The more we can get out in front of people's needs, so that when they need something we can provide them with it with essentially 1 click ease, the better. We don't even want them to need to think about it. If they're going to need to add a resource, we want to message them: "In approximately 1 week you are likely to need this added resource. To review the complete specs of the version of this resource we offer, click here. To add the resource, click here. Clicking the add resource button will add the resource and debit your account. No further action will be required. As usual we will keep you informed about the addition process in a complete and detailed way."
A weird central component is a line of tripods, or, well, camera supports. How on earth is that relevant? Well, it points to one of the kinds of purposes I want to support on behalf of users. No, it points to the purpose I want to support. I want users to be able to document their lives in intimate detail without the assistance of what you could call a film crew. Next you could ask me why they would want to do that, but then again, you can probably at least glimpse an answer to that. You might be skeptical of that answer, but you can probably glimpse it or sense what it might be. I think the more urgent question is this: aren't people already doing that ... documenting their lives in intimate detail using their phones or whatever? And my answer is, no, they aren't. Yes, they are producing small documents of parts of their lives, such as them talking about this and that for a few minutes. Yes, I could go on at considerable length describing such scenarios, and some of them start to resemble what one could call intimately detailed documents, in some sense, but those tend to involve and even really be about other people, and in a way I'm talking about real solo efforts - in a very real way, although I suppose I don't mean to limit my discussion to that ... which shifts my own focus to what is, I think, more the fundamental point: these documents, these videos, which we could call little movies, are almost wholly, let us say, episodic. If a movie is an intimately detailed document of a life - granted, some part or aspect or way of describing a life, and not in a literal sense a whole life ... but that is still not the same thing as an episode ... and to produce the kind of document I am now describing ... it is necessary, I really think, to shoot a lot of footage and then assemble it. So this does, I think, describe why I am promoting this idea of encouraging people to shoot volumes and volumes of video.
So, what this is about, really, is the democratization of movie production. And then it could be argued that I'm way behind the curve because that has already happened. But that's not true. I mean, it's true in a way - in a most dramatic way - that it has happened, but it's not true that I'm behind the curve. What's true is I'm ahead of it. This is a kind of abstract theme I talk about a lot. Mind you, I don't talk to other people about it. I talk to myself about it. I learned through some trial efforts that I wasn't ready to make my case to other people. But I'm in a mood to share again, make another go at it. The theme is that this industry is so amazing that we think it's done when it's not. Think about the growth trajectory. The stock market is a hobby of mine, and I love to take a technical approach, so, it's about trends, and what we see is that a trend begins with a breakout move, and that move, which is highly energetic, portends a much bigger move, a bigger growth episode. Well, between the initial move and the culminating trend there will be a correction. I believe we are in the latter days of a correction in computing as an industry. But what does this mean in terms of the qualities of the product? As an example, we have this huge bloom of episodic story telling in the video format, a profound democratization of ... what is it ... camera work, the filming of scenes ... but this has not, I say, resolved itself into what I sense is the possibility of it, a new bloom of full, lyrical narrative film making, to state it as breathlessly as I can.
Rereading, I remember another question that I imagine, in my imaginings, will be asked, in incredulous fashion: Really? Are we, the people, really going to watch all those movies? A movie for every living soul? Well, on the one hand, I believe we are greatly underestimating, in the industry, the amount of content we people can fruitfully enjoy, partake of, absorb. In my previous essay I simply expressed skepticism about the whole notion of information overload. I can formulate a more elaborate defense of my skeptical position via IO, but let me just say, for now, that I don't think the bottleneck, in this regard, is the human mind. How, after all, would any of describe that instrument? Even today, I think we would all agree that its capacity is simply astonishing, or, to put it another way, incomprehensible. But that's on the one hand, and it could be argued that, notwithstanding that, there are bottlenecks. So, the other thing is, I'm a great admirer, let me put it this way, of Facebook's mission statement. Their mission is highly personal. It's about friends and family. And some may say that means it's by definition in a smaller sense that doesn't rise to the level of, vis a vis the present concern, movie making per se, for example. I don't think so. I think the great success of Facebook, just as an example, originates in the fact that it's about art in the profoundest sense, even if, if you want to put it that way, it is in such a personal context. No, this personal context it of the utmost importance. As it relates to larger endeavors, it's the gateway to them, for everyone, and I'm not even saying that's the whole of its significance (though the two things are inextricably linked).
There is even beyond this a very, very important topic that extends my theme yet one more time. But I will pause here.
