« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
April 30, 2006
Digital convergence = mashups
This article is the third part in a series of three articles on the impact of web 2.0 on mobility and digital convergence. The first part was published in December 2005 . Part two was published in Jan 2006 .
In this article, we shall discuss:
a) What is digital convergence
b) What is the impact of web 2.0 on digital convergence
WHAT IS DIGITAL CONVERGENCE
Digital convergence is a much-maligned concept. Mention Digital convergence, and it conjures up images of the intelligent fridge : a concept most people think they have no need for!
But Digital convergence is an idea whose dawn is near.
There is a lot of confusion about what exactly is meant by digital convergence. When people talk of Digital convergence, they could actually mean different things:
a) Co-mingled bits : The original definition of Digital convergence as outlined in Nicholas Negroponte’s 1995 book Being Digital
b) Device convergence: One device to rule them all! Think the iphone (A combination of the iPod and the mobile phone), Nokia N-gage etc etc.
c) Fixed to mobile convergence: A relatively new, telecoms specific area which is a part of a much broader concept called ‘seamless mobility’
d) Devices being able to speak to each other and share intelligence leading to a new service aka the ‘Intelligent fridge’.
Besides these definitions, there is also the question of “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'' – as Mike Langberg so aptly put it in his article soon after CES
By that, we mean: your tools (focus) determine your viewpoint of the world. The ‘nail’ in this case, is ‘Digital convergence’. The ‘hammer’ is the viewpoint (strengths) from which each player is approaching Digital convergence.
For example: (as per the article)
For Microsoft, convergence is a software problem: to be solved using an upgrade of the windows operating system (Microsoft’s strength).
Intel sees convergence as a ‘microprocessor problem’, to be solved with a vague new branding program called ``Viiv'' (A new version of ‘Intel Inside’?)
Cisco sees convergence as a home networking problem, to be solved with .. guess what .. networking!
Yahoo and Google see convergence as an online services problem. To them, the solution lies through the web browser - a common element in all devices.
Sony sees convergence as a consumer hardware problem, to be solved with consumer devices, new standards built around its own strengths like the playstation (http://www.n-gage.com/).
No wonder there is confusion!
As expected, I am also wielding a hammer(i.e. I am biased by my own experience) and hence see the ‘nail’ in light of the hammer.
I shall discuss my viewpoint in this document but it’s important to note that the only things common between all these definitions is:
a) Digitization and
b) Communication
In other words, information must be digitised and it must flow freely. This leads to new services, which are greater than its parts i.e. greater than what the devices could provide on their own.
That’s all there is to it.
Let’s first discuss the definitions above in a little more detail
Co mingled bits : The first definition, ‘co-mingled bits’, was proposed by Nicholas Negroponte in his 1995 book ‘ Being Digital ’.
Negroponte’s definition of Digital convergence is “Bits co-mingle effortlessly. They start to get mixed up and can be used and re-used separately or together. The mixing of audio, video, and data is called multimedia. It sounds complicated, but it's nothing more than co-mingled bits."
Another way to put it is: to a computer, there is no difference between a symphony, a voice call, a book, a song, a TV program, a shopping list etc as long as they are all digitised
The factors driving digital convergence/co mingled bits include the rapid digitisation of content, greater bandwidth, increased processing power and the Internet.
Digital convergence brings four (previously) distinct industry sectors in collaboration/competition with each other. Thus, we have Media/Entertainment, PC/Computing, consumer electronics and telecommunications industries all interacting closely with each other than before. This version of digital convergence is happening all around us . Terms like triple play or quadruple play are a part of this scenario. Triple play involves voice, broadband and mobile services and quadruple play adds digital TV to that mix(Richard Branson, in his own unique style, prefers the term fourplay to quadruple play :) ).
Whatever name you call it, here are co-mingled bits in action! If everything has become digital, then the boundaries between the providers fade away. The same trend was seen in the utilities market(gas and electricity suppliers being sold from the same entity).
Device convergence: Addresses the age old question .. ‘Will we carry one general purpose device or will we carry many specialised devices?’. Boundaries between devices are fading fast and devices are now capable of performing more than one function.
It is unclear if customers would really want a single device. Most people have a view on this - and so do the device manufacturers.
In March 2006, Microsoft confirmed that it was interested in a device combing the features of an iPod and a cellphone and rumours of an iphone launch are perpetually present
Fixed to mobile convergence : Fixed to mobile convergence is a relatively new area. It has emerged because fixed line telecoms operators and mobile telecoms operators are each vying for customers in each other’s traditional domains. Telecoms access networks are converging due to the emergence of new technologies. Thus, mobile network providers can provide fixed network services and vice versa. Services could also be converged. Thus, a user could access the same service from either a fixed or a mobile network. Fixed to mobile convergence could be a seen as a larger concept called ‘seamless mobility’ – the overall idea being that a customer should be able to ‘roam’ seamlessly between different network types(fixed, mobile, WiFi etc). Bodies like UMA - Unlicensed mobile access are driving the standards for seamless mobility.
Device communications: The capacity for a range of devices to share information between each other. We discuss this definition in greater detail below
THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY – A ROAD TO NOWHERE
Let us now come back to the two elements common to all these definitions. Firstly, information must be digitised. Secondly, information must be capable of ‘flowing freely’.
The first part, digitization, is a no brainer! It’s happening all around us. However, the second part ‘information flowing freely’ is the real bottleneck.
For information to indeed flow freely, there must be a common ‘lingua franca’ – a common standard. Some means for all the participants to communicate.
The big (and sadly predictable) battles are raging to control this communications medium(read the ‘hammers’ paragraph above to get an idea of who is trying to control what!) .
These battles have a feeling of Déjà vu from the early days of the Internet. In the early days, there used to be a term called ‘The Information Super Highway’.
Notice that it’s no longer being used .. Did you wonder why?
The term was popular with governments, politicians and people who wanted to exercise control. Because – highways mean toll booths and choke points!.
A few years down the road, we know that the Information superhighway is a road to nowhere!
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PopularMechanics_InformationSuperhighway.jpg
AN INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY … BY ANOTHER NAME?Inspite of the failure of the Information superhighway concept, there have been other attempts to create(and control?) a common standard .. with mixed results.
Consider the case of South Korea and Japan. In both these cases, communications technology is far more advanced. In many cases, we see convergence that we can only dream about in the west!
Apart from other factors like cultural affinity to new technology, the biggest factor by far is a ‘managed collaboration’ – for the lack of a better word.
For example - In Japan, for mobile devices, there has been a dominant player in the form of NTT DoCoMo leading to market cohesion. In South Korea, the government has actively managed standardization with spectacular results.
While the results so obtained are commendable, they cannot(by definition) be global. That explains why Toyota can be the dominant car manufacturer but iMode is not the world’s preferred mobile platform i.e. Japan can export cars (physical goods) but not information based products which require adherence to open standards.
The only other attempt I can think of is - Jini .
According to the original definition of Jini
Jini is the name for a distributed computing environment, that can offer ``network plug and play''. A device or a software service can be connected to a network and announce its presence, and clients that wish to use such a service can then locate it and call it to perform tasks.
Considering that one of my previous posts why mobile AJAX will replace both J2ME and XHTML as the preferred platform for mobile applications development , could be perceived to be ‘Anti Java’(for the record – it was never intended to be – but I don’t consider Java ME to be a preferred mobile solution either), I wanted to recheck the current status of Jini. As per this post on jini.org, A new dawn , there seem to be a lot of change about the status (and potentially the future of Jini itself in its current incarnation).
However, whichever way you look at it, Jini has not been the lingua franca which many hopes would spur digital convergence.
So, where does that leave us?
THE BASIS OF A LINGUA FRANCA
So far, we have seen that
a) Digitization is happening all around us
b) The communications mechanism facilitating the flow of digital content is unclear
c) Top down approaches (either from governments or from corporations) – do not work on a global scale.
Here is my view .. My view has actually been inspired by Irving Wladawsky-Berger (Vice President of Technical Strategy and Innovation – IBM) - whose thinking I follow with great interest.
Specifically, this article by Irving
where he says ..
Digital convergence can be viewed from different points of view, so let me share my own perspective. The standardization of technology components and interfaces at one level, opens up enormous opportunities for innovation in the application of the technologies for new products and services. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the innovation unleashed in the IT industry in the last 10 years by the move to standards and standard components and infrastructures, especially the Internet, coupled with the availability of increasingly powerful and affordable technologies. Going "up the stack," I am very excited about the opportunities for innovation in the world of business, as software standards like SOA and standard business components help us better integrate and transform companies and industries.
There is no question in my mind that convergence is now coming to digital entertainment and consumer electronics. Consumer electronics products are being built using common hardware components from the computer industry, for example, microprocessors, memory, storage, and so on, and most of their capabilities are now being designed as software. The drive toward open standards to link all the components in the home parallels what has been going on in IT for the last 10 to 15 years, and without a doubt, broadband Internet is emerging as the major communications and content distribution platform into the home.
The viewpoint of ‘Going up the stack’ offers a potential road to Digital convergence. At the lower levels of the stack, the common element is IP(Internet Protocol). At the higher levels of the stack, the one common element to many new devices is http .
The web(by that I mean IP and http) are the common elements to almost all new devices.
Consider that the following five devices shown are all running a browser inspite of their obvious differences in form and functionality
Images: http://www.opera.com/products/devices/markets/gallery/
Thus, the presence of a browser could offer a means to facilitate digital convergence.
DIGITAL CONVERGENCE = MASHUPS
Irving’s article hints at this by referring to SOA but my money is on a much lighter incarnation of SOA i.e. mashups.
Mashups are a core element of web 2.0. According to wikipedia, a mashup is a website or web application that seamlessly combines content from more than one source into an integrated experience.
Visual mashups are getting all the kudos at the moment .. for example housingmaps which combines craigslist and googlemaps
But, mashups need not be visual …
Consider the Yahoo Music Engine API
As per http://plugins.yme.music.yahoo.com/
Image source:
http://plugins.yme.music.yahoo.com/plugins/download/2005/0026/Linksys_Full.jpg
Hmmm… I’ve got all of this music on my PC, now how do I get it to my living room? Yahoo! has teamed with Linksys to answer this age old question. You can use the Linksys Music Bridge to wirelessly play all of your music directly to your home stereo. Already have a Music Bridge? Download the plug-in to select devices and control play output from within Yahoo! Music Engine.
While the Yahoo Music engine API is relatively obscure, it could point to a future trend where device manufacturers could enable other devices to mashup with them. As hardware becomes a commodity, the ease and connectivity popularity (number of mashups) could be a key differentiating factor for hardware manufacturers.
There is already a goldrush of sorts from makers of APIs to get their own API as ‘mashed up’ as possible. Even Microsoft is at it!
CONCLUSION
So, there you have it .. In my view, Digital convergence = Mashups.
I like this approach because it’s organic and it’s inclusive.
Of course, I am also wielding a ‘hammer’ here .. and my views are only as good as my understanding(or lack thereof!). So, all comments welcome at ajit.jaokar at futuretext.com
This concludes the three part series on web 2.0. Many thanks to all who have contacted me from all over the world with your feedback and thanks.
IMAGE ATTRIBUTE
The image is of David Brent from the popular BBC comedy The Office.
What has it got to do with mashups? I don’t really know! I searched for ‘mashup’ in google images and this image came up!. If anyone can figure out the connection, please let me know. Perhaps, its because David Brent considers himselves to be a renaissance man .. much like one hopes a new wave of renaissance and innovation is on us. That’s my best guess!
Anyway, I am a huge fan of The office .. and if you have never seen it .. worth having a look!
Posted by ajit at 2:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 26, 2006
Why should bloggers not be the stars of a conference?
Hello all,
I am involved with a new concept and seek your feedback.
The basic idea is simple. Today, bloggers are the main influencers in the marketspace. Maybe much more than analysts, researchers etc ..
So, why should bloggers not be the stars of a conference?
I am on the advisory board of a conference which is based on this simple concept. The conference covers wireless and mobile media (mobile / web 2.0 / media 2.0 etc)
We are running with a simple idea : Conference attendees, companies etc would like to meet and know top bloggers. Bloggers meanwhile also want to interact with the community ..
So, why not bring them together?
Initially, it will have a European focus – but I have already had interest from as far away as South Africa and New Zealand!. We define bloggers simply as people who have been running blogs getting a lot of traffic, links etc and who have clear views on the industry(not merely people who post for the sake of it!)
I have two questions
a) I seek your thoughts and feedback on this
b) Can you recommend any bloggers who we should invite?
Posted by ajit at 10:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 25, 2006
Is there a long term synergy between advertisers and YouTube?
Is there a long term synergy between advertisers and YouTube?
No doubt, YouTube has gained some traction and the numbers speak for themselves
According to numbers provided by traffic-tracking company ComScore Networks, YouTube received 4.2 million unique visitors in February. Those numbers are good enough to outpace Apple Computer's iTunes (3.5 million) and put it within spitting distance of eBaumsworld.com (4.4 million) and AOL Video (4.7 million), both of which have been in business longer.
Impressive as this trend is .. it hides some important observations
YouTube has gained it’s success by judiciously mixing professionally made clips, including music videos and movie trailers, with homemade content. This has seen number of viewings jump up from 3 million a day to 30 million since the Web site's December launch. No doubt, some advertisers are gaining traction – like Nike with their Ronaldinho clip.
But YouTube cannot continue this indefinitely else it would disrupt the user experience as YouTube (rightly) fears and therefore, this model is not scaleable.
So, is there a long term synergy between advertisers and YouTube
The answer lies in advertisers providing something to users which they do not get currently. That ‘missing link’ is subsidising the mobile component of YouTube!
A mobile version of YouTube (as YouTube stands currently) could be viewed as an A2P(application to person) application. Users could simply download a clip on to their 3G phones. Unlike P2P (directly sending clips person to person), A2P is relatively simple.
(Note: This is because, P2P applications need us to know the capabilities of phones at both ends and that can be tricky – not just for the device itself – but for the support provided by the intervening infrastructure players such as the mobile operators because the sending and the receiving mobile operator may not support video clips uniformly. In fact, the success of A2P content has been demonstrated by A2P MMS(picture messaging) where people download a simple picture from a site as opposed to P2P MMS which involves sending pictures directly to each other. Video is no different conceptually except for being a richer medium
)
Thus, YouTube can be extended to mobile devices as it stands.
The critical gap is ‘bandwidth costs’. The moment we send a clip ‘over the air’ – someone incurs a cost. That someone is the ‘user’.
If advertisers could fund this gap(both for their own clips but also for the user’s homemade clips), we have the seeds of a viable and a scaleable model which is user centric.
The users are now getting something they never got before in return for viewing an advertisement. The content they are getting is ‘their’ content – hence valuable.
This could be a win win situation for all!
Posted by ajit at 7:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Jonathan schwartz becomes Sun CEO ..
One of the web's highest profile tech bloggers becomes a CEO
congratulations are in order ..
Should be interesting times for Sun ..
Posted by ajit at 2:36 PM | Comments (0)
April 21, 2006
The three characteristics of mobile web 2.0
I see web 2.0 as the Intelligent web or ‘harnessing collective intelligence’
Mobile web 2.0 extends the principle of ‘harnessing collective intelligence’ to restricted devices
The seemingly simple idea of extending web 2.0 to mobile web 2.0 has many facets – for instance :
a) What is a restricted device?
b) What are the implications of extending the web to restricted devices?
c) As devices become creators and not mere consumers of information – what categories of intelligence can be captured/harnessed from restricted devices?
d) What is the impact for services as devices start using the web as a massive information repository and the PC as a local cache where services can be configured?
Restricted devices: A broad definition of a ‘restricted device’ is not easy. The only thing they all have in common is - ‘they are battery driven’. But then – watches have batteries?
A better definition of restricted devices can be formulated by incorporating Barbara Ballard’s carry principle.
Thus, a restricted device could now be deemed as
a) Carried by the user
b) battery driven
c) Small(by definition)
d) Probably multifunctional but with a primary focus
e) A device with limited input mechanisms(small keyboard)
f) Personal and personalised BUT
g) Not wearable (that rules out the watch!). But, there is a caveat, a mobile device in the future could be wearable and it's capacities may well be beyond what we imagine today. The input mechanism in the future will not be a key stroke on such devices, but a movement or sound. So, this is an evolving definition.
Finally, there is a difference between a ‘carried’ device and a ‘mobile device which is in a vehicle’.
For example – in a car, a GPS navigator is a ‘mobile device’ and in a plane, the in-flight entertainment screen is also ‘mobile’. However, both these devices are not ‘carried by a person’ and do not have the same screen/power restrictions as devices that are carried by people.
However, whichever way you look at it, it's clear that the mobile phone is an example of a restricted device. From now on – we use the definition of mobile devices interchangeably with ‘restricted devices’ and the meaning will be clearer in the context.
Extending the web to restricted devices: It may seem obvious - but web 2.0 is all about the ‘web’ because web 2.0 could not have been possible without the web. Thus, in a ‘pure’ definition – web 2.0 is about ‘harnessing collective intelligence via the web’. When we extend this definition to ‘mobile web 2.0’ – there are two implications :
a) The web does not necessarily extend to mobile devices
b) Even though the web does not extend to mobile devices, intelligence can still be captured from mobile devices.
The seven principles of web 2.0 speak of this accurately when they discuss the example of the ipod/iTunes. The ipod uses the web as a back end and the PC as a local cache. In this sense, the service is ‘driven by the web and configured at the PC’ but it is not strictly a ‘web’ application because it is not driven by web protocols end to end(ipod protocols are proprietary to Apple).
Tim O Reilly puts it succinctly in his response to my post on the O Reilly radar when he says ..
So writes Ajit Jaokar, arguing that "Harnessing Collective Intelligence" is the root principle of Web 2.0, and the others make sense to the extent that you understand how they feed into (and draw from) this one. He's absolutely right: the web is mechanism only. And it's "web" only by naming convenience, because much as the internet was originally defined as "a network of networks," the web is becoming "a web of webs," as various mechanisms for harnessing and aggregating collective intelligence start to interconnect. In particular, Ajit's focus is on the mobile web, which doesn't have much in common technically with the http-based web, but everything in common with Web 2.0.
Thus, the characteristics(distinguishing principles) of mobile web 2.0 are:
a) Harnessing collective intelligence through restricted devices i.e. a two way flow where people carrying devices become reporters rather than mere consumers
b) Driven by the web backbone – but not necessarily based on the web protocols end to end
c) Use of the PC as a local cache/configuration mechanism where the service will be selected and configured
As usual, I seek your thoughts and feedback on this concept.
Posted by ajit at 11:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 18, 2006
I make it to the O'Reilly radar ..
It's been a great day for me!
Its flattering to get good feedback from two very clued on guys on the web ..
First Alex Barnett said about my post Tim O' Reilly’s seven principles of web 2.0 make a lot more sense if you change the order
In my view Ajit has nailed it. What he's done, brilliantly and simply, is made one of the seven principles as the higher-level 'collective application', making the remaining six principles components of the collective application. The 'collective application' is the Intelligent Web.
and
Tim O Reilly himself mentioned the same post on the O Reilly radar ..
Principles of Web 2.0 Make More Sense if You Change the Order
So writes Ajit Jaokar, arguing that "Harnessing Collective Intelligence" is the root principle of Web 2.0, and the others make sense to the extent that you understand how they feed into (and draw from) this one. He's absolutely right:
Many thanks Alex and Tim!
Posted by ajit at 9:30 PM | Comments (0)
April 17, 2006
A web 2.0 FAQ
Based on some initial feedback, I have republished this entry now as a FAQ for web 2.0
What is web 2.0?
Because of my work with mobile web 2.0, I am often asked the question - 'what is web 2.0'?. This is often a genuine question - since there is a lot of confusion out there and many bandwagon seekers.
In an attempt to explain web 2.0, this blog gives a simple FAQ
Web 2.0 is a 'Soft concept' - it's not a standard, or a formula or a definition - which would have been a lot easier to explain.
Thus, a conventional FAQ would be too long(and would probably become out of date soon)
To me, web 2.0 is the collective application of the seven principles of web 2.0 as outlined by Tim O' Reilly
Without deviating from the core concepts (i.e. the seven principles) and not adding to the existing confusion surrounding web 2.0,
A web 2.0 FAQ would be as follows ..
What is web 2.0? : It’s the intelligent web.
What makes it intelligent? We (the people) do.
How does it happen? : By harnessing collective intelligence
What do you need to harness collective intelligence? : The six principles of web 2.0 except principle two(which itself is 'Harnessing collective intelligence' !
To me, web 2.0 makes perfect sense if you observe that - of the seven principles - all the other principles feed into the second principle(harnessing collective intelligence)
Let me explain ..
web 2.0 can be described as the 'Intelligent web' or 'Harnessing collective intelligence'(which is the second principle of web 2.0)
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge is intelligence. Knowledge is the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
What kind of intelligence can be attributed to the web? How is it different from web 1.0?
IMHO - web 1.0 was hijacked by the marketers, advertisers and the people who wanted to stuff canned content down our throat! Take away all that after the dot com bubble and what's left is the web as it was originally meant to be - a global means of communication.
The intelligence attributed to the web(web 2.0) arises from us as we begin to communicate.
Thus, when we talk of the 'Intelligent web' or 'harnessing collective intelligence' - we are talking of the familiar principle of wisdom of crowds
Merely managing a community is not web 2.0! as many web 2.0 masqeraders will find out no doubt soon.
In order to harness collective intelligence
a) Information must flow freely
b) It must be harnessed/processed in some way - else it remains a collection of opinions and not knowledge
c) From a commercial standpoint, there must be a way to monetise the 'long tail' - but that’s the topic of another blog!
My essential argument is - if we consider web 2.0 as 'Intelligent web' or 'Harnessing collective intelligence'(Principle two) - and then look at the other six principles feeding into it - it's all a lot clearer
Since the wisdom of crowds is so important - lets consider that in a bit more detail from the wikipedia entry for the wisdom of crowds
Are all crowds wise?
No.
The four elements required to form a 'wise' crowd are
a) Diversity of opinion
b) Independence: People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.
c) Decentralization: People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
d) Aggregation: Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.
Conversely, the wisdom of crowds fails when
a) Decision making is too centralized: The Columbia shuttle disaster occurred because the hierarchical management at NASA was closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.
b) Decision making is too divided: The U.S. Intelligence community failed to prevent the September 11, 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another.
c) Decision making is imitative - choices are visible and there are a few strong decision makers who in effect, influence the crowd
Now .. let’s look at the seven principles again ..
1. The Web As Platform
The web is the only true link that unites us all together whoever we are and wherever we are in the world. Hence, to harness collective intelligence and to create the intelligent web - we need to include as many people as we can. The only way we can do this is to treat the web as a platform and use open standards. You can't harness collective intelligence using the
ESA/390 - however powerful it is!
2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence
Now becomes the 'main' principle or the first principle
3. Data is the Next Intel Inside
By definition, to harness collective intelligence - we must have the capacity to process massive amounts of data. Hence, data is the 'intelligence' (Intel)
4. End of the Software Release Cycle
This pertains to 'Software as a service'. Software as a 'product' can never keep upto date with all the changing information.
Ofcourse in the web 2.0 sense, we are dealing with code as well as data - so the service concept keeps the data relevant (and the harnessed decision accurate) by accessing as many sources as possible
5. Lightweight Programming Models
The heavy weight programming models catered for the few. In contrast, using lightweight programming models we can reach many more people(hence sources of information - to
enable data collection and a more intelligent web).
For example: from the seven principles
Amazon.com's web services are provided in two forms: one adhering to the formalisms of the SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) web services stack, the other simply providing XML data over HTTP, in a lightweight approach sometimes referred to as REST (Representational State Transfer). While high value B2B connections (like those between Amazon and retail partners like ToysRUs) use the SOAP stack, Amazon reports that 95% of the usage is of the lightweight REST service.
6. Software Above the Level of a Single Device
More devices to capture information and better flow of information between these devices leads to a higher degree of collective intelligence
7. Rich User Experiences
A rich user experience is necessary to enable better web applications leading to more web usage and better information flow on the web - leading ofcourse to a more 'Intelligent' web.
And you need look no further than this blog .. itself a collaborative exercise and hopefully adding to the intelligence of the web itself
Thoughts/comments welcome at ajit.jaokar at futuretext.com
Note: I first heard of the phrase 'Intelligent web' from Michiel de Lange's comment on another blog which referred to one of my older posts.
His entry using the phrase 'Intelligent web' is HERE
Posted by ajit at 8:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tim O' Reilly’s seven principles of web 2.0 make a lot more sense if you change the order
What is web 2.0? Because of my work with mobile web 2.0, I am often asked - 'what is web 2.0'?
This is often a genuine question - since there is a lot of confusion out there and many bandwagon seekers. Further, web 2.0 is a 'Soft concept' - it's not a standard, or a formula or a definition - which would have been a lot easier to explain.
I must be one of the few people who actually understand web 2.0!
To me, it's explained by the collective application of the seven principles of web 2.0 as outlined by Tim O' Reilly
So, my standard response to this question was to ask people their email address and then send them the O Reilly link.
If they had an interest in mobility or digital convergence, I would send them my own work on mobile web 2.0 - which is based on the seven principles of web 2.0
Last week, I was discussing the seven principles yet again .. when suddenly it struck me - perhaps they should be in a different order!
I understand the rationale behind them - but not quite why they are in that specific order.
To me, it all makes perfect sense if the first and the second principles are switched over because all principles feed into the second principle!
Let me explain ..
web 2.0 can be described as the 'Intelligent web' or 'Harnessing collective intelligence'(which is the second principle of web 2.0)
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge is intelligence. Knowledge is the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
What kind of intelligence can be attributed to the web? How is it different from web 1.0?
IMHO - web 1.0 was hijacked by the marketers, advertisers and the people who wanted to stuff canned content down our throat! Take away all that after the dot com bubble and what's left is the web as it was originally meant to be - a global means of communication.
The intelligence attributed to the web(web 2.0) arises from us as we begin to communicate.
Thus, when we talk of the 'Intelligent web' or 'harnessing collective intelligence' - we are talking of the familiar principle of wisdom of crowds
Merely managing a community is not web 2.0! as many web 2.0 masqeraders will find out no doubt soon.
In order to harness collective intelligence
a) Information must flow freely
b) It must be harnessed/processed in some way - else it remains a collection of opinions and not knowledge
c) From a commercial standpoint, there must be a way to monetise the 'long tail' - but that’s the topic of another blog!
My essential argument is - if we consider web 2.0 as 'Intelligent web' or 'Harnessing collective intelligence'(Principle two) - and then look at the other six principles feeding into it - it's all a lot clearer
Since the wisdom of crowds is so important - lets consider that in a bit more detail from the wikipedia entry for the wisdom of crowds
Are all crowds wise?
No.
The four elements required to form a 'wise' crowd are
a) Diversity of opinion
b) Independence: People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.
c) Decentralization: People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
d) Aggregation: Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.
Conversely, the wisdom of crowds fails when
a) Decision making is too centralized: The Columbia shuttle disaster occurred because the hierarchical management at NASA was closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.
b) Decision making is too divided: The U.S. Intelligence community failed to prevent the September 11, 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another.
c) Decision making is imitative - choices are visible and there are a few strong decision makers who in effect, influence the crowd
Now .. let’s look at the seven principles again ..
1. The Web As Platform
The web is the only true link that unites us all together whoever we are and wherever we are in the world. Hence, to harness collective intelligence and to create the intelligent web - we need to include as many people as we can. The only way we can do this is to treat the web as a platform and use open standards. You can't harness collective intelligence using the
ESA/390 - however powerful it is!
2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence
Now becomes the 'main' principle or the first principle
3. Data is the Next Intel Inside
By definition, to harness collective intelligence - we must have the capacity to process massive amounts of data. Hence, data is the 'intelligence' (Intel)
4. End of the Software Release Cycle
This pertains to 'Software as a service'. Software as a 'product' can never keep upto date with all the changing information.
Ofcourse in the web 2.0 sense, we are dealing with code as well as data - so the service concept keeps the data relevant (and the harnessed decision accurate) by accessing as many sources as possible
5. Lightweight Programming Models
The heavy weight programming models catered for the few. In contrast, using lightweight programming models we can reach many more people(hence sources of information - to
enable data collection and a more intelligent web).
For example: from the seven principles
Amazon.com's web services are provided in two forms: one adhering to the formalisms of the SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) web services stack, the other simply providing XML data over HTTP, in a lightweight approach sometimes referred to as REST (Representational State Transfer). While high value B2B connections (like those between Amazon and retail partners like ToysRUs) use the SOAP stack, Amazon reports that 95% of the usage is of the lightweight REST service.
6. Software Above the Level of a Single Device
More devices to capture information and better flow of information between these devices leads to a higher degree of collective intelligence
7. Rich User Experiences
A rich user experience is necessary to enable better web applications leading to more web usage and better information flow on the web - leading ofcourse to a more 'Intelligent' web.
And you need look no further than this blog .. itself a collaborative exercise and hopefully adding to the intelligence of the web itself
To recap - Here is a WEB 2.0 FAQ
What is web 2.0? : It’s the intelligent web.
What makes it intelligent? We do.
How does it happen? : By harnessing collective intelligence
What do you need to harness collective intelligence? : The other six principles!
Thoughts/comments welcome at ajit.jaokar at futuretext.com
Note: I first heard of the phrase 'Intelligent web' from Michiel de Lange's comment on another blog which referred to one of my older posts.
His entry using the phrase 'Intelligent web' is HERE
Posted by ajit at 12:43 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 13, 2006
Google calendar - A disruptive application
Google has launched it’s calendar application today . What are the implications for the web office? Is it part of an upcoming Google online suite - or is it just another perpetual beta product from Google? Will it put the likes of CalendarHub out of business?
I present my insights below and I believe that this announcement reveals a much deeper strategic game plan than previous announcements from Google.
Firstly, consider that of all Google’s products, only adwords / adsense make any money for the company . Ofcourse, they make a LOT of money (according to their SEC filings - it’s 99% of their revenues).
Thus, Google can afford to experiment with a raft of products – most of which are making little money or no money. But I will bet that any company that has 99% of its revenue coming from one source will want to change that situation.
After all, that revenue was built in a matter of five or six years – and could go down the tube in less than that!
So, we can safely assume that the strategists at Google are looking for alternate revenue sources. And they don’t have to look far. In Microsoft’s home territory – one revenue source beckons – i.e. the office suite. The web office is a natural challenger to Microsoft Office.
For some time now, rumours have persisted about Google’s foray into Microsoft’s turf. These peaked around October last year, when Sun and Google announced a joint partnership for Open Office
In that announcement, many rightly perceived Google to be the more stronger partner. Both partners denied that they were going to take Microsoft head on – a wise choice considering the fate of many who have historically attempted it before.
Thus, if we combine these two announcements (SEC filing and OpenOffice partnership) – we see that Google has a majority of it’s revenue coming from one source coupled with a desire to at least explore the revenue streams from the corporate web office scenario.
Thus, a picture was formed late last year – where suggests that Google may persist in being the dominant player in the consumer sector and partner with others to address the corporate sector.
This made sense.
After all, Google is a company more familiar with the consumer front. The corporate sector is not very familiar to it. In keeping with that trend of Google being predominantly a consumer focussed company, many analysts have seen the Calendar announcement as just another Yahoo 2.0
On the consumer front, Google’s strategy has been predictable in some ways .. it could (cynically) be classed as build yahoo 2.0.
In other words, choose a popular yahoo offering, strip it down of excess baggage and give it the trademark simple Google interface. Then add one killer feature such as Gmail's storage limit or Google Talk's use of Jabber.
However, I believe that viewing the calendar announcement in terms of a consumer strategy is missing a critical point. That’s because, if you combine the calendar announcement with Google’s acquisition of writely a different pattern emerges.
There are some immediate observations
a) Combined with the writely announcement, it points to a trend to acquire/build best of breed applications which comprise the web office
b) The rationale and future of the Google/OpenOffice announcement becomes less clear
c) The calendar announcement should be viewed in context of writely acquisition and not just another yahoo 2.0. Although yahoo has a calendar, it does not have a writely type product. Combine the two and you see that the target is different in this case, it’s Microsoft – but not via the Sun partnership!
d) In the crossfire, smaller products like calendarhub are in trouble – but that’s not as interesting as the real significance i.e. the impact on Microsoft.
As one has come to expect of Google, the calendar application itself is a classic web 2.0 application with one extra sexy feature. In this case – natural language processing – where you can enter an event through a plain text feature like ‘Meeting with Jane at 3 tomorrow’
But a single sexy feature alone is not enough to make an impact on the CIOs in the corporate world.
Lets explore this subject more
a) Are companies interested in exploring options or switching from a Microsoft suite/Operating system – YES INDEED!
In 2001, Microsoft revamped it’s software licensing policy – and enriched it’s coffers considerably as a direct result of this !
According to http://news.com.com/2100-1001-908779.html
The old program: Previously, companies bought software licenses for each desktop and then picked up upgrades on an as-needed basis. Software upgrades cost about 59 percent to 72 percent of the original license. Typically, customers upgraded operating systems or applications every three to four years.
Software Assurance: Under the new plan, which is available to participants of Open and Select volume licensing programs, companies pay an annual fee that gives them the right to upgrade each desktop for a specified number of years, usually two to three. The fee is 29 percent of the initial license for desktop software and 25 percent for server software.
The rub: Software Assurance is not cheap. Assuming Windows XP costs $100, companies will pay $87 per desktop after three years for the right to upgrade ($29 x three years). By contrast, companies may have paid nothing under the old program if no upgrades were released or if companies decided not to upgrade. Because many companies upgrade only every other version, the no-cost scenario would be common.
Thus, customers WILL switch if they could
b) The Microsoft operating system release history definitely has a pattern . Leaving aside slipped deadlines, releases have happened roughly every three years and, generally, in the second half of the year. Predictably, the latest version (Vista) has slipped .On 21 March 2006, Microsoft announced it has delayed the consumer release of Windows Vista until January 2007
c) Yet, analysts like Gartner recommend that this delay is just a blip. They expect a large scale upgrade to Vista in 2008. . We can safely expect companies to follow this advice!
Thus, it would appear that – while weboffice is cheaper and Google is headed in the right direction with writely, calendar etc .. It won’t affect the next upgrade cycle in the corporate world.
So, is the web office a write off in the corporate world?
To answer that question, we have to look at weboffice for what it really is – A disruptive technology! Further, the critical element that distinguishes web office is its ability to share information and collaborate.
Will this make a difference? And if so how?
Disruptive technologies were first discussed by Dr Clayton Christensen in his seminal book – The Innovator’s dilemma.
According to the Innovator’s dilemma – Dr Christensen talks of new-market disruption which is driven by
a) Customers who cannot be previously served profitably by the incumbent. and / or
b) The new product has features which appeal to a niche sector and thus the product can get a foothold in this sector and subsequently move up the value chain.
This can be elaborated more as per wikipedia
"New market disruption" occurs when a product that is inferior by most measures of performance fits a new or emerging market segment. In the disk drive industry, for example, new generations of smaller-sized disk drives were both more expensive and had less capacity than existing, larger-sized drives. Since size was not an important factor for the early computer market, these new drives seemed worse in every way. With the development of the minicomputer (or afterwards, the desktop computer, the notebook, and the personal music player), size became an important dimension, and these new drives quickly dominated the market.
We then are faced with the question – which sector / segment could be the early adopter customers for this disruptive technology (web office)?
The distinctive feature of web office (sharing and collaboration) offers a clue
I believe that outsourcing companies could be the key driver of web office (offshore or otherwise). They provide a critical incentive for corporates of all sizes to consider web office as a direct means to collaborate with their partners either onshore or offshore through virtual teams. This means, the existing value chain will not be disturbed (for now!) but once web office has taken a foothold through outsourcing/virtual teams – it will move up the value chain – directly challenging Microsoft’s dominance.
To conclude..
I believe
a) The Google calendar announcement – coupled with the writely announcement - reveals a key trend towards a foray in the desktop domain through web office
b) Other players/partnerships will be negatively impacted(such as companies like Calendarhub and the OpenOffice agreement)
c) Inspite of some gains from Google and slippage from Vista – Vista will still be dominant for the 2008 upgrade cycle in the corporate world.
d) WebOffice will benefit from the outsourcing trend where it’s collaborative features and low cost structure offer it a critical advantage
e) Once having gained that foothold, web office will move up the value chain.
Posted by ajit at 11:58 PM | Comments (2)
April 8, 2006
Carnival of the mobilists - No 22
Is at the technokitten (Helen Keegan's blog). The carnival is fast becoming 'must read' reading on the lastest mobile thinking. enjoy!
Posted by ajit at 8:31 AM
April 6, 2006
Trevor Baylis - OBE
I had the pleasure of hearing Trevor speak when I attended the innovation day in Dublin last week. Don’t miss the chance to hear Trevor at any event. Well worth it. We got along great and I met him at Dublin airport on the way back.
Be sure to visit his site Baylis Brands - especially if you are creative / inventive type (and that’s EVERYONE as per Trevor)
The one thing I took home from Trevor's presentation is
Art is for leisure but Invention is for treasure
Posted by ajit at 6:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
citimedia - One to watch ..
I will be watching Center for citizen media with great interest
If their advisory board is anything to go by .. in any case, there is a lot to learn here
citimedia has been set up by Dan Gillmor and the site says ..
This is the website for the Center for Citizen Media, a new initiative aimed at helping to enable and encourage grassroots media, especially citizen journalism, at every level.
watch this space!
Posted by ajit at 4:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
fiercewireless v.s. moconews
I heard about this on Russell Beattie's post
I posted my comment on moco news which says ..
Hi guys
I read about this issue on Russell Beattie's post and agree you have a case here. The trademark filing gives it away. I also read both (moco and fiercewireless) and I agree with you that moco is not a generic name. The trends are ominoious ..
think fiercefuturetext, fiercebeattie , fiercemobhappy, fierce160characters etc etc ..
I shall blog about this as well
Kind rgds
Ajit
you can post your comment in support of the moco guys at HERE
Posted by ajit at 2:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 5, 2006
Mobile Strategies book launch event
I am pleased to announce that Philip Otley - partner Accenture Communications, Media & High Technology (CHT) unit, based in London - will be speaking at the next event.
This event is also the launch event for Tom Weiss's book - Mobile Strategies). The event is on April 11 5:30 onwards in the Emberton room in Waterstones Piccadilly. The full address is 203/206 Piccadilly London SW1Y 6WW. The nearest tube station is Piccadilly Circus.
The emberton room is on the sixth floor. There is lift access to the
fifth floor and then you have to walk up one floor (the sixth floor is normally not open to the general public).
Tom's book site is at Mobile Strategies. Many of you know from previous events that Tom Weiss is a very engaging and knowledgeable speaker.
The unique aspect of his book is - it discusses an 'insider view' of
mobile strategies from a telecoms operator standpoint (Tom Weiss was Vice President Key Service Introductions at T-Mobile until August 2005, and was responsible for the launch of T-Mobile premium services across Europe, including T-Mobile EURO2004 campaign)
There will be a number of journalists/media in the audience alongwith
others interested in mobile applications.
If you have any questions or wish to attend please contact me at ajit.jaokar at futuretext.com
Philip Otley bio as per below
Note - on that day, you can buy the book at 20% discount at the event.
Kind rgds
Ajit
Philip OTLEY
Philip Otley is a Partner in Accenture's Communications, Media & High
Technology (CHT) unit, based in London. He is part of Accenture's
wireless industry leadership team, which focuses on creating value for and with wireless operators and other key industry players.
Philip joined the embryonic Strategic Services division in 1994 following his MBA studies in Switzerland. Over the following years he has delivered corporate and operational strategy programmes within CHT in the wireless, fixed-line, cable, equipment and software industries, in Europe, Asia and in Northern and Latin America.
Other strategy work with Accenture has covered client programmes within Financial Services, FMCG, Products and Utilities. Prior career
experience with IBM and Telstra in Australia provided insight into
different markets and particularly into technology and business.
Philip has been actively involved within Accenture opportunity evaluation & investment, delivering operational & financial results and alliance creation. He was previously instrumental in Accenture forming Meridea Financial Software as an independent venture with Nokia & Sampo Bank.
Posted by ajit at 10:47 PM
April 4, 2006
wimax, pipex wireless and Intel etc ..
wimax has been on my radar for a while and with Intel's investment in pipex today ($25m to create a joint venture called Pipex wireless) - wimax is suddenly in the limelight
As expected, I love this because the emergence of a technology like wimax is a positive force to the current stalemate in the mobile data industry
The article below is from theregister
Pipex WiMAX play to shake up UK market?
The UK market for broadband wireless services is set to become highly complex – and a possible proving ground for various technologies and business models – as the main holder of 3.5GHz spectrum, Pipex, shows its hand. Pipex holds the national license for 3.5GHz spectrum but, to date, has scarcely used the asset, leaving the PCCW-owned UK Broadband the only significant player in licensed broadband wireless services with its nationwide 3.4GHz holdings.
With UK Broadband slowing down its initially aggressive roll-out plans using its IPWireless kit (based on UMTS TDD technology), the UK has seemed ripe for shake-up, especially with spectrum trading soon to be permitted for the first time, and incumbent British Telecom expressing strong interest in WiMAX. It had therefore been speculated that Pipex would seek to sell on its spectrum, but now the UK’s seventh largest ISP has announced its own WiMAX trials, in partnership with Airspan.
UK competition
This could indicate that, like some major US ISPs like EarthLink, Pipex will look to expand its customer base and add portable services to its bundles through wireless delivery (mobility is unlikely to be an option in the near term, since UK regulator Ofcom has so far proved hostile to allowing this in the 3GHz bands, and faces heavy lobbying from UK cellco giant Vodafone to maintain this stance). This could make the UK market less attractive for UK Broadband, which may seek to sell on its licenses, possibly – if Ofcom permits it – to BT.
This, in turn, could create a two-horse race in licensed spectrum for WiMAX-type services for business and high end residential customers, which would also be joined by some of the players using unlicensed 5GHz spectrum, such as Telebria, which has just announced new funding, and Libera. The market could be further complicated when Ofcom opens up additional broadband wireless spectrum from 2006, and especially if it decides to allow non-3G technologies into the 2.5GHz band, previously earmarked, when it is opened up next year, for 3G expansion only.
Pipex, set up in 1991, was the UK’s first commercial ISP and now mainly serves business customers with 100 points of presence (including 20 point-to-multipoint broadband wireless PoPs). As a wireless ISP, it has the advantage of readymade backhaul arrangements and established reputation for corporate class service levels. The question is whether it will stick to its business market – also targeted by Libera – with wireless or use the lower cost infrastructure to relaunch its efforts in the consumer space.
Fixed broadband wireless is in the early stages in the UK. Like most European countries, it experienced a bubble of interest when 3.5GHz licenses were awarded at the end of the last century, but few real services ensued. According to the Department of Trade and Industry, coverage is limited to only a few regions, with 45 per cent of the residential coverage in London and the South East, and 30 per cent in the Midlands. Regulator Ofcom estimates that there are 5,000 subscribers in licensed bands and a further 2,000 to unlicensed services (there are also 6,000 two-way satellite internet subscribers).
As in other countries, providers are divided between addressing underserved rural areas – as Telabria and Langreen are doing, as well as BT with its Alvarion-based pilots in remote areas of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and targeting businesses with lower cost alternative to T1 leased lines. This has been the approach of Libera, which aims to cover 75 per cent of UK businesses by the end of next year and recently launched in London.
Both business models can be served by unlicensed equipment – rural areas because there is little congestion or interference; businesses because operators can afford to set up base stations on high buildings to gain line of sight. For urban or suburban consumers, though, licensed bands will probably be essential because of the interference risks and the need for line of sight in 5GHz. Hence the increasing value of the 3.4-3.5GHz bands, whether Pipex and UK Broadband choose to keep or sell them, and the likelihood that Pipex might seek to use wireless to re-enter the residential sector.
Pipex strategy
In its 2004 annual report, Pipex indicated its reawakened interest in the 3.5Ghz-4.2GHz spectrum it acquired in 2003 along with Firstnet Services, one of the broadband wireless operators that rode the wave of the 1999-2000 boom and then failed. It points out that this band is newly interesting because of the potential of the WiMAX technology and, as part of a duty to finalize the fair value of the license in 2004, estimated this at £5m. In the provisional acquisition balance sheet of Firstnet prepared for the purposes of the 2003 financial statements this license had no carrying value attributed to it.
“In assessing the value of this asset at the acquisition date the Company has taken account of the significant progress, particularly in terms of specifying WiMAX global standards, that has been achieved in the post acquisition period and of the uncertainties present in the exploitation of new technology,” says the report. “The value now attributed to the licence at the date of acquisition is £5m and this has reduced the goodwill arising in Firstnet by the same amount. The licence value is being amortized over 20 years.”
The Airspan technical trial will last until February and will be focused on a base station at the equipment maker’s testing facility in Stratford-on-Avon in the Midlands, and a demonstration house about 1.2 kilometers away without line of sight, fitted with Airspan’s EasyST indoor WiMAX-ready modem. The equipment will work in the 3.6-3.7GHz band. The aim is to see whether a DSL-like experience can be achieved with WiMAX, and success will lead to commercial trials. Future trial phases will assess the performance of other WiMAX CPE types, including laptop cards and handheld devices for both fixed and nomadic applications.
All this reinforces the idea that Pipex is mulling a consumer service. Another motivator is voice over IP, which will also be tested in the trial. Pipex CEO Mike Read said: "WiMAX is an exciting new opportunity for Pipex and this test will help determine how we offer wireless broadband services to our customers using our licensed spectrum. Combined voice and data offerings using WiMAX will enable PIPEX to deliver differentiated products in addition to our existing services.”
source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/30/pipex_wimax_trial/
Posted by ajit at 7:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 3, 2006
Will web 2.0 spell the end of web 1.0 mapping companies?
I saw yet another mapping mashup - platial - on Michael Parekh’s blog
and that made me think ..
Currently, online mapping companies are one of the biggest success stories on the web. Google maps could change all that. Leaving aside the fact that googlemaps is backed by the power of google – the biggest advantage of a web 2.0 service like googlemaps is the power of mashup . Housingmaps is the best example of a mashup based on googlemaps and craigslist . And there are many more on the way at mashupfeed
Currently, the major online mapping players like multimap and streetmap (in the UK) are the destination of choice to find mapping information including directions. But for how long? As more mashups appear – we see services like google maps becoming central to our web experience. Where will that leave today’s mapping stars? If no one ‘mashes’ them – how useful would they be in the near future?
They can’t compete with the wisdom of crowds
Is the writing on the wall?
Image source: http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/boris/guides/maps/docks.jpg
Posted by ajit at 11:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 2, 2006
Opera web apps team have a new blog ..
The guys at Opera web applications team have a new blog
well worth a visit.
I can see Arve - alpha geek at Opera and Thomas Ford there already. Should be good fun
Posted by ajit at 11:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
There is no such thing as a viral marketing expert ..
Since I am involved significantly with web 2.0, I was asked this question last week – Can you recommend a marketing person who understands viral marketing?.
I know many good marketing people – but I don’t believe that there exists a marketing person who understands viral marketing
The reasons are
a) The basics of viral marketing are easy to get – the wikipedia entry on viral marketing is a good start – and is just about all the generic knowledge you need for viral marketing . In that sense, you don’t need to pay anyone to know about the generics of viral marketing. In fact, almost by definition – the fundamentals of viral marketing must be simple and must be known to most people(else if it were by some esoteric, secret mechanism – the application would not spread virally anyway)
b) Viral marketing is a function of product design. The products that have succeeded virally – have done so because they were truly superior products(technically and functionally). They are radically different from the existing set of products - hence their demand can't be gauged by traditional marketing means like focus groups or by asking the potential customers.
Skype is probably the best example of this. Skype is a product which provides a superior user experience due to its excellent technology – leading users to recommend it to others
Thus, my advice is – you can get to know all you need to know about the generics of viral marketing from the public domain. You should then start with the product design team and work from there. If you already have a product and then retrospectively try to think of how to ‘viral market’ it – you have lost it already!
Thus, no marketing person can tell you much about viral marketing (since it’s a function of product design) and the information the product design team needs to know - is already available in the public domain
But then I would say that - I am an engineer doing a Phd!
thoughts?
Image source: http://images.ientrymail.com/webpronews/Zen_Viral_Marketing.jpg
Posted by ajit at 10:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The carnival of the mobilists
Great stuff as usual - some from folks who are at CTIA
Its at mopocket
Posted by ajit at 4:39 PM
amazon.org - look who is laughing now?
I love to see visionaries succeed .. as the dust from web 1.0 settles down and we enter a more mature market of web 2.0 - lets take a minute to revisit this email - which I first read a few years ago in the dark days of the dot com bust.
It makes funny reading - but not sure what the author is doing - but Jeff Bezos is still laughing his usual trademark laugh - all the way to the bank
Enjoy! But let's not forget that critics are dime a dozen - and a group of critics never accomplished anything in themselves ..
Network Solutions, Inc
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
April 1, 2000
Mr. Jeff Bezos
President and Chief Executive Officer
Amazon.com, inc.
P.O. Box 81226
Seattle, WA 98108-1226
Application for Renewel of amazon.com domain name
Dear Mr. Bezos:
We recently received your application for renewal of the "amazon.com" domain name for your company, Amazon.com, inc. Unfortunately, we must reject your application, and assign you an alternate domain name instead; for the reasons outlined below.
As you are no doubt aware, the .com top-level domain is intended for use by for-profit corporations. Many such corporations are registered with Network Solutions, and this policy is unchanged.
However, it has come to our attention, as evidenced by recent SEC filings on behalf of Amazon.com, inc., that your company has yet to turn a profit. As such, Amazon.com, inc. no longer qualifies for a domain name in the ."com" hierarchy. However, based on your financial performance, you do qualify for membership in the ."org" domain; which is intended for non-profit organizations. Unless there are any objections from you or your representative, Network Solutions will assign Amazon.com, inc. the new domain name "amazon.com.org." (We would have assigned the shorter "amazon.org" domain, but that domain is currently assigned
to a website for the San Fransisco lesbian community.)
To be frank; we were gravely concerned about the amount of money that amazon.com, inc. has been losing. We were seriously considering assigning a name in the ."gov" domain based on the current rate that your corporation is losing money. However, as Amazon.com, inc. is a publicly-traded corporation, and policy reserves the .gov domain for organizations that are in fact governmental agencies, it was determined felt that this would not be appropriate.
This change in your domain name registration only affects your Internet domain name as assigned by Network Solutions; and no way impairs your right to continue to do business under the trademark of "Amazon.com." If and when Amazon.com, inc. becomes a profitable enterprise; we will be happy to reconsider granting you once again the domain name "amazon.com," assuming it is still available.
This change shall take effect within the next thirty (30) days, at which point the "amazon.com" name will be decomissioned. You have until then to notify customers and business partners. Effective immediately, and for the length of the thirty-day transition period; both names wlll be registered to Amazon.com, inc.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact
our customer service department.
Sincerely,
Jim Rutt
Chief Executive Officer
Network Solutions, Inc.
Source: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/00/Aug/bezos.html
Posted by ajit at 12:54 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack