The Filth and the Fury
Release Date: 2000
Ebert Rating: ***½
By Roger Ebert Apr 7, 2000
At the height of their fame, the Sex Pistols inspired a London city councilor to observe, "Most of these guys would be much improved by sudden death." In a decade when England was racked by unemployment, strikes and unrest, its season of discontent had a soundtrack by the Pistols. They sang of "Anarchy in the U.K.," and their song "God Save the Queen (She Ain't No Human Being)" rose to No. 1 on the hit charts--but the record industry refused to list it. In "The Filth and the Fury," a hard-edged new documentary about the Pistols, we see a Top 10 chart with a blank space for No. 1. Better than being listed, Johnny Rotten grinned.
The saga of the Sex Pistols is told for the third time in "The Filth and the Fury." Not bad for a band that symbolized punk rock but lasted less than two years, fought constantly, insulted the press, spit on their fans, were banned from TV, were fired by one record company 24 hours after being signed, released only one album, pushed safety pins through noses and ear lobes to more or less invent body piercing, broke up during a tour of the United States, and saw front man Sid Vicious accused of murdering his girlfriend and dying of a drug overdose.
Director Julien Temple based his "Great Rock and Roll Swindle" (1980) on a version of the Pistols story supplied by Malcolm McLaren, their infamously self-promoting manager, and now, 20 years later, Temple tells the story through the eyes and in the words of the band members themselves. In between came Alex Cox's "Sid & Nancy" (1986), with Gary Oldman's shattering performance as the self-destructive Sid Vicious.
It wasn't what the band stood for. It was what they stood against. "Attack, attack, attack," says lead singer Johnny Rotten in the film. Now once again John Lydon, he appears along with guitarist Steve Jones, drummer Paul Cook, McLaren, original band member Glen Matlock (deposed by Vicious) and even Vicious himself, in an interview filmed a year before his death. The surviving members are backlit so we cannot see their faces, which would have provided a middle-aged contrast to the savage young men on the screen; McLaren talks from behind a rubber bondage mask like those he and onetime girlfriend Vivienne Westwood sold in their boutique Sex.
McLaren claimed the Sex Pistols were entirely his invention and painted himself as a puppetmaster. Lydon, who calls him the Manager throughout the film, says, "There was never a relationship between the Manager and me except he stole my ideas and used them as his own." The truth probably resides in between.
I had a glimpse of the Sex Pistols in 1977, when McLaren hired Russ Meyer to direct them in a movie, and Meyer hired me to write it (McLaren and Rotten were fans of our "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls"). I wrote a screenplay in Los Angeles with McLaren feeding me background and ideas. Then Meyer and I flew to London to meet with Rotten, Vicious, Cook and Jones. (Meyer, wary of McLaren's trademark bondage pants, insisted on sitting on the aisle: "If we have to evacuate, he'll get those goddamned straps tangled up in the seats.") I remember a surrealistic dinner involving Rotten, Meyer and me ("We won the Battle of Britain for you," Meyer sternly lectured Rotten, while I mused that America was not involved in the Battle of Britain and Rotten was Irish.) Rotten seemed amused by the fact that Meyer was unintimidated by his fearsomely safety-pinned facade. As we drove him home, he complained bitterly that McLaren had the band on a salary of eight pounds a week, borrowed five pounds from Meyer and had us stop at an all-night store so he could buy a six-pack of lager and cans of pork and beans.
The truth is, no one made much money off the Pistols, although McLaren made the most. The plug was pulled on our film, "Who Killed Bambi?," after a day and a half of shooting, when the electricians walked off the set after McLaren couldn't pay them. Meyer had presciently demanded his own weekly pay in advance every Monday morning.
The Catch-22 with punk rock, and indeed with all forms of entertainment designed to shock and offend the bourgeoisie, is that if your act is too convincing, you put yourself out of business, a fact carefully noted by today's rappers as they go as far as they can without going too far.
The Sex Pistols went too far. They never had a period that could be described as actual success. Even touring England at the height of their fame, they were booked into clubs under false names. They were hated by the establishment, shut down by the police and pilloried by the press ("The Filth and the Fury" takes its title from a banner headline that once occupied a full front page of the Daily Mirror). That was bad enough. Worse was that their own fans sometimes attacked them, lashed into a frenzy by the front line of Rotten and Vicious, who were sometimes performers, sometimes bear-baiters.
Rotten was the victim of a razor attack while walking the streets of London; McLaren not only failed to provide security, he wouldn't pay taxi fares. Vicious was his own worst enemy, and if there was one thing that united the other three band members and McLaren, it was hatred for Sid's girlfriend, Nancy Spungen, who they felt was instrumental in his drug addiction. "Poor sod," today's John Lydon says of his dead bandmate.
To see this film's footage from the '70s is to see the beginning of much of pop and fashion iconography for the next two decades. After the premiere of "The Filth and the Fury" at Sundance, I ran into Temple, who observed, "In the scenes where they're being interviewed on television, they look normal. It's the interviewers who look like freaks." Normal, no. But in torn black T-shirts and punk haircuts, they look contemporary, unlike the dated, polyestered, wide-lapeled and blow-dried creatures interviewing them.
England survived the Sex Pistols, and they mostly survived England, although Lydon still feels it is unsafe for him to return there. He now has an interview program on VH-1 and the Web. Cook and Jones lead settled lives. McLaren still has bright ideas. Vivienne Westwood has emerged as one of Britain's most successful designers, and poses for photographs in which she bears a perfect resemblance to Mrs. Thatcher. And as for Sid, my notes from the movie say that while the Pistols were signing a record deal in front of Buckingham Palace and insulting the queen, Sid's father was a Grenadier Guard on duty in front of the palace. Surely I heard that wrong?
Cast & Credits
Fine Line Presents A Documentary Directed And Photographed By Julien Temple. Running Time: 105 Minutes. Rated R (For Pervasive Strong Language, Drugs And Sexual Content).
Friday, April 9, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
iPad Users Experience Weak Connectivity and Dropped Signals
iPad Users Experience Weak Connectivity and Dropped Signals
Monday, April 5th, 2010 by InternetNut at 12:03pm
A number of iPad users have expressed their upset and frustration on the official Apple Discussions forum that they are having a number of connectivity issues with their device, with some struggling to tune into their wireless internet connection, and others reporting issues of WiFi signals being weak and even being dropped randomly during use. Some have more recently complained about issues when trying to advance past the WiFi authentication screen and one user complained about their wireless internet connection speed being slower for their iPad than for their iPod touch.
AppleInsider caught my eye today when they reported on these issues. What surprises is me is that one of the posts notes a problem connecting to Apple’s own router system, AirPort Extreme; Apple constantly advertise themselves as being a company which creates the hardware and the software themselves, suggesting that using Apple products is easier because the devices involved come from the same manufacturer. One topic on the Apple forum complains about weak reception to their wireless network, with another seven pages of similar complaints made. AppleInsider noted that complaints were based around routers of different manufacturers and companies, meaning that the problem cannot be traced down to an issue with a particular router version or type.
Some of the issues posted includes one owner saying that their signal is “fluctuating from strong to weak” and that even when they stand in front of their router, the signal still fluctuates. They said that the router has “very strong signals as every other computer has full signal strength, even 20-30 meters from the router”. Others have said that their “signal is weak”, that “downloading anything is painfully slow” and that “it will drop the signal and go offline every 5-10 minutes”.
“I have seen weak performance too while surfing the web” said powerguru, even though Apple has said that the iPad is the best internet experience you’ll have. mbell75, however, has been quite cool about the issue, saying that “just about any brand new device is going to have some issues.” Amazingly, powerguru said that they have used the speedtest.net application on both their iPhone 3GS and iPad running WiFI, and the iPad download speed is “1.83 megabits/sec”, while iPhone 3GS download speed is “14.77 megabits/sec.” This is quite a scary set of numbers - to think the iPad is running so slowly, while a much smaller device running on the same wireless network has a much faster connectivity speed. I run at around 10 megabits per second, and having used 2 megabits per second in the past, I can relate to how frustrated this owner must be feeling.
D7, however, said that their 64GB iPad is running 16 megabits per second, while their iPhone “can’t get anywhere near that speed”, even though others are complaining and are upset that they cannot go and see those at the Apple Store because they are currently closed for Easter. Dr. JB, one user suffering problems, is hoping that it was just a “bad batch” and that “Apple will replace [their] iPad”. Without a shadow of a doubt, the most common problem reported is fluctuating strength in the WiFi signals
I certainly do hope that this is just a bad batch, because more and more people seem to be logging onto the forum to voice their issues. At the time of writing this, most of the posts and topics in the WiFi section on the Apple Discussions forum are addressing issues that people are having with their connectivity. Apple have made some suggestions which can be found over at their website, but I am in two minds whether or not I agree with mbell75 about the problems of a new device. Although I’m sure there will be problems with a brand new product on the market, Apple has had some practice with iPhone and iPod touch, and I didn’t expect to see so many problems arise in this forum over this issue. Despite this however, I think after reading some of the reviews on the internet, I’m quite happy to say I will buy an iPad to test out its usability, but I’m not sure about having another device to carry around. The reason I’d probably not go for the 3G version is because of the prices here in the United Kingdom. Anything to do with technology is much more expensive in the UK, whether that be internet connection prices or mobile phones and 3G wireless internet coverage contracts. Apple hasn’t released any information about any pricing for the iPad or the connectivity yet, but I can only guess that it will be too expensive – and in any case, if I’m desparate to log onto the internet out of a WiFi area (and let’s face it, how many places nowadays do not have WiFi within reach), I’ve always got my unlimited internet usage for my iPhone.
What do you think? Have you had connectivity issues with your Apple devices? Do you own an iPad? What do you think about it? Have you had any fluctuating signals or connectivity problems? Or, is your iPad working fine? Are you wanting to buy an iPad, and would you consider the 3G version? Let us know, in a comment.
To keep up-to-date with the latest posts at Internet Nut, you can follow the blog on Twitter.
Monday, April 5th, 2010 by InternetNut at 12:03pm
A number of iPad users have expressed their upset and frustration on the official Apple Discussions forum that they are having a number of connectivity issues with their device, with some struggling to tune into their wireless internet connection, and others reporting issues of WiFi signals being weak and even being dropped randomly during use. Some have more recently complained about issues when trying to advance past the WiFi authentication screen and one user complained about their wireless internet connection speed being slower for their iPad than for their iPod touch.
AppleInsider caught my eye today when they reported on these issues. What surprises is me is that one of the posts notes a problem connecting to Apple’s own router system, AirPort Extreme; Apple constantly advertise themselves as being a company which creates the hardware and the software themselves, suggesting that using Apple products is easier because the devices involved come from the same manufacturer. One topic on the Apple forum complains about weak reception to their wireless network, with another seven pages of similar complaints made. AppleInsider noted that complaints were based around routers of different manufacturers and companies, meaning that the problem cannot be traced down to an issue with a particular router version or type.
Some of the issues posted includes one owner saying that their signal is “fluctuating from strong to weak” and that even when they stand in front of their router, the signal still fluctuates. They said that the router has “very strong signals as every other computer has full signal strength, even 20-30 meters from the router”. Others have said that their “signal is weak”, that “downloading anything is painfully slow” and that “it will drop the signal and go offline every 5-10 minutes”.
“I have seen weak performance too while surfing the web” said powerguru, even though Apple has said that the iPad is the best internet experience you’ll have. mbell75, however, has been quite cool about the issue, saying that “just about any brand new device is going to have some issues.” Amazingly, powerguru said that they have used the speedtest.net application on both their iPhone 3GS and iPad running WiFI, and the iPad download speed is “1.83 megabits/sec”, while iPhone 3GS download speed is “14.77 megabits/sec.” This is quite a scary set of numbers - to think the iPad is running so slowly, while a much smaller device running on the same wireless network has a much faster connectivity speed. I run at around 10 megabits per second, and having used 2 megabits per second in the past, I can relate to how frustrated this owner must be feeling.
D7, however, said that their 64GB iPad is running 16 megabits per second, while their iPhone “can’t get anywhere near that speed”, even though others are complaining and are upset that they cannot go and see those at the Apple Store because they are currently closed for Easter. Dr. JB, one user suffering problems, is hoping that it was just a “bad batch” and that “Apple will replace [their] iPad”. Without a shadow of a doubt, the most common problem reported is fluctuating strength in the WiFi signals
I certainly do hope that this is just a bad batch, because more and more people seem to be logging onto the forum to voice their issues. At the time of writing this, most of the posts and topics in the WiFi section on the Apple Discussions forum are addressing issues that people are having with their connectivity. Apple have made some suggestions which can be found over at their website, but I am in two minds whether or not I agree with mbell75 about the problems of a new device. Although I’m sure there will be problems with a brand new product on the market, Apple has had some practice with iPhone and iPod touch, and I didn’t expect to see so many problems arise in this forum over this issue. Despite this however, I think after reading some of the reviews on the internet, I’m quite happy to say I will buy an iPad to test out its usability, but I’m not sure about having another device to carry around. The reason I’d probably not go for the 3G version is because of the prices here in the United Kingdom. Anything to do with technology is much more expensive in the UK, whether that be internet connection prices or mobile phones and 3G wireless internet coverage contracts. Apple hasn’t released any information about any pricing for the iPad or the connectivity yet, but I can only guess that it will be too expensive – and in any case, if I’m desparate to log onto the internet out of a WiFi area (and let’s face it, how many places nowadays do not have WiFi within reach), I’ve always got my unlimited internet usage for my iPhone.
What do you think? Have you had connectivity issues with your Apple devices? Do you own an iPad? What do you think about it? Have you had any fluctuating signals or connectivity problems? Or, is your iPad working fine? Are you wanting to buy an iPad, and would you consider the 3G version? Let us know, in a comment.
To keep up-to-date with the latest posts at Internet Nut, you can follow the blog on Twitter.
Automaker Pensions Underfunded by $17 Billion
April 6, 2010
Automaker Pensions Underfunded by $17 Billion
By NICK BUNKLEY
DETROIT — The pension plans at General Motors and Chrysler are underfunded by a total of $17 billion and could fail if the automakers do not return to profitability, according to a government report released Tuesday.
Both companies need to make large payments into the plans within the next five years — $12.3 billion by G.M. and $2.6 billion by Chrysler — to reach minimum funding levels, according to the report, prepared by the Government Accountability Office. Whether the companies will be able to make the payments is uncertain, the report concluded, though Treasury officials expect the automakers will become profitable enough to do so.
If either company’s plan must be terminated, the government would become liable for paying benefits to hundreds of thousands of retirees. The effect on the government’s pension insurer, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, would be “unprecedented,” the report said. The agency manages plans with assets totaling $68.7 billion, less than the $84.5 billion in G.M.’s plan alone.
The carmakers’ pension plans were jolted by the downturn, increased liabilities and other factors. G.M.’s plan was overfunded by $18.8 billion in 2008, and was then underfunded by $13.6 billion last year, the report said. Chrysler’s plan was overfunded by $2.9 billion in 2008 but underfunded by $3.4 billion last year.
The plans cover about 650,000 people at G.M. and 250,000 at Chrysler.
The Treasury Department owns 61 percent of G.M. and 10 percent of Chrysler as a result of the emergency loans the carmakers received last year. The government spent $81 billion bailing out the companies and others in the auto industry.
The report issued Tuesday said Treasury officials were confident that G.M. and Chrysler would earn enough to allow the government to gradually sell its stakes. But the report warned that the government could push the companies out of business, consequently terminating their pension plans, if their recovery efforts failed.
“In the event that the companies do not return to profitability in a reasonable time frame, Treasury officials said that they will consider all commercial options for disposing of Treasury’s equity, including forcing the companies into liquidation,” the report said.
In addition, the report said the government’s interests as a shareholder of G.M. and Chrysler could clash with those of pension participants and beneficiaries. “For example, Treasury could decide to sell its equity stake at a time when it would maximize its return on investment, but when the companies’ pension plans were still at risk,” the report said.
President Obama has said he wants to sell the government’s stakes in the two companies as soon as is practicable. G.M. executives have said that a public stock offering could happen this year but that the company would need to be profitable and meet other criteria first.
G.M. is scheduled to release its financial results for 2009 on Wednesday. Chrysler plans to provide an update on April 21.
Automaker Pensions Underfunded by $17 Billion
By NICK BUNKLEY
DETROIT — The pension plans at General Motors and Chrysler are underfunded by a total of $17 billion and could fail if the automakers do not return to profitability, according to a government report released Tuesday.
Both companies need to make large payments into the plans within the next five years — $12.3 billion by G.M. and $2.6 billion by Chrysler — to reach minimum funding levels, according to the report, prepared by the Government Accountability Office. Whether the companies will be able to make the payments is uncertain, the report concluded, though Treasury officials expect the automakers will become profitable enough to do so.
If either company’s plan must be terminated, the government would become liable for paying benefits to hundreds of thousands of retirees. The effect on the government’s pension insurer, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, would be “unprecedented,” the report said. The agency manages plans with assets totaling $68.7 billion, less than the $84.5 billion in G.M.’s plan alone.
The carmakers’ pension plans were jolted by the downturn, increased liabilities and other factors. G.M.’s plan was overfunded by $18.8 billion in 2008, and was then underfunded by $13.6 billion last year, the report said. Chrysler’s plan was overfunded by $2.9 billion in 2008 but underfunded by $3.4 billion last year.
The plans cover about 650,000 people at G.M. and 250,000 at Chrysler.
The Treasury Department owns 61 percent of G.M. and 10 percent of Chrysler as a result of the emergency loans the carmakers received last year. The government spent $81 billion bailing out the companies and others in the auto industry.
The report issued Tuesday said Treasury officials were confident that G.M. and Chrysler would earn enough to allow the government to gradually sell its stakes. But the report warned that the government could push the companies out of business, consequently terminating their pension plans, if their recovery efforts failed.
“In the event that the companies do not return to profitability in a reasonable time frame, Treasury officials said that they will consider all commercial options for disposing of Treasury’s equity, including forcing the companies into liquidation,” the report said.
In addition, the report said the government’s interests as a shareholder of G.M. and Chrysler could clash with those of pension participants and beneficiaries. “For example, Treasury could decide to sell its equity stake at a time when it would maximize its return on investment, but when the companies’ pension plans were still at risk,” the report said.
President Obama has said he wants to sell the government’s stakes in the two companies as soon as is practicable. G.M. executives have said that a public stock offering could happen this year but that the company would need to be profitable and meet other criteria first.
G.M. is scheduled to release its financial results for 2009 on Wednesday. Chrysler plans to provide an update on April 21.
PGA Announces New "Transmedia Producer" Credit
TOLDJA! PGA Announces New "Transmedia Producer" Credit
By Nikki Finke | Tuesday April 6, 2010 @ 12:59pm PDT
Here's the official announcement:
LOS ANGELES (April 6, 2010) – The Producers Guild of America Board of Directors announced today that they have approved the addition of Transmedia Producer to the Guild’s Producer Code of Credits (PCOC).
“The Guild’s decision to expand the Code of Credits to recognize the Transmedia Producer underscores the changing media landscape and the critical role of the producer within new creative mediums,” said PGA President Marshall Herskovitz. “As technology evolves, it’s no longer adequate to think of a project as simply a television show or a movie; we now understand that the audience will want to experience that content across several platforms - online, mobile, VOD, Blu-Ray, and now iPad - often with different or additional material. It’s the producer who oversees the complex and creative process that allows that to happen.”
“The New Media Council, led by Alison Savitch, has worked tirelessly to advocate consistency of credits for the producing team across new media,” added PGA Executive Director Vance Van Petten.
The Guild defines a Transmedia Narrative project or franchise of one that consists of three (or more) narrative storylines existing within the same fictional universe on any of the following platforms: Film, Television, Short Film, Broadband, Publishing, Comics, Animation, Mobile, Special Venues, DVD/Blu-ray/CD-ROM, Narrative Commercial and Marketing rollouts, and other technologies that may or may not currently exist. These narrative extensions are NOT the same as repurposing material from one platform to be cut or repurposed to different platforms.
And a Transmedia Producer credit is given to the person(s) responsible for a significant portion of a project’s long-term planning, development, production, and/or maintenance of narrative continuity across multiple platforms, and creation of original storylines for new platforms. Transmedia producers also create and implement interactive endeavors to unite the audience of the property with the canonical narrative and this element should be considered as valid qualification for credit as long as they are related directly to the narrative presentation of a project.
This unprecedented decision will be highlighted during the second annual Produced By Conference being held at 20th Century Fox Studios on June 4-6, 2010 where attendees will be able to participate in a session entitled “The New Paradigm: Transmedia Storytelling.” With content no longer available as a discrete single-platform experience, but an expansive and immersive one, it takes a savvy producer to assess and manage the wealth of multi-platform possibilities available to a great story, as well as finesse the final deal. Moderated by Jeff Gomez (Transmedia Producer, “Avatar,” “Pirates of the Caribbean”), will help producers and content creators understand the unique requirements and limitless possibilities of multi-platform exploitation. For more information on the 2010 Produced By Conference, and to register visit www.producedbyconference.com.
Comments
By Nikki Finke | Tuesday April 6, 2010 @ 12:59pm PDT
Here's the official announcement:
LOS ANGELES (April 6, 2010) – The Producers Guild of America Board of Directors announced today that they have approved the addition of Transmedia Producer to the Guild’s Producer Code of Credits (PCOC).
“The Guild’s decision to expand the Code of Credits to recognize the Transmedia Producer underscores the changing media landscape and the critical role of the producer within new creative mediums,” said PGA President Marshall Herskovitz. “As technology evolves, it’s no longer adequate to think of a project as simply a television show or a movie; we now understand that the audience will want to experience that content across several platforms - online, mobile, VOD, Blu-Ray, and now iPad - often with different or additional material. It’s the producer who oversees the complex and creative process that allows that to happen.”
“The New Media Council, led by Alison Savitch, has worked tirelessly to advocate consistency of credits for the producing team across new media,” added PGA Executive Director Vance Van Petten.
The Guild defines a Transmedia Narrative project or franchise of one that consists of three (or more) narrative storylines existing within the same fictional universe on any of the following platforms: Film, Television, Short Film, Broadband, Publishing, Comics, Animation, Mobile, Special Venues, DVD/Blu-ray/CD-ROM, Narrative Commercial and Marketing rollouts, and other technologies that may or may not currently exist. These narrative extensions are NOT the same as repurposing material from one platform to be cut or repurposed to different platforms.
And a Transmedia Producer credit is given to the person(s) responsible for a significant portion of a project’s long-term planning, development, production, and/or maintenance of narrative continuity across multiple platforms, and creation of original storylines for new platforms. Transmedia producers also create and implement interactive endeavors to unite the audience of the property with the canonical narrative and this element should be considered as valid qualification for credit as long as they are related directly to the narrative presentation of a project.
This unprecedented decision will be highlighted during the second annual Produced By Conference being held at 20th Century Fox Studios on June 4-6, 2010 where attendees will be able to participate in a session entitled “The New Paradigm: Transmedia Storytelling.” With content no longer available as a discrete single-platform experience, but an expansive and immersive one, it takes a savvy producer to assess and manage the wealth of multi-platform possibilities available to a great story, as well as finesse the final deal. Moderated by Jeff Gomez (Transmedia Producer, “Avatar,” “Pirates of the Caribbean”), will help producers and content creators understand the unique requirements and limitless possibilities of multi-platform exploitation. For more information on the 2010 Produced By Conference, and to register visit www.producedbyconference.com.
Comments
Exclusive: Inside YouTube’s War Room
Exclusive: Inside YouTube’s War Room
Since YouTube launched a complete redesign of its video pages last week, the Google-owned website has been flooded with a mixture of praise, criticism, and complaints. That shouldn’t surprise you — whenever a major social media website launches a redesign, users respond with volume.
YouTube (YouTube) was prepared for this, though. Every day since the redesign, core members of the team have met in what has been dubbed the “YouTube War Room,” a conference center where the team gathers to discuss and address the feedback coming from YouTube’s forums, blog post comments and even the Twitterverse.
Last Friday, I had the exclusive opportunity to sit in on one of these war room meetings. I saw all of the feedback they had collected, listened to them debate over aspects of the redesign, and provide new insight into the changes you can expect YouTube to roll out very soon.
Here’s my look inside the YouTube War Room:
The Workings of the War Room
YouTube War Room meetings work like this: feedback is gathered by members of the YouTube team and compiled into a single Google Doc, which is then placed on two giant flat-screen TVs at the end of the conference room. It’s a chaotic collection of comments, tweets, emails, and blog posts containing raw feedback from casual users, partners, and die-hard regulars.
Someone leads off the discussion by reading off a piece of feedback or circling back to one the addressed in a previous war room meeting. At this gathering, Community Marketing Manager Mia Quagliarello kicked off the conversations. Also present in the room for this particular meeting: Chris Dale (spokesperson), Shiva Rajaraman (senior product manager), Margaret Stewart (head of the user experience team), Colin Whitlow (senior strategist), and one or two others.
Now for the interesting part: the actual feedback. The discussion kicked off with an admission that there were still features that were broken or missing. When the team discussed the missing playlist randomization feature, they simply admitted that “we forgot about it” and that the feature is coming back soon. They also reviewed user complaints about not being able to see the number of comments and not having the ability to see all comments at once.
Immediately the team agreed to add back in the comment count and discussed ways to “tighten up” the flow of comments using comment separation and grouping. In the next week or two, you can expect a visual to be posted that demonstrates the direction that the team is heading in terms of YouTube comments.
Another change you should expect for YouTube comments: timestamps. Shiva noted that they were hoping to have real-time timestamps for comments — this means each comment would have a timestamp of “6 seconds ago” or “1 day ago” instead of a specific date.
The Ratings
The discussion around the video rating system was one of the most interesting parts of the meeting. The team spent a significant portion of their time addressing user concerns surrounding the removal of the 5 star rating system and the implementation of the thumbs-up and thumbs-down system. A common complaint was that people missed seeing the total ratings numbers, which provided users context about the video. For example, by seeing how many people rated a video, users could quickly tell how popular a video was or whether it was simply a rickroll in disguise. Some even said that they “don’t trust ratings anymore.”
Addressing those issues became a focus of the war room meeting; while the team felt strongly that the thumbs-up/thumbs-down rating system was the right move, they also agreed that they needed to spend some time running experiments to determine where and how to display ratings. One of the new proposals that they floated around was displaying a “percentage liked” stat right when you land on the video page. Thus, you would know that 85% of people liked this video without having to open the views or subscription box at all.
Communicating With the Userbase
YouTube will be writing several blog posts addressing user feedback, with at least one to come this week. For example, the war room team decided to draft a blog post about the principles behind the visual design of the new layout and how the decision to implement minimalist pages was partly driven by a desire to keep the focus on the video content. The post was drafted in response to feedback that the page had too much white space and needed more color.
It seems as if they got a lot of things right in this redesign, though, and the initial data has been favorable to YouTube. Subscriptions shot up due to the less cluttered header and the more prominent placement of the subscription box. Said Shiva: “Any scenario where subscriptions drop is unacceptable.”
However, the team stressed that it was too early to draw any conclusions; they need to gather more data on things such as uploads, which tend to spike over the weekends. Chris noted that people have specific expectations for performance right off the bat, but the truth is that it will take people time to learn the new interface, which will change usage and usability patterns.
The Redesign Has Just Begun
Shiva, Mia, Margaret and the rest of the team covered a lot of ground in the hour-long meeting. They addressed new feature requests (being able to pre-buffer videos you’re most likely to watch), features that were removed (a Blogger (blogger)-only option for quickly adding videos to a blog, which had super-low usage), and interface changes (the video uploader’s avatar isn’t displayed on the video page anymore — this is something that they’ll address with a horizontal badge page (that partners already have access to)).
It’s clear that YouTube is listening to feedback and is taking it seriously, even if the company isn’t going to implement every piece of advice it receives from its users. However, you can expect YouTube to roll out a lot of feature updates and blog posts surrounding comments, interface display, and ratings over the next few weeks.
What my trip to the YouTube War Room clearly demonstrated was that the video page redesign isn’t done — it’s only just begun.
Since YouTube launched a complete redesign of its video pages last week, the Google-owned website has been flooded with a mixture of praise, criticism, and complaints. That shouldn’t surprise you — whenever a major social media website launches a redesign, users respond with volume.
YouTube (YouTube) was prepared for this, though. Every day since the redesign, core members of the team have met in what has been dubbed the “YouTube War Room,” a conference center where the team gathers to discuss and address the feedback coming from YouTube’s forums, blog post comments and even the Twitterverse.
Last Friday, I had the exclusive opportunity to sit in on one of these war room meetings. I saw all of the feedback they had collected, listened to them debate over aspects of the redesign, and provide new insight into the changes you can expect YouTube to roll out very soon.
Here’s my look inside the YouTube War Room:
The Workings of the War Room
YouTube War Room meetings work like this: feedback is gathered by members of the YouTube team and compiled into a single Google Doc, which is then placed on two giant flat-screen TVs at the end of the conference room. It’s a chaotic collection of comments, tweets, emails, and blog posts containing raw feedback from casual users, partners, and die-hard regulars.
Someone leads off the discussion by reading off a piece of feedback or circling back to one the addressed in a previous war room meeting. At this gathering, Community Marketing Manager Mia Quagliarello kicked off the conversations. Also present in the room for this particular meeting: Chris Dale (spokesperson), Shiva Rajaraman (senior product manager), Margaret Stewart (head of the user experience team), Colin Whitlow (senior strategist), and one or two others.
Now for the interesting part: the actual feedback. The discussion kicked off with an admission that there were still features that were broken or missing. When the team discussed the missing playlist randomization feature, they simply admitted that “we forgot about it” and that the feature is coming back soon. They also reviewed user complaints about not being able to see the number of comments and not having the ability to see all comments at once.
Immediately the team agreed to add back in the comment count and discussed ways to “tighten up” the flow of comments using comment separation and grouping. In the next week or two, you can expect a visual to be posted that demonstrates the direction that the team is heading in terms of YouTube comments.
Another change you should expect for YouTube comments: timestamps. Shiva noted that they were hoping to have real-time timestamps for comments — this means each comment would have a timestamp of “6 seconds ago” or “1 day ago” instead of a specific date.
The Ratings
The discussion around the video rating system was one of the most interesting parts of the meeting. The team spent a significant portion of their time addressing user concerns surrounding the removal of the 5 star rating system and the implementation of the thumbs-up and thumbs-down system. A common complaint was that people missed seeing the total ratings numbers, which provided users context about the video. For example, by seeing how many people rated a video, users could quickly tell how popular a video was or whether it was simply a rickroll in disguise. Some even said that they “don’t trust ratings anymore.”
Addressing those issues became a focus of the war room meeting; while the team felt strongly that the thumbs-up/thumbs-down rating system was the right move, they also agreed that they needed to spend some time running experiments to determine where and how to display ratings. One of the new proposals that they floated around was displaying a “percentage liked” stat right when you land on the video page. Thus, you would know that 85% of people liked this video without having to open the views or subscription box at all.
Communicating With the Userbase
YouTube will be writing several blog posts addressing user feedback, with at least one to come this week. For example, the war room team decided to draft a blog post about the principles behind the visual design of the new layout and how the decision to implement minimalist pages was partly driven by a desire to keep the focus on the video content. The post was drafted in response to feedback that the page had too much white space and needed more color.
It seems as if they got a lot of things right in this redesign, though, and the initial data has been favorable to YouTube. Subscriptions shot up due to the less cluttered header and the more prominent placement of the subscription box. Said Shiva: “Any scenario where subscriptions drop is unacceptable.”
However, the team stressed that it was too early to draw any conclusions; they need to gather more data on things such as uploads, which tend to spike over the weekends. Chris noted that people have specific expectations for performance right off the bat, but the truth is that it will take people time to learn the new interface, which will change usage and usability patterns.
The Redesign Has Just Begun
Shiva, Mia, Margaret and the rest of the team covered a lot of ground in the hour-long meeting. They addressed new feature requests (being able to pre-buffer videos you’re most likely to watch), features that were removed (a Blogger (blogger)-only option for quickly adding videos to a blog, which had super-low usage), and interface changes (the video uploader’s avatar isn’t displayed on the video page anymore — this is something that they’ll address with a horizontal badge page (that partners already have access to)).
It’s clear that YouTube is listening to feedback and is taking it seriously, even if the company isn’t going to implement every piece of advice it receives from its users. However, you can expect YouTube to roll out a lot of feature updates and blog posts surrounding comments, interface display, and ratings over the next few weeks.
What my trip to the YouTube War Room clearly demonstrated was that the video page redesign isn’t done — it’s only just begun.
U.S. court rules against FCC on Net neutrality
WASHINGTON - A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations and U.S. broadband expansion plans into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission.
The case centers on Comcast's actions in 2007 when it interfered with an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which allows users to swap big files such as movies over the Internet. But public interest groups stressed that the ramifications of Tuesday's ruling are much broader. That's because it undercuts the FCC's ability to prevent broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers for many kinds of online services, potentially including Internet phone programs and software that runs in a Web browser.
"Today's court decision invalidated the prior commission's approach to preserving an open Internet," the agency's statement said. "But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.
The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to adopt official net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, argues such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some kinds of online content and services over others.
The case centers on Comcast's actions in 2007 when it interfered with an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which allows users to swap big files such as movies over the Internet. But public interest groups stressed that the ramifications of Tuesday's ruling are much broader. That's because it undercuts the FCC's ability to prevent broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers for many kinds of online services, potentially including Internet phone programs and software that runs in a Web browser.
"Today's appeals court decision means there are no protections in the law for consumers' broadband services," Gigi Sohn, co-founder of Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "Companies selling Internet access are free to play favorites with content on their networks, to throttle certain applications or simply to block others."
The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.
In a statement, the FCC said it remains "firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans" and "will rest these policies ... on a solid legal foundation."
Comcast welcomed the decision, saying "our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation."
At the heart of the court case is Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning it from blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net neutrality principles adopted in 2005.
But Comcast argued that the FCC order was illegal because the agency was seeking to enforce mere policy principles, which don't have the force of regulations or law. That's one reason that Genachowski is now trying to formalize those rules.
The cable company had also argued the FCC lacks authority to mandate net neutrality because it had deregulated broadband under the Bush administration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.
The FCC now defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. That means it is not subject to the obligations traditional telecommunications services have to share their networks with competitors and treat all traffic equally. But the FCC maintains that existing law gives it authority to set rules for information services, including net neutrality rules.
Tuesday's court decision rejected that reasoning, concluding that Congress has not given the FCC "untrammeled freedom" to regulate without explicit legal authority.
With so much at stake, the FCC now has several options. It could ask Congress to give it explicit authority to regulate broadband. Or it could appeal Tuesday's decision.
But both of those steps could take too long because the agency "has too many important things they have to do right away," said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press. Free Press was among the groups that alerted the FCC to Comcast's behavior after The Associated Press ran tests and reported that the cable company was interfering with attempts by some subscribers to share files online.
The more likely scenario, Scott believes, is that the agency will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service. That, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies.
"Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order," Scott said. "And they sliced right through the FCC's arm and plunged the ax into their own back."
The battle over the FCC's legal jurisdiction comes amid a larger policy dispute over the merits of net neutrality. Backed by Internet companies such as Google Inc. and the online calling service Skype, the FCC says rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from prioritizing some traffic or degrading or services that compete with their core businesses. Indeed, BitTorrent can be used to transfer large files such as online video, which could threaten Comcast's cable TV business.
But broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. argue that after spending billions of dollars on their networks, they should be able to manage their systems to offer premium services and prevent high-bandwidth applications such as BitTorrent from hogging capacity.
Click for related content
For its part, the FCC offered no details on its next step, but stressed that it remains committed to the principle of net neutrality.
"Today's court decision invalidated the prior commission's approach to preserving an open Internet," the agency's statement said. "But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)