On The Wire: Melodrama and Expecting Better

I originally came across this link from the Los Angeles Review of Books through the MediaREDEF daily email newsletter. Since reading the review and the thematic ideas presented in On The Wire by Linda Williams, I've been consumed with thoughts about how this notion of melodrama fits with a broader view of things. Quoting from the review,

Melodrama, on the other hand, is, again, a liberal, democratic mode, in which suffering is presented as unnecessary if only the authorities, and indeed the viewers, would commit to change.

We started watching The Wire several weeks ago, not long after Amazon Prime began offering HBO series on their unlimited viewing options. As you're probably aware, it's one of those shows that critics always rave about. The critical reviews are so passionate, it sometimes leaves you feeling like you should probably avoid the show just on principle -- at least, that's sort of where we were with it. More like, not something we were going to seek out. But when it fell in our lap and we opened up to watching it, we've become absorbed.

But that original sense of skepticism runs deep, and it often leave me with a desire to avoid critics ranting about The Wire. So the link to this review wasn't one of the first things that I clicked from that email.

“melodrama always offers the contrast between how things are and how they could be, or should be.”
This isn't simply a theme in The Wire, it's a design theme, a Silicon Valley theme.

The Wire does not aristocratically call for an acceptance of the war on drugs or racism as inevitabilities to which its characters must resign themselves. Rather, it demands moral commitment and social transformation even as it demonstrates the power and intractability of institutional barriers to change.

This is the grand struggle, envisioning a better world, then striving to make that world a reality. This is also the dream of work life in Silicon Valley -- that we don't have to accept the status quo, that we don't have to absorbed by the machine and made a part of a mindless bureaucratic structure -- we expect better.

We expect better. We expect better from the people around us. We expect better from the people and the businesses that we work with. We expect better for the world. 

Lessons from Streaming TV

Since moving from Mountain View last year, I have joined the cut-the-cord crowd. It wasn't just that I couldn't see giving Comcast $100 a month for hundreds of channels of crappy content. The worst part of having access to all of that crappy content is that it's easy to get sucked into watching it.

While I've maintained a relationship with Comcast for Internet, I have no TV. No TV as is, not just no cable TV box, but no TV. Since that time, most of my video experiences have been things that I found online or streamed through online services. If found a number of take-aways from the experience, so I thought I would share a few of them.

Netflix Streaming is Not Equal to Their Traditional Media Business
Netflix may offer one of the best streaming media experiences, but their service rides on an illusion that their library of streaming content is equivalent to their DVD media library. For a business that epitomized the Long Tail, Netflix vast library of DVDs available for rent was unparalleled. From new releases to virtually anything in the vault, if it is on DVD, Netflix rents it. But they don't necessarily stream it.

The library of what content is available for streaming is governed by different licensing rules. As a result, the content oligarchs still seem to be of the mind that if they just limit the availability of certain content -- say The Good Wife Season 5, that you'll run out and buy a DVD because unlimited free streaming is unavailable. And while all of the new release movies come out on DVD or Blue Ray -- even with the 'negotiated' delay between sales and rental -- you may never see some of them as a subscription streaming offering. And yes, you can 'rent' a streamed version of the movie from iTunes or Amazon, but don't expect all of the content that you want to watch to appear in the "all you can eat" streaming packages.

My Number One Complaint Against Amazon Prime
One of the things that I liked the most about when I had a Netflix subscription was that you could actually stream content over the cellular network to your phone. This meant that I could watch streaming content during lunch or if I found myself eating alone. While the phone isn't an ideal platform for watching TV and movies, sometimes it was better than no dining companion. 

Amazon Prime's streaming client seems similar to Netflix, but they've built a hard block against using the app on the cellular network. While that won't cause you any issues at home, it makes it unusable for my primary phone-based streaming video use case. As a result, I went for seven or eight months without watching any Amazon Prime streaming content.

Content Differences Between Netflix and Amazon Prime
As you would probably imagine, there is a lot of content available that overlaps across the two services. The same movies, the same TV shows. But there are differences. Netflix seems to have a larger library of streaming content available, so you might be more likely to find something there than on Amazon. At the same time, Amazon recently obtained an exclusive license to stream many HBO series. This means access to old seasons of True Blood, The Wire, Band of Brothers, the Sopranos, and more.

iTunes Outdated Content Licensing Approach
There is no unlimited video content streaming available in iTunes. Instead, when it comes to video content, iTunes operates more like Blockbuster than Netflix -- happy to rent or sell content on a per piece basis. While that matches the rest of the market for new release content, it leaves a gaping hole when it comes to the rest of the content library. This means that, even though we use Apple devices like the iPhone, iPad, Macbook and Apple TV, we seldom watch video using iTunes. It's kind of funny when you think about it.

In fact, over the past couple of years, the only time that Apple got money from me for streaming video content was when I bought seasons of Misfits and, even then, it was because the DVDs were unavailable here in the states. And then, as the last season of Misfits was airing, Apple applied geographic restrictions to the show so that it was only available in the UK version of iTunes. No content for me, no money for them. 

Thoughts on why Apple's current ad campaign sucks

If you've watched much TV lately, you've probably seen this Apple ad.

Sitting around this weekend, it occurred to me what I really don't like about this campaign. In one word, melancholy.

From the quiet, sad little keyboard track to the shots of people having fun at a distance, the whole ad seems more like an excerpt of a depressed video diary. It's like the ad is saying, "I am a sad, disconnected viewer, looking into a world that I can't touch, that I can't participate in. The only sound I hear is the melancholy sound of my own world."

It's like, instead of selling Apple products, their goal was a PSA suggesting that you give up this connected world and trade it in for Prozac.

XBox One - Celebrating Microsoft's Design Arrogance

As the news surrounding the XBox One comes pouring out of E3, the details of features and implementation on the platform are seeing some serious PR backlash and groundswell dissatisfaction among their existing XBox customer-base. From stomping on the used game market to the must-connect-and-phone-home once-per-day or the always on Kinect monitoring the room, Microsoft has implemented a lot of features that seem more closely aligned to the interests of Microsoft than those of their customers.

It's not uncommon for products to suffer a misstep or two at launch. For as much time and effort as is put into development, it's still difficult to interpret applied uses. And the are always bugs. But with the XBox One platform, it's difficult to envision a product that has done more to take aim at their existing market and customer base, line up their most sensitive parts, and fire not once, but multiple times. Full disclosure: the XBox game that I'm currently playing is a first person shooter.

Seriously though. Consider some of the design changes that have been implemented on the XBox One platform:

• While the XBox360 always tries to connect to XBox live when it's turned on and there is a network available, it will function without an Internet connection. Now the platform is being changed so that it won't work without phoning home? What problem does this solve for the user?
• While the XBox360 can operate without the Kinect and a user has the option to connect the Kinect or opt out, the XBox One will not operate without the Kinect, and the Kinect is always on. Was it really necessary to eliminate this option with the system? What problem does this solve for the user?
• While killing physical game media may simplify Microsoft's distribution network and reduce costs, killing the used game market essentially takes aim at long tail game market, gives it the finger, then fires both barrels. Again, what problem does this solve for the user? 

All in all, it sort of exemplifies that traditional Microsoft approach.

1. Start with 'what would be best for Microsoft'. 
2. Make it the standard on all of our stuff so that it only works this way, our way.
3. Tell everybody how awesome it is and how they are fools if they don't recognize the Microsoft genius.

Remember all of the various iterations of IE that worked their own way? And Silverlight? Or Microsoft's Java?

In that way, you kind of feel sorry for the businesses in the used game market. Like Microsoft's notebook and tablet partners with Surface, they are the latest ecosystem to get oops-ed upside their heads. Classic.

Opportunity Lost
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about XBox One is that it really was an anticipated platform. Microsoft really does have a strong foothold in the living room with the XBox360 console. XBox One could have been a contender. If they had simply made it a consumer friendly, not always-on-nanny-cam that worked with any media, they might not have alienated a huge chunk of their core.

What's more, most hardcore gamers will tell you that, while Kinect can be an amusing accessory, it doesn't really add to or improve their experience for the games that they play the most. It's more of a Wii-wannabe that's makes the platform more accessible for families -- anything but a "Must Have". In that way, must have, always on kind of spits in the eye of some of current platform's most passionate evangelists.

Some of these problematic features could be easily corrected, simply by making them optional. Imagine if they had kept Kinect as an accessory but did a "look what you can do with this" presentation. My guess is that, given the option and enough benefits from having always-on enabled, you would build a large base of users who ran that configuration.

In conclusion, here's a little thought for take-away. With many approaches to technology, there are trade-offs. But a lot of idea acceptance comes in the way something is framed. During some of their presentation materials, Microsoft reps talked about smart phones and always on connectivity. In that way, it's easy to think about the privacy that we give-up by opening geo-location features on our smart phones. But in asking people to adopt this, do we say:

• Imagine the power of being able to know exactly where you are?
• Then imagine if, when you are somewhere you don't know, the information was appropriate for that place -- like finding a nearby restaurant? If you open your geo-location information to Yelp, then they can help you when you're someplace you don't know.

Or do we say:

• Imagine if we knew where you were all the time? 

That is a truly frightening concept.

Misfits, Mutant Powers and Brilliant Story Telling

If there ever was a golden age for broadcast television, that day has long passed. For all of the channels of content available, most of it is virtually unwatchable. Beyond the endless reality shows and voyeuristic adventures in train wreck family soap operas, the crafted story shows invariably combine recycled ideas with unimaginative vision and predictable story exposition.

But it's not like that everywhere. Consider some of the television shows that we get as spill-overs from the UK, shows that were so good that the US entertainment industry takes them, rehashes them, and serves them back as pabulum. The Office, Being Human, and Sherlock are three perfect examples. You could probably lump movies like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo into that category too.

Misfits probably falls into a different category. While the show is awesome, it's hard to imagine it being rehashed for television here in the States. Beyond the language and the adult themes, there's a level of Britishness that seems essential to the feel of the show.

One aspect of the show that also seems very British is the killing off of main characters and cycling through new sets of actors in the show. The show is currently airing season four and the cast looks quite different from season one. For audiences that grow attached to actors, characters and story-arcs, this can be challenging.

Personally, I feel like season four is struggling, hampered in ways that also left season three a bit weak, and not simply because some of the cast has changed. For me, it's more about some underlying aspects of the story. In season one, we have our cast imbued with mutant powers. While this is pretty common story line, these powers are part of what really carries the story.

• The heroes are essentially young delinquents, improbable heroes
• The powers are not classic super-powers, instead they tend to be odd, sometimes bordering on useless
• The powers tend to be manifestations of personal issues or dreams, from the probation worker with anger issues to the old woman who dreams of reliving her younger days. Part of the magic of this is that element of character reflection and development -- what does this power say about the underlying issues that the character has, and how does power over that effect their behavior.

Season one is all about the characters discovering their powers and coming to terms with them. It's the classic story of coming to terms with new found power, but with a wonderful overlay of comedy and realism. Season two continues along those lines, with characters and personalities evolving, but with an increasingly public presence to the aspect of powers. By the end of season two, they essentially ran the series through a reboot, resetting some of the characters and their powers.

Fundamentally, this aspect of changing powers disrupts what I think is an important aspect of the story. Where once you had a potentially interesting window into the underlying character, the mutant power as a story-telling vehicle becomes more of an accessory with potential for good and bad. In season three, the Misfits team was able to use the accessory fairly effectively, juxtaposing powers in some hilarious ways -- I can't recall any story that explored the downside of being a brilliant rocket scientist in such a unique way. And yet, since aspects of these powers were essentially arbitrarily assigned, there's a disconnect.

With season four, powers have become an almost throw-away element in the show. Recognition of powers and exposure to them seems like it's become commonplace, lacking surprise. And since it's treated that way, it seems like it's lost that powerful thematic character exposition element. What does weak telekinesis say about a character?

One of the good and bad aspects of Misfits is that the series is short by US standards. The first season is only six episodes, seven in the second, and eight in the third. This probably helps keep them from beating an idea beating an idea to death just to support a story arc, and when it's good, we always feel like we could have used more episodes. But short may not save them from hitting the cliche wall. We're up to episode seven in season four, so by historical standards we're closing in on the end of the runway. Me, I'm still waiting and hoping for this season to really take off. 

Epilogue
I started writing this post while I was still watching the season. Since that time, we reached episode eight for season four, and that appears to be the end of season four. In that way, season four was a bit of a letdown. I expected more. I don't know what the future holds for this series, but I'm worried that we may have already jumped the shark. All that being said, it's a great show and I recommend it highly.