Marvel Unlimited & digital media ownership: some thoughts

I’ve been buying comics weekly since I’ve had an allowance – about 30 years or so. 98% of them are Marvel comics – and in particular the X-men and the “street heroes” (Daredevil, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, Spiderman). About 4 years ago, I more or less stopped buying physical comics and switched to buying Digital Comics – this coincided, not at all incidentally, with my buying my first retina iPad. But I was still spending a fair amount of money each week on comics, and, while physical comics come with definite ownership, the built-in DRM of the Comics apps (Marvel, Image, Comixology) meant that I didn’t really feel like I was buying comics any more so much as I was  licensing them. I have a similar experience with other digital media.

And because I wasn’t really buying them anymore…the thrill, the urgency was gone. When I stopped buying physical music, I stopped caring so much about “owning” the music. And so I got an Rdio subscription – which suits me fine. More or less unlimited music, great discovery tools, for a small monthly fee. I kind of feel like I’m renting the world’s greatest music library.

When I stopped buying physical movies, I likewise stopped caring. I still will buy some movies on iTunes, but you know what? 90% of the time I’m perfectly content to wait for the movie to show up on Netflix: again – I’m happy to pay to rent access to a large library.

Books…I haven’t found my Netflix for books, mostly because the digital reading experience for me is much more intimately tied to the device I consume it on. I read only Amazon-purchased books when I had a kindle. Now I have a Kobo (almost entirely because of, at least publicly, how poorly Amazon seems to treat Authors/Publishers), and I buy Kobo books. Also: I *really* like the Kobo hardware. Much more than either Kindle I owned prior. If there was an on-device “Netflix for books”, I’d likely stop buying & immediately sign up for that. But I don’t like reading books on my tablets, so the existing services might as well not exist for me.

So we come back to Comics. About 2 months ago, I decided I no longer needed to be buying digital comics weekly. The pull of some 18,000 back issues available for rent in the Marvel Unlimited app was such a great draw. And so I downloaded it, and it’s been…ok. On to the original point of this, here’s some good and bad things on the Marvel Unlimited app:

  • Good: The experience of reading an individual issue. The pages/images are crisp, and really reward a high DPI screen. I can zoom in to see detail I often couldn’t with physical media. It’s just like the purchased digital issues.
  • Fantastic: Content. Seriously. If you’re a fan of Marvel comics, there’s almost no excuse to not have this app just to get access to all that content.
  • Meh: How the app handles rotation. Some pages/panels are better landscape, some portrait. As you rotate back and forth, it sometimes gets lost and you end up zoomed, or more oddly, back a page. Likewise, it sometimes has issues loading in the issue. Consistently, for me, every 3rd issue in a session, I need to exit, restart the download, before I can finish the issue
  • Good: consuming “official” events. You can just keep reading the next issues.
  • Missed Opportunity: Search. The Marvel Wiki is an amazing resource for discovery. It seems terrible that I can’t leverage that knowledge base, directly in the app, for discovery.
  • Bad: Inter-issue linking. If a comic says “as seen in [title]” in one of those little editor notes, the meta-data for that issue should always link me to that.  This, to me, is an almost unconscionable omission in this app. It’s a rabbit-hole app, and should take every opportunity to send me further down the rabbit hole. Same goes for Cross overs. If an X-Factor story links to a She-Hulk issue, when I finish that X-factor issue, show me the She-Hulk title! Cross overs are nearly impossible to read in the Marvel Unlimited App.
  • Bad: No wish-list. Seriously. Even if it was limited to, say, a dozen titles. let me wishlist items to read later. I can’t keep 18K comics in my head, but I might come across a title while browsing that I want to read later, but not right now. Why can’t I store that desire somewhere? Again. This is a rabbit-hole app. So help go further down that hole.
  • Potential: Sharing/social reviews. I’ve got friends who’re using this app. But I have no way to learn what they’re reading, what they liked, etc. Sharing what comics I’m reading has always been part of my comic culture. So why I can’t I share my reading list with my friends? Or publish quick reviews of issues/titles/storylines to Social Media? Seems a really easy missed marketing opportunity for Marvel

So what’s my overall? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Marvel Unlimited is the worst of all Comic Reading apps – except for all the others. The content is so great that it absolutely trumps the varied experience of consuming the content. But, there’s so much opportunity to grow this app into something amazing, that I’m actually a little sad how poorly executed it currently is.

Ed Note: Marvel – I’d love to help make this app better. Want to hire me?

2nd Ed Note: The cover image has very little to do with the post. But I like coffee and comics. They go well together.

Additive vs Subtractive rights

I’ve been thinking a lot about individual rights and progressive policies lately. The rise of the Government-as-snooping-boogeyman with all the Snowden NSA-related leaks, individual or collective hackers penetrating every software services there is, my own privacy, our collective security, my own happiness, our collective moral strata. I’m going to think out loud here: these aren’t fully-formed thoughts, there’s likely massive holes in logic, and likely others far smarter have written far deeper about any piece. But I wanted to invite conversation.

In general, I’ve come down to this idea: when making policy, it is progressive to put the individual before the group when creating an additive right. Conversely, it is progressive to put the group before the individual when creating a subtractive right. What do I mean by these? let’s dig:

Additive Right

In my mind, this creating a new “allowance” in policy, morality or law, that was not previously there. The prime example in my mind is marriage rights. Ages ago, inter-racial marriage was not allowed. It was a progressive change to add that right for all of society: that is, it was better for the whole to allow this than to listen to the individual right to disagree with this. Gay marriage follows the same rules. Allowing gay marriage will disappoint individuals who disagree with this rule, but I’d argue it is a greater good for the group to allow this: more people will be made happy, without directly removing anything from any one person. In my mind, most moral judgements that change tend to be additive rights: Marriage rights, drug legalization, sex-work laws — they’re more likely to reflect growing trends and changes in moral thought, and thus while yes — cause consternation for those who do not yet agree with these changes to moral code — do no particular harm either.

Subtractive Right

These are policies and laws that remove or diminish rights of people. Most policing laws would be subtractive: you can not do X. Much regulation and oversight is likewise (Gun control laws, environmental regulation). Security/spy lays are similarly subtractive because they diminish privacy. These laws generally cause me the most internal anguish — for instance: I intensely value privacy and the (currently default) assumption that I have a right to private communications & thought. On the flip-side, I also agree that there should be regulation of “dangerous” things: Guns, Industrial development, vehicular safety, finance. I recognize that when I agree that guns should be regulated, I give up some privacy & anonymity. When industry is regulated, the collective wins safety, but the individual loses flexibility and possibly profit. Conversely though, and this is where I start to twist into moral-argument pretzels: there’s Ben Franklin’s famous axiom:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

In general, I believe that hacking/snooping is contemporary warfare. I believe information warfare reduces state power and empowers “rogue” actors. I believe it is the right of the government to defend not just itself, but its citizens, both human and corporate, from this. Conversely, I don’t believe that the government should be able to listen to everything all the time in an attempt to do this. But where the tipping point is? I don’t know. Pervsasive snooping on citizenry is definitely a subtractive policy: it subtracts liberty & privacy. Because we’re, as a whole, likely better off by abrogating the privacy of a few individuals by a policy like this, it could be seen as a progressive policy. But — state-monitoring has long been the tool of the autocratic Right. Socialist governments regulate, Autocratic governments dictate, right? But here’s what’s worrying me about this:

  1. I keep falling into this philosophical quagmire wherein I find myself agreeing with some laws and not others, without a consistent framework of evaluation: it comes down to “I like that” and “I don’t like that”, which is a terrible means of evaluation.
  2. Democratic fundamentals: debate, compromise, free-expression seem to be increasingly incapable of keeping up with a technocratic society, in which information is free (in terms of cost), but simultaneously hugely expensive (in terms of privacy). I’d always believed more information would be better for debate — but it appears to be the opposite, because when information costs nothing to have, the channels of distribution become increasingly valuable and thus susceptible to control.
  3. As a developer, I’m complicit in the rise of this massively overwhelming information store that threatens & offers progress. I’m very conflicted: Massively distributed communication tools (the web, social media)are amazing for progressive ideals: yet these very tools are inherently compromised by the security/monitoring apparatus that we dislike. Here I am writing words, for free, on a site owned by a foreign corporation whose corporate policies & submission to their government’s laws I have no influence over. But even writing on my own site: It’s still on a server owned by someone else — I just rent space. Even in my own home, it would be connected via servers owned by a company — but I’m not sure is that’s better or worse than being a government pipe?

Wow. I sort of digressed there. I don’t know how to continue this. More thought, more books, more time?

%d bloggers like this: