[ ACTOR P.O.V III ] Taking risks and exploring

It's on yahoo today, in case you didn't notice (click here). Needless to say that this is a production full of lavish sets, costumes and amazing talent.

But why is this really exciting? Because it screams exploration, it shows artistic risks and melding and mixes brought together by an artist from bollywood which we wouldn't expect. This brings me back to my previous post about our upcoming production of Sultana Daku (only 1 day left... woo hoo) I had mentioned that us Indians do not focus on preservation, we are busy bragging about our culture. I would say that Padmavati proves that there are individuals who can change that, who have the resources, artistic ability and power to change that.
(tried finding a better image, but oh well.. and yes I know! the elephant image is all over the web)

Padmavati is heavily influenced by the music of India, more so than any of Roussel’s works. Where he doesn’t use actual Hindu melodies, he uses Hindu scales extensively; these scales use different melodic intervals than in the West. Notice the “oriental” effect of these scales in the enchantingly ethereal song of the brahmin, describing Padmavati’s beauty

Padmavati marked an abrupt change of Roussel’s style, away from typically French manners and civility and toward classical forms, rhythmic power, powerful emotions, and even occasionally, a very un-Gallic ferocity.
(click to listen). (source: click here)

We have substance in our art forms that must not be lost, Roussel saw it, he captured it and I'm glad to say that an Indian, Sanjay Leela Bhansali brought it to stage. This will show and hopefully cause our talent to take risks and explore, in this manner. Here we see an indian artist showing indian art on a western stage, challenging western audiences to another dimension of art.

We have conformed to adapt our art to the west, we continously struggle to fit in that group, which is also a risk but I think there needs to be a well-formed approach to that. Here with Padmavati we are bringing forth our story, I'm hoping we will see many other stories, that otherwise seem to fade away, from India come to the center stage in the west.

I hope I get to see it, it's gonna take some hoping because looks like it will only be traveling to Italy, Brazil and India after the run in Paris. How can they miss San Francisco... come on people!!!!!

Oh.. the phonetics..

Is apple adopting monopolistic practices?

Ever since Apple made the SDK announcement for the iPhone app development, I've been pretty excited, for it presents enormous opportunities for the developers to develop some ground breaking apps; mainly because of the embedded accelerometer. I was so excited that I downloaded the SDK the first day it was made available, alas I can install it on a mac only. I am now waiting to learn Objective C 2.0 (suffice to say, a language that I did not like from early days of my programming career), so that gives an idea of how much I had been looking forward to the SDK.

But what I have not been happy about was revenue sharing with apple. The way the whole structure is setup, first off you need to sign up for apple's developer program for which you've to pay $99 (for standard) to $299 (for enterprise). $99 could be or could not be a big deal, depending on your financial situations. But that's just the first step. If you don't want to sign up for the developer program, you can only test your applications on the iPhone simulator and not the actual handset. So once you develop your application, it goes through a certification process and gets put on itunes store. Fine enough! But then is the most interesting part: Apple wants to take away 30% of the revenues you generate from selling your application on itunes. And my question is WHY?

1. By developing new applications that are in demand, developers are increasing iPhone sales in the market (Much more profitable for Apple since each iPhone is sold twice it's production cost). iPhone is a platform and platform doesn't make a device popular with consumer but only developers. Applications make the device popular with the consumer.
2. All applications developed at a production cost. Developers have a certain profit goal in mind as well. But since they now have to give 30% to Apple, some of that revenue sharing is going to get transferred to the consumer, making the applications marginally more expensive than they should be.
3. A developer has an option to develop a "free" app. In which case, obviously, apple doesn't get 30% share. But then what does the developer (mostly independent, high school, college kids) who develop iPhone application for fun? Why should they pay $99 to apple? Why should they face the loss of $99 when they are just giving away their hard work, creativity for free?
4. On the contrary, distributing applications for mac's is free. Why? Perhaps because Apple wants to gain more market share in that area. After several decades, they have just been able to capture a miniscule sixteen percent of the market share. But only in eight months iPhone already has around 25% market share. Apple is definitely taking advantage of their position in the market. Think of a world where you would have to share revenues with Microsoft for distributing applications for windows.
5. Let's say I just want to write an app for MYSELF ONLY!! Okay, I finished the app but I can't install it on my iPhone unless I pay 99$ to apple because I can only test it in simulator without paying 99$.


I see the fees for the developer program and the fact that every application has to go through the certification process and then through the iTunes store on 30% revenue sharing basis as a barrier to entry and hence I think Apple is adopting monopolistic behavior with the iPhone. What say you?

*UPDATE* : A friend sent me this news earlier this morning:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200803132020DOWJONESDJONLINE001129_FORTUNE5.htm


I'm glad :)