iTunes users with iPods, iPads and Mac’s will LOVE iCloud but the true winners will be the music labels. It’s rumored that Apple will have to spend $150 million to the major record labels to allow their libraries to join the cumulus clutter. What did the label’s have to do to earn that money? Nothing, how American.

Our recent acquisition of an iPad 2 had me worried that we were going to pass the limit of authorized devices allowed to playing the music I bought. From what I’ve read there isn’t such a limit anymore. But it got me thinking… my ancient iPod, the one I got 4 years ago, isn’t used much anymore. In fact, the computer doesn’t particularly recognize the music on it and doesn’t “sync” anymore. RIP to my $200 music playing machine. But if I could duplicate devices in my own household, without connecting to my account I wonder if the teenage world is doing that exponentially.

iCloud adds another layer of protection against anonymous music sharing. It virtually guarantees that any song purchased can only be used by the account that bought it. Score for the music labels. I’ve heard so many sympathy stories about the music industry tanking and want to ram my car into a brick wall each time. Was it that long ago that I could record music directly from the radio onto my cassette tape? I actually had a TOTALLY sophisticated boombox that had 2 decks, allowing me to quickly copy anything my heart desired. Can you imagine purchasing a CD and not being able to share it with your friends?

During a time when copying and sharing music was the norm, the labels seemed to figure out how to make record profits. Now that we’re required to purchase more copies of the same song they seem to be having a hard time. Cry me a river, you are getting paid $150mm to do absolutely nothing.

There is something you can do, actually. Sign up for Amazon.com or Google’s music services. They are free and both companies refuse to pay the music industry so much money to do nothing. I love the concept of iCloud but get grey hairs from the gluttonous music industry.

Amazon · Apple · Cassette · CD · google · iCloud · iPad · iPod · iTunes · Labels · Mac · Music

As websites began to explode into popularity most people HAD to have one. They didn’t know why or what they would do with it but for heaven-sakes they needed an Internet presence. As the creation process began everyone’s first instinct was to make it cool by adding lots of pages, interesting by adding animation and important by adding links to other websites that were… well, important.

Fast forward to 2010 and all those assumptions need to be questioned. Lots of my clients still feel that this is the appropriate way to start. Unfortunately, all these things typically miss the point of their website. This tool can be so many things and it’s important to mold it to your company, not the other way around.

Even large companies often make the mistake of adding too much information. This makes it difficult to navigate, confusing and often impossible to actually find what you are looking for. Keep things simple, only add the content that is necessary to meet visitor expectations.

Animations and *gulp* Flash splash pages are yesterdays-yesterday. I specialize in Flash intro’s so it’s very difficult to see my niche get left behind. Before you scrunch your nose consider this, the very way people will interact with the Internet is evolving. The iPhone and iPad will probably be remembered as significant markers in the evolution of Web. Web 2.0 will now be Web Mobile. Apple has taken a strict stance against Flash and specifically call it out in their Terms & Conditions to prohibit it on their products. As the market share grows for these mobile surfing devices companies are being forced to remove all Flash.

That’s not the point though, the animations aren’t cool any more. Any distraction for visitors that prevents them from getting what they want should be thrown out. Of course, if those distractions generate revenue they get a different set of standards.

A common misconception about links to other sites is that it makes you look important. It’s the exact opposite actually, making the destination sites seem more important. Anyone even sort of familiar with Search Engine Optimization practices can attest that INCOMING links from popular sites is what makes you look important. Makes sense right? I can link this article to the New York Times but that doesn’t make me a hot shot. Now, if they linked to my article I’d be walking around with a strut in my step.

Last week I launched a revolutionary 1-page website for my mother. That’s right, there are no other pages. I was lucky enough to have her give me the reins and do whatever I wanted. It contains a brief summary about the kind of business she runs (elder law), directions to the office and a contact form (or telephone number) to get in touch with the firm.

Websites can be as simple as one page, like this one for Nancy Wright.

Too easy? Shouldn’t it be? The cost of development and maintenance is considerably less than complex sites and doesn’t do a whole lot for her any ways. Plus, get this, it can still grow when needed. That’s right folks, you can start off small and add. For anyone who has started a successful business from the ground up this should already be a familiar mantra.

Update your thinking to 2010 and start your company’s website with one page.

agency · Apple · best practices · clients · design · internet · iPad · iPhone · mobile · one page · Search Engine Optimization · SEO · web · web 2.0 · website