Yo dawg, I heard you like news aggregation so I put a news aggregator in your news aggregator so you can read social media while you read social media.

People are using services that make Twitter a duct-taped-together activity stream. I prefer to hear people’s ideas instead of being carpet bombed with bot notifications from the social media service du jour. But this isn’t exclusive to Twitter, Facebook took this further with web-wide likes and Facebook Connect. Your activity on the web is a feature on Facebook and they encourage you to dump everything there. Fortunately I can’t control what other people do, but a little bit of the Web dies every time someone publishes that stuff. That’s how I feel, but that’s the beauty of the Web: It’s a playground for experimentation. Too bad it feels like there’s not that much experimentation going on except on the business case side of the Web.

I rarely cross-post what I share/do on the various services. I don’t assume you’re stupid, if you want to know what links I find interesting, don’t expect them on my Twitter feed but on my Google Reader. If you want to know about my runs, I’m on Nike+. If you’re interested in what I read, or something else – well, there’s an app that isn’t Twitter for that. Sure, that’s more work for you if you want to know about everything I do but I don’t expect you to be. I don’t have to promote myself on the web – I have a nice day job and as a Finn I’m quite introverted anyway.

Also, if you guys haven’t yet figured it out – Google’s social network is the Web. And it will fail on your usual Web 2.0 metrics, because people don’t want platforms – they want applications. This is what happened with Google Buzz.

I ran a mile! Then I spent two hours promoting it on the web.

As I alluded previosuly, people use Twitter and Facebook as a make-shift Activity Streams because they just work well enough. Google Buzz was an early attempt to the next gen, but it failed miserably. It was complex, it was a platform and no one got the point. It offered advantages over Facebook and Twitter only on infrastructure level, not for the user. I’m quite certain that Google continues on this path, because there’s no reason to make a yet another Orkut when it seems that the future of Facebook and Twitter are activity updates. Better to control those updates than the services where they are published. Also, most of that stuff is just noise. In the future, the real business is filtering and exploiting those little snippets of information, not just dumbly showing them.

This hopefully could also mark the end of the dark age of “social media”, where we ignored the complexities of human social behavior and assuming that before “social media” everything was asocial. When someone can go and say that the end of social gaming is near because all gaming will be social – are you fucking kidding me? At what point in time were games missing a social aspect? Or did these guys only play Solitaire and Minesweeper? The Internet is after all a tool. It’s a delusion to believe we have required social enlightenment through Facebook when a compelling case can be made be against it. Repeat after me: you are not how many friends you have on Facebook, you’re not your LinkedIn profile, you’re not your fucking tweets, …

For example, Facebook gives us just one identity. This is by design and Mark Zuckerberg believes this is the right way to go forward. He and Facebook prefers that identity is our most low common denominator identity, probably so that they can sell more eyeballs to “targeted” ads. That might be reason why Facebook is boring, everyone is just showing their most bland identity they are willing to show to strangers.

On the web, people don’t always want to be “themselves” – or even social. Play some multiplayer games, preferably a FPS on a console – like Call of Duty: MW on PS3 – and you’ll quickly see the dark side of human psyche, also known as Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Blizzard tried to solve the problem as an engineering problem and attempted to force people to use their real names, this was very quickly shot down by users. On the internet, some of us want to be DeathSpank, the Orc slayer.

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. URL as a metric for social object’s value (Weekend rambling)
2. Facebook’s power grab of the social web
3. Feeding on Plaxo Pulse – a review
4. Favourite Web Tools to start 2009 with
5. What’s social, anyway?

But seriously. Facebook’s grab of their users is getting quite out of hand. Exposing more and more of stuff that could be argued to be personal information, pimping that stuff to other sites and companies… it’s not cool and it’s pretty dark in the grey area of abusing their users’ respect. The “evolution” of Facebook’s concept of privacy was best illustrated by Matt McKeon’s neat infographic.

You know these pics as lolcats, but majority of Facebookers just think they are cute.

If you look at the new things Facebook is developing it’s easy to start thinking what are the real benefits to users? It’s all just exploitation. But that’s just the business model for web 2.0 social. Companies are willing to pay a lot to know what their target demographics like and how they behave and lots of other metrics that supposedly make their marketing more effective. They also want to have “presence” on the “social”. I have no experience with marketing industry so I’ve no idea how well this works.

Many internet pioneers were against any first legislation involving Internet, because the Internet was somehow “different”. They felt that these laws would restrict the “freedom” of the whole Internet. Yet, it’s clear that at least our consumer protection and privacy laws are not good enough. The German Federal Minister of Consumer Protection sent a letter to Facebook where her threat was that she’d get out of Facebook if Zuckerberg and his company don’t start to respect users’ privacy more. Seriously, is this how toothless even European consumer protection agencies are against Facebook’s rampant power grab?

One of the weaknesses of Facebook is that they’re centralized. This is why Google, Yahoo et al are working hard on social web that’s distributed. The problem is that this is not a competition where the best technology wins. So what if “web industry leaders” are quitting Facebook? Most of the Facebook’s userbase don’t know who they are and don’t care.

The strength of Facebook at this point is that it’s what pretty much everyone and their parents know how to use on the web. Even otherwise computer illiterate people feel at home with Facebook, like the ReadWriteWeb’s article on Facebook that people ended up when they searched for “facebook login” on Google demonstrated. Whatever the pioneers, early adopters, or any other web power users do to create “anti-Facebooks” does not matter, especially on the short term.

The internet has always been a scary place for newbies and it’s a shame how easily scammers can use Facebook as an attack vector. All the groups and pages that advertise free Farmville cash or an iPad for just doing these simple steps that compromise the whole computer… The problem is that it is difficult to distinguish these from the marketing agencies’ competitions on who can create the most “liked” “viral” astroturfed page and also by the simple fact that people tend to trust their friends’ judgment so these scams can get easily spread through the “social”.

From the web power users’ viewpoint the future is either a more interactive web, or the wet dream of every SEO and internet marketing expert – a web that stinks and where its users are just a crop for marketing analytics. We are idealistic and tend to believe in the power of technology, but the web is a commercial venture. Google isn’t exactly our friend (not even using the web 2.0 definition of the word), but it looks it is in their best interest to push for the same cause – a more open web.

It’s not that Google and others are doing this out of kindness for web users. It just makes business sense for them, Google makes money when more people use the web. And it’s not like Facebook is inherently evil – the exploitation of their userbase is a natural progression for any social network business, especially because their users are not willing to pay for the service in any direct fashion.

We can’t bluff Facebook about quitting our accounts, because we are not going to hurt ourselves here and they know it. For its users, Facebook does add value. But, there are limits on how much they can exploit this fact. What Google and others are trying to do is make Facebook redundant, unnecessary – but they’re still far from this goal.

This is why I would expect more from the people we have appointed to take care of our personal information in the society, the different national and international data protection agencies. Not just empty threats like Mrs. Aigner’s.

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. The Annual Kari Silvennoinen is out!
2. Social web for the long-term
3. What’s social, anyway?
4. Overpopulation in Facebook
5. Empty promise of privacy in Facebook

But how good is this wave of mergers and acquisitions for the future? ( By future I mean upcoming innovation and future of Startups which target innovation not business)

Whenever your biggest competitor takes you over, it blunts the competitive spirit that can drive innovations. Thats what concerns me most, the spirit of innovation is somehow compromised because of takeovers.

Not always always a potential Merger or Takeover can be taken as a positive sign of ever increasing competition and globalization. And particularly not right now when it comes to web and social media startups, many of which are still more focused on innovation and building up audiences than on making profits. Rushing them into deals to fulfill long-delayed plans for an exit strategy could derail the evolution of a strong business plan.

From an investment standpoint, founders and venture capitalists have good reasons to cash out now. Market caps of public tech giants are rising — the Nasdaq gaining big time – and so are their cash stockpiles. For Instance Microsoft has a stock pile of about $49 billion in cash; similar is the story of Google with $24 billion. High-profile Multi Billion dollar deals like the ones we had in recent times have a way of spurring on other acquisitions.

TimeWarner buying AOL and eBay buying Skype come to mind. Even snapping up a hot startup for its technology or talent — Google buying Dodgeball or Yahoo buying Flickr – can lead to culture clashes, customer anger and other disappointing results.

I  tried to re-compile the list of some major takeovers which are substantial enough to change the future of computing.   We are talking about some multibillion dollar mergers and acquisitions, where the Big gets even Bigger.

Oracle eclipses the SUN @ $7.4 Billion

This Merger can be coined as “father of all the Tech Mergers” announced last year. If the announced the deal went through, Oracle,  the industry’s largest database software vendor would get an entry into the server and storage markets worldwide.

The acquisition, still pending, was announced in April, and may even be blocked because European regulators are contending that combining Oracle’s technology with Sun’s open source MySQL database would violate competition laws. Lets see if this deal goes through.

Xerox snaps up ACS in $6.4 billion

Another major takeover, Xerox pays about $6.4 billion in cash and stock for Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), a large IT and outsourcing firm. With this merger Xerox hopes it will give it a bigger foothold in the business services space. While the deal will surely boost Xerox, investors wondered whether it overpriced the deal.

Calling the ACS deal “a game-changer” for Xerox, Burns, CEO of the company, said it would help Xerox “expand our business and benefit from stronger revenue and earnings growth.” The deal will triple the service component of Xerox’s revenue to roughly $10 billion annually from $3.5 billion, according to the company.

Dell – Perot Catch-Up Deal worth $ 3.9 Billion

Buying Perot was a part of Dell’s plan to expand its footprint in the IT services market, which was  a necessity in a time when hardware sales were falling. Dell offered a staggering $3.9 billion for Perot Systems, a 68% premium over Perot’s actual stock value. Dell’s purchase can also be seen as a response to rival HP’s $13.9 billion acquisition the previous year of EDS — another services company founded by Perot.

Cisco-Tandberg worth  $3.4 billion

Cisco, already a major player in collaboration products with WebEx and TelePresence, signed an agreement in October to purchase videoconferencing vendor Tandberg, which makes both video devices and network infrastructure products. The acquisition, if completed, could have both a direct and indirect impact on Cisco’s bottom line, because expanded use of videoconferencing may increase network traffic, letting Cisco sell more switches and routers.

HP Acquires 3Com For $2.7 Billion

HP launched a straightforward assault on Cisco in their own Game of Networks. HP’s increasing influence in data center networking and convergence markets will have a big boost with its purchase of 3Com, a maker of switches, routers and security products. HP says the acquisition will further its data center strategy “built on the convergence of servers, storage, networking, management, facilities and services.” The acquisition of 3Com also help to expand HP’s Ethernet switching offerings, add routing solutions and significantly strengthen the company’s position in China thanks to 3Com’s strong presence in China. The transaction is expected to close in the first half of 2010.

I have collected the figures and numbers from various sources including PCWorld, Gigaom and Wikipedia. Let me know if you have a suggestion or correction to make. Please forgive me for the grammar, I was always bad in Grammar since school

Article Previosuly mirror-posted by me at Global Thoughtz.

Anand

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Lessons from Microsoft's acquisition of ScreenTonic
2. SAP vs. Oracle: virtuous M&A?
3. The biggest buyout in History about to happen in the telco business? Mmm, I'm not buying.
4. The Poor Man’s Business Model—How Out-of-the-Box thinking can generate tremendous value for customers
5. Is Yahoo! agonizing?

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Will virtual worlds contribute to democratize art?

This application brings environmental information closer to the world’s citizens. By simply entering a city name, the amount of greenhouse gases released since 1970 can be visualized. In addition, the main sources of GHG emissions in the year 2005 can be identified: industries (fuel combustion, process and waste emissions in energy and manufacturing industries); transport (road, rail, shipping); residential fuel combustion and waste handling; and agriculture.

As in my last post Jeremy pointed out  “the environmental footprint of their premises, logistics and supply chain, paper and ink consumption, utility consumptions (water, electricity,…), transportation and travels, waste, etc. must also be a point of concern”. Using this application we can definitely get a better view to the complete picture.

How to Use the Application:

• Install Google Earth

• Downloaded EDGAR GHG viewer 2005

Once you have installed Google Earth, install EDGAR GHG viewer and restart the application. Its just a matter of some clicks. I was really excited to see it for the first time. I am attaching a few snapshots that I took today morning. Try it yourself, you will understand how grave the scene is atleast in Europe, China, India  and USA.

Snapshot 1 – US of A.                                                           Snapshot 2 – Europe and Middle East with Africa

Snapshot 3 : Asia.

Representations : The data presented here covers carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorcarbons (HFCs), perfluorcarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). In order to compare different greenhouse gas emissions the emissions of individual gases have to be converted into CO2-equivalents. The Green Areas of Map has 0.00 -0.10 G equivalent of CO2 and Black/Blue spots are worst affected areas with or more 250 G equivalent of CO2 .

Personally, I hope this modeled simulation of World Wide GHG emissions will help a lot of people involved in Carbon Foot printing or planning to join the Green movement world wide. Let me know your ideas and reviews about this. The data sets are also available for download (free ) at the link.

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Google kills dolphins and pandas
2. Okay, resuming Tech IT Easy blogging ;) and focusing on Green IT
3. Wasting Energy While We Sleep: Did you switched off your PC today?
4. Understanding The Green Future!
5. e-Reader or Print Media which is Greener? Join the Debate…..

The second consequence is that I’ve been thinking a lot about the implications of virtual OSs. With Google OS recently having been announced, which is supposed to integrate flawlessly with Macs and Windows, assumably Android, as well as being designed for Netbooks, I wonder if Intel, with it’s multi-core processors, has not created a situation where nothing else matters, hardware-wise, except to have a powerful enough processor? In other words, have hardware-manufacturers like Sony, Samsung, and to some extent, Apple simply become irrelevant?

Take Sony for instance, which has just announced its first “Netbook.” It’s one selling point?

“Like other netbooks the Vaio W has a 10-inch screen, but its display has a resolution of 1,366 by 768 pixels rather than the more common 1,024 by 600 pixels. That means more of a Web site can be fitted onto the screen, and the user will have to scroll less, the company said at a launch event in Tokyo on Tuesday.” (emphasis my own)

Not much to write home about, except if you absolutely need to use a Sony, and bear in mind that that company was at some point a premium manufacturer of technology. The PC market has long been commoditised of course, ever since IBM opened its hardware up to the world, but with the rise of ultra-cheap PCs & laptops, I think they are digging their own grave.

I think that, as I wrote in a comment to a recent post, Netbooks are a failed experiment and, to add to that, unless either drastic changes in the cost-structure can be made to increase profit-margins, or new business models can be found (e.g. a similar hardware-service bundling to what has been happening in the mobile phone space), I think that we won’t be hearing from netbooks after 2010 onwards.

What also seems clear is that software companies, with their much more favourable profit margins, are winning this war, and, pretty soon, they won’t have to think about hardware at all any more. Instead of writing for a “spec,” you just need to write for a virtual space, which can run anywhere or everywhere.

Arguably, hardware has always been enslaved to software (except for one company), but I see the Sony’s & Samsung’s of today becoming the Nokia’s & Motorola’s of the future.

Since I’m not a technologist (more of a technology philosopher), I may be drastically oversimplifying. What do you think?
P.S. going to stop signing my name for a while. I’ll see if that makes a difference. V.

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Hardware giants to software BU: "thank you!"
2. iPhone's app strategy and its implications for other smart phones
3. Battles in the Virtualization Space
4. Is software high-tech? Take II
5. Changing markets – OS opportunities in retrospect

Not as impressed as Vince with the new browser. Buggy (error at startup time after migrating the favorites) unable to access gmail, suspicious googleUpdate.exe process still active after I’ve closed the app etc …

However, the comic is quite a fascinating experience.

Documenting software to transmit knowledge has always been something I’ve loved to do. The reason is : along with tests, documentation is another abandonned child of the developpers and as such I feel a lot of tenderness towards this activity.

Head First series has been an amazing step toward transmitting knowledge. Kathy Sierra has been studying cognitive science so she knows a tad bout the subject.

But here we’re just moving a step further : a real artist is documenting this rather geeky product …

Scott Mc Cloud is a graphic artist and he has been approached by google to write the specs of the Google Browser. The old times of truck loads of documentation delivered together with your software by the big cat  seems like ages ago.

Kathy Sierra taught us why a) conversational writing kicks formal writing whenever it comes to teach and have your audience remembering and b) Graphics have people responding. Google learned their lesson very well thank you and decided to do both.

At GLV puts it in twitter : Google Chrome’s coolness is mostly under the hood. Hard to convince non-programmers why that’s important. The comic is a brilliant solution.

Best thing : the main characters are software engineers. Respect to the alpha geeks indeed.

Check out Scott interview at techRadar.

(Hi it’s Cecil here. As usual, a copy of this post is available on Heavy Mental)

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Google Chrome and when vertical integration rocks
2. 3 myths about Google…You said "myths", right?
3. Entrepreneurial brainstorming session N.11: an Economic Warfare defensive tool altering Google search results reliability
4. One reason I don’t like Google Chrome on the Mac
5. Google stock price above 500$

Scott Berkun (again and again !) has been the constant inspiration of this digest. He will lead us through this bulletin with this brilliant video of his lecture on the topic @ Carnegie Mellon (50ish minutes – recommend to view after reading the post). [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amt3ag2BaKc]

Innovation : definition

This is the most satisfactory definition I could find, after a couple of days of relentless search (part-time). Actually a pretty good one : Innovation is the process that translates knowledge into economic growth and social well-being. (Autralian Research Council)

Innovation = Problem Solving

Looking into different material in search for the innovation Graal, I’ve noticed that many people interested in innovation come with the problem paradigm : If you want to innovate, don’t look for solutions, look for a problem (P. Graham @ StartUp School 08)

To which Google CIO echoes : To innovate, start with a problem not a solution (Douglas Merrill – Innovation at Google – this Douglas Merrill really makes me think of a silicon valley version of Quentin Tarantino – fast, hectic, excited.)

While Scott Berkun on Harvard Business site extends the vocabulary :while explaining why Innovation is overrated : Inventors, creators and leaders (…) rarely used that word themselves. Instead their vocabularies leaned heavily on words like problem, experiment, risks, prototype.

Not to forget DHH@StartupSchool08 : Good innovation comes from just solving simple problems that you’re intimately involved with.

Innovation = A good product

Another strong trend amongst these e-public figures, is that innovation is a natural offspring of good product, not the other way round : Instead of asking “How can we be innovative”, a toothless and vague question with mostly useless answers, we should be asking “How can we make great things” (Scott Berkun)

This great product thing has to be a common aspiration for people working on it : Q: How do you manage for innovation. A : We hire people who want to make the best things in the world (Steve Jobs)

A great product can only be the result of strong focus as Steve Jobs answered to Business Week : Innovation comes from saying no to 1000 things to make sure we don’t get on the wrong track or try to do too much

And this product HAS to bring competitive advantage and revenue : Innovation is only as good as the business value it has created (D. Merrill). Innovation : a mean to get a competitive advantage by meeting a business need (Erwann Neau)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GtgSkmDnbQ]

Innovation = Risk Taking

Eventhough the target of the book is more marketing, it is still strongly recommended to read the Purple Cow by marketing guru Seth Godin : The old ways (of marketing) are dead and being safe is now to risky

You didnt’ think we would complete this bulletin on innovation without mentioning Kathy Sierra did you ? Risk Aversion is the single biggest innovation killer

The next quote from Peter Drucker is more general business related. However, I think it completely applies to innovation management in IT industry : Each time you see a successfull business tell yourself there is a brave desicion behind

Fostering Innovation

Quite a few quality material on this topic. Linda Naiman (Creativity at works) and cio.com both agree on the need to have a clear vision and strategy to align innovation onto : Make sure vision is clearly communicated (Linda Naiman). Innovation workers must be able to integrate corporate strategy into their evaluation of possible innovation paths (cio.com)

Setting up the appropriate climate is also one of the main success factor for innovation. Most important thing for innovation is create a climate for it. Some companies are trying to build this climate : safety, participation, where people are involved and comfortable with voicing new ideas. Strangely it doesn’t happen often enough. (Ranjay Gulati – PHD, teacher Harvard Business School on CNBC)

Another key item is to provoke and encourage engagement. The reason why we serve food at google it is because at lunch time people engage discuss and exchange ideas (D. Merrill).

Steve Jobs basically designed Pixar building. In the center, he created this big atrium area, which seems initially like a waste of space. He put the mailboxes, the meetings rooms, the cafeteria, and, most insidiously and brilliantly, the bathrooms in the center so that you run into everybody during the course of a day, then  make eye contact and then things happen. (Brad Bird)

Constant (L. Neiman) and inter disciplinary learning also is strongly encouraged : If you work in lighting but you want to learn how to animate, there’s a class to show you animation. There are classes in story structure, in Photoshop, even in Krav Maga, the Israeli self-defense system. Pixar basically encourages people to learn outside of their areas, which makes them more complete. (Brad Bird answering gigaom)

Another common recipe to foster innovation is to look for diversity. Again, L. Neiman and Douglas Merrill agree on this one as the latter puts it : We live out load, we have arguments. We believe the best way to find a new idea is to get different people thinking about the same problem

Managing Innovation

Strategy is clear, innovation is aligned, defined and encouraged. How about managing it ? Let’s first ask Steve Jobs how can we systemize innovation : The system is that there is no system. That doesn’t mean we don’t have process. Apple is a very disciplined company, and we have great processes. But that’s not what it’s about. Process makes you more efficient.

It’s a pretty delicate issue, though. As Douglas Merrill puts it : Innovation is a fragile flower. Dont try to structure it. At Google, 20% of our engineers time is dedicated to their own project. They just manage this time as they want. Chaos brings creativity.

Innovation is such a fragile flower that no measure is drastic enough to protect it : Brad Bird it’s pretty straightforward : What undermine innovation ? Passaive aggressive people—people who don’t show their colors in the group but then get behind the scenes and peck away—are poisonous. I can usually spot those people fairly soon and I weed them out.

Also : watch out the devil’s advocate. Kathy Sierra quotes Tom Kelley (The ten faces of innovation) from IDEO on that very topic : Tom Kelley–general manager of IDEO–believes that “devil’s advocate may be the biggest innovation killer in America today.” Invoking “the awesome protective power” lets the devil’s advocate be incredibly negative and slash your idea to shreds, all while appearing not only innocent but reasoned, balanced, intelligent…

And then there is the reward policy. Basically : reward innovation and don’t blame failure. Douglas Merrill, Linda Neiman all cio.com agree on this approach, perpetuating William Mc Knight philosophy (Via Scott Berkun video) : Management that is destructively critical when mistakes are made kills initiative. And it’s essential that we have many people with initiative if we are to continue to grow.

Diffusing Innovation

The diffusion of innovation is based more on sociology and psychology than on technology (Everett Rogers – Diffusion of Innovation)

Here the thing technologists hate : whenever they come with innovation, the main forces against the innnovation adoption are sociologic ones : ego, envy, fear, pride, politics, security etc … These are the most common negative reactions according to the Myths of Innovation from Scott Berkun.

And these are the factors according to E. Rodgers as reported by Scott Berkun to measure how likely your solution is bound to be adopted :

• Relative advantage : what value does it bring ?
• Compatibility : how much effort to transition to this innovation ?
• Complexity : how much learning is required to apply it ?
• Trialability : How easy is it to try the innovation ?
• Observability : How visible are the results ?

Myths of Innovation

Last but not least, let’s honor our tutor for this first post of the serie with reference to his Myths Of Innovation book.  These are the most common ones :

• Innovation happens as epiphany Epiphany is the tip of a creative iceberg. It happens as a result of long thoughts process
• Disruptive ideas come out from out of the blue. Disruptive ideas are a combination of other ideas. New ideas out of the void are extremely seldom
• Great innovators are usually egostical mavericks. Innovation mostly is a collaborative process
• People love new ideas. People fill unsafe with novelty, innovation inspire fear.
• Innovators know, they have a plan. Many innovations are accident. The biggest challenge is to know when it’s good enough.

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. America – the land of process-innovation?
2. Beta equals Innovation, or another reason why I like the Business of Software
3. Issues to consider when managing innovation: example of Intel’s lablets
4. How to Research Innovation
5. Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Technology: The 3 Most Visionary Sentences Ever

After 2 peaceful years of gardening new products and shopping (still checking if Yahoo comes in the right size) Microsoft has apparently decided to go extrovert and check out the competition. The new internet explorer, IE8, marketed as the “discrete one’ comes with features like ‘In Private Browsing’ that help you block away some aspects of commercial intrusion such as cookies, history lists, and ads.

Wait a minute, are ads angels or demons? It depends on whose side you are, ads are actually multifaceted like mood rings: their use and value are subject to the judge’s role, critical spirit, need of information.

Web ads are mostly seen as angels: they do no evil, they function more elegantly than on other media, probably that’s why people put up with them and other people have based business and state funding models on them.

Demonizing web ads is not part of the ‘InPrivate Blocking’ goals, free will rules. But with privacy on internet becoming a hot topic for regulation, InPrivateBrowsing is actually a do-no-evil, democratic timebomb.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fMqJWoOjE4]

So, this is my scenario.

(late this summer, honey I’m home)

Microsoft is risking committing twice the same antitrust crime, expecting the ad-allergy to spread like a demon-ex-machina by means of ambient buzz (autumn leaves and dust).

(later this year, in the city)

In the same way we’ve rapidly become eco-aware, we begin paying more attention to our privacy.

(you’re just too good to be true)

As Google’s adwords becomes better and Google’s search engine becomes more personalized the results of these two tend to look alike. At some point, our contextual aesthetics react to the lack of difference in the typology of service. Allergy. (atsum)

(in the meantime, the trial)

Then, the second antitrust trial for Microsoft magnetizes ambient dynamics towards privacy awareness.

(whose side are we?)

People are mostly concerned with the direct impact of this issue on their lives rather than the health of the economic competition. This aspect works for Microsoft.

(in the spring, jingle bells blossom/ after the trial…)

As time goes by, behavioral reflexes are built on this awareness.

By highlighting that do-no-evil doesn’t equal do-good, the trial triggers the attitude of systematically using the ad-blocking features in IE or elsewhere (Firefox, Safari…)

(is the trial just a bad dream?)

Google on the other side is still our clean cut hero, our Brandon Walsh.. Fighting for free airwaves, for openness, for us, has chosen an original model of B2C partnership. Beyond a company it acts as a web NGO.

So what is the best path to protect its core business? The legal, the educational, the crowdsourcing or the self-transformational?

Will Brandon

a) complain to the highschool director ?

b) organize an ad-contest for the beach-club kids to campaign for homeless veterans ?

c) run for highschool president ?

d) or study hard to access UCLA?

…to be continued

Well, I also have some legal questions:

If InPrivateBlocking is banned, is the same feature declared non grata for other browsers as well ? What about other add-on programs-is size(impact) shaping legality?

How is the applicable legal domain chosen? Is it an issue of commercial or civil law and how is EU regulation restrictive in each case?

Piss o’ cake?

Georgia

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Is Microsoft doing right with the "I'm a PC" ads?
2. Lessons from Microsoft's acquisition of ScreenTonic
3. Are Microsoft, Sun & Yahoo! employees keener to defend their products than Apple & Google's?
4. Why Microsoft should never even think of acquiring Yahoo!
5. 11 reasons I'm joining Microsoft

My faith has been restored: we live in a civilized business world where everybody can be a winner, sky is the limit etc.

More specifically, as far as the 700Mhz part of the sky is concerned, the breaking news are that there are no breaking news and no disruptive solutions:

Winners

US government has won

~ 20 billions of declining US  $.

AT&T has won

the C-block and the pride of carriers being carriers.

AT&T’s lawyers have won

significant fees and gem experience from lawsuits concerning the Openness clause.

Google has won

• the right to patch their apps on (carter)mobiles,
• access to the mobile advertising market (~ 3 billions d.US $)
• and saved ~ 5b.d.US $ to invest on their core business and on P&L  communication (partnerships and lobbying)

Consumers have won

• a stable thus fitter-happier-more productive market
• having the actors empowered and doing their best to focus on client satisfaction with the cease of this corporate battle
• a monetization of their mobile clicking
• federal income

(others)

… you’re welcome to brainstorm.

Geometry: Symmetry and a 3D market that moves in balance.

The equilibrium of this auction is a piece of art.

The main financial flows are organized symmetrically, in analogy of size.

This is my oversimplified prism:

• Big still pay the Big (B to B) : AT&T pays FCC
• MicroPlayers AKA “consumers” pay attention that pays Google (MP to G)

The notorious interoperability in telecommunications could actually apply to business models as well , since each one has found its place in this multidimensional world.

As you can see above  the 700 MHz space has been defined in 3D :

Little red axe: MP to G

Big red axe: B to B

The long red tail: their future interactions.

I commit to review my proposition to do away with auctions as sales procedures, taking off my hat to these infamous Google game theorists.

Hey guys, would you care to take a look into tougher games once you’ve finished with business peace?

Georgia

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Shut down TV, to open up mobiles – the auction 73
2. Why Android will suck
3. Smartphone misconceptions
4. iPhone's app strategy and its implications for other smart phones
5. Lessons from Microsoft's acquisition of ScreenTonic

Analog US tellyvisions are being thrown away, liberating long-desired spectrum that calls for reallocation, today.

Chicken or egg, we need air, so let there be plans, people & co, actions and an auction to start with, auction 73 for the 700Mhz spectrum. Rounds last 10minutes to set an equilibrium position among the different degrees on openness of the mobile industry. Tough.

The auction house is the Federal Communications Commission and the most desired item on the catalogue is the “C Block”, a fine 22Mhz segment assorted with the capacity of enabling deployment of national scale projects to its collectors: nationals and locals, operators and WISPs, new business people, some opportunists and an artist (Office of Spectral Ecology)

The majority of big Mobile Network Operators (aka MNOs) have shown up only to be shown the door out during the prequalification phase, in a sort of witty joke or creative telco analysis challenge.

As today was approaching, no more jokes, FCC doubled the panel of qualified bidders to reach 214, re-including the MNOs, who can reconsider themselves as “home”. (AllTel, AT&T Mobility Spectrum, Chevron, Qualcomm, Verizon Wireless)

On the “guests” side I was delighted to find the haute couture of creative business modelists. (Google, Spectrum, LLC/ Bend Cable Communications and other Sillicon Valley based companies)

buzz abouts

If you hate theories and concepts skip next paragraph and just suppose the iPhone being created by Banana Ltd instead of Apple. And then imagine it, because you couldn’t be holding it right now: AT&T or Orange don’t partner with Bananas, they milkshake and invite Banana’s to participate. The fuzz is Bananas laying on the street to claim their right to please consumers (ideally).

Next Paragraph

buzz abouts

Apparently “homes” seek simply to preserve their status: their prescription power over mobile phone manufacturers, over content management, their regulatory influence…

On the other hand, runner-ups are challenged to prove that they can enter the supply chain and change it, having pretty good chances to do so: they have already marked a point, with Google resisting AT&T’s bullying ( !!“put up or shut up” !!) and lobbying the way into:

• Open devices: through the “Wireless Carterphone” condition, which stops bullying against manufacturers.
• Open services: through non discriminatory wholesale network access conditions

So the Googlephone might be on his way! (hurray!) along with long desired network neutrality, openness, disconcentration, innovation and regulatory repositioning. In simple words when mobile networks are neutral and open to all technologic standards and functionalities, ideas can find their way easily, and parental controls have less role to play. Tim Wu explains so well the environment of neutral networks in “Wireless Carterphone” that he even bothers to post a real picture from the 60’s version, along with his excellent insights.

Flip TI

I want to flip it: using my mobile I want to talk for peanuts, to access any site on internet, command my computer, camera and coffee machine and do whatever engineers are amused implementing to amuse me. As a professional I want the evolution mechanism to function again, cleaning up the confused telcos environment. It feels strange to complain about traffic on my way to work and when I am there just smile awkwardly in front of bottlenecks that squize ideas, and set up useless and expensive jobs.

I search no solution, it seems that exists already in network neutrality but until now our problem in the mobile industry was ignored and thus not treated. On predictions I am sure you have some great ideas to share, please do…

What intrigues me and made me torture you with this auction is NOW,

what is happening and HOW it is happening.

Method: Let me first express some sympathy for the “guests” as they have to play in a tough procedure that mostly reflects the MNOs structure. The Auction Method (73) puts utmost pressure on buyers, forces them give up any sense of negotiation, pumps up prices and favors existing capital value over project potential value.

Principles: Price should not be the only criterion, it could be rude (and silly) to ignore deployment projects and profitability potential.

Timing: Since the long-term objective is market stabilization and consumer centric profitability these values could apply early. Sooner or later consumers will finally decide if they like MNOs choosing content for them or they’d rather put up with libertine spam while  producing and distributing their own.

So how could it be sooner? How can we implicate this market feedback on this starting point? How a weighted voting system could apply? Can we group people that compose the market by expertise, consumerism, technology awareness, implication will and make a mature decision on airwaves ?

And funding? Come on, it’s simple, funding could be tailored to winner’s logic and the associated business model:

If it is for MNO’s the supply chain can stay as is: Winner pays now and consumers pay later.

If it is for alternatives, funding gets creative as well: Consumers can be taxed now and being rewarded later with free/gratos/tzamba mobile products, funded by advertising and paraphernalia the other way up.

Fair enough?

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Auction 73 : Multi Play Multi Win
2. Open source constraints entrepreneurship
3. Why Android will suck
4. FON launches "the wireless networking era": 5$ for a router!
5. Smartphone misconceptions

Innovation isn’t about copying and yet no doubt we’ll see copies of aforementioned services in 2008. This of course depends on how the US economy and therefore VC funds will hold up. As we have seen before, changes are quick and some of the huge web properties might end up irrelevant next year. Will something like OpenSocial really matter? We’ll see.

Below all this Facebook SaaS Web as a cloud ideology, there’s an undercurrent that I find very interesting. As I wrote in October when Google bought Jaiku, XMPP/Jabber/Google Talk is a technology to watch for. Since the acquisition, we haven’t heard much about Google’s plans for Jaiku. As I also wrote, I think it was the technology they were after, not the service itself. Could a social notification system built on RSS feeds, mobile phones and XMPP somehow fit Google’s strategy?

Google has strongly positioned GTalk as the communications platform across its many services. GTalk has been integrated for a while in GMail and to some extent this is similar what you get in Yahoo Mail/Messenger and Microsoft Live Mail/Messenger. You might have read about Google’s recent poorly received integration of GTalk into Google Reader. You may have noticed that Google Docs now offer collaboration through Google Talk. There’s even GTalk integration in Orkut and my sources tell me more is on the way. Even YouTube has availability information of people watching the same video as you (This isn’t probably based on XMPP, but could be?).

Because of their closed nature, MSN/Live Messenger, AIM or Yahoo Messenger cannot leverage their networks outside their own properties. Google Talk users can interact (to some extent) with any XMPP user and other developers can create services for Google Talk users. This is important in a world that is not desktop-bound, but where services and applications are in the web cloud.

For some time XMPP had the problem that it was too ahead of its time and could not compete with the big players. Social web and Google has changed these. Now Live Messenger is playing catch-up with upcoming features like “Multiple points of presence support”, which is something essential to the XMPP-protocol. Microsoft could overthrow other players in the IM market through distributing Messenger with their operating system, like they did with Internet Explorer. The rules of the game have changed on the web and Google has realized they can be the next IM king by integrating their solution everywhere they can. They can introduce Google Talk to anyone with a Gmail account and without any download.

If it isn’t clear enough from above, what I predict to continue in 2008 is integration of IM or instant communication on the web. We won’t see one unified network to rule them all or anything like it. We’ll see advances to a future telecom operators and their ads would want to us believe is today. Yet they’re the ones stonewalling the development of internet on mobile phones. In reality, they are defending their networks against their Internet and web-based rivals. We won’t see iPhone or Android making a big impact on the mobile market, not yet.

What I hope is that devices like Apple’s iPhone & iPod Touch and platforms like Google’s Android will make SMS obsolete preferably through something open and web-friendly like XMPP and not something cooked-up by telecom operators. Microsoft is already offering Live Messenger on mobiles, but these are deals with telecom operators. My hope lies with Google and Nokia in this one. (See for example Nokia’s Gizmo client for S60. Coincidentally, Gizmo uses XMPP for IM.)

And yes, I’m predicting an instant communication nirvana even though my contact list is still mostly empty.

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Orange's dangerous liaisons
2. Google Chrome and when vertical integration rocks
3. 1 year of IDEAS at Microsoft
4. Changing markets – OS opportunities in retrospect
5. Lessons from Microsoft's acquisition of ScreenTonic