just works’ worldwide multiplayer service. It is supported by brands such as Mario, Pokémon and Final Fantasy. You can find it at just about any department store in the world and it’s loved by kids, casual and core gamers.

The iPhone is a multi-purpose device which retails for $400 (minus contract subsidy). It has a single large screen (lord help you if you drop it), no local networking, no wireless gaming service and no library to speak of. In order to buy one, you need to sign up for cellphone service and in order to buy and download games you will need a credit card and an iTunes membership. It is not a device for grubby handed kids, Nintendo’s bread and butter.

If there is any direct competition to be had, it’s between the iPhone and Sony’s rumoured PSP phone. They’ll (probably) cost about the same, and both are convergence devices meaning that for a slight premium, you can get them do to several things that you don’t really want.

It’s too late to kill the DS. The DS is a runaway success. iPhone gaming might have a chance at killing some future Nintendo handheld, but I wouldn’t want to start mouthing off about it. Much as Sony learned when they went after portables, Nintendo is much, much smarter than you think and they know games very, very well.