It was quite interesting to hear Jerry Brown sounding quite conservative as he spoke about the work he has done to turn around Oakland, CA today at the Silicon Forum's monthly luncheon. Afterwards I asked him what the Mayor's office is doing to plan for the future given that California expects the population of the state to double by 2050. Nothing, he said. No one is thinking about the future, we are too busy solving today's problems... Seems like that is where today's problems come from.
Chief Customer Officer of Catalytic - an AI and Automation company providing Fortune 500 companies with the ability to rapidly reduce the cost of every day business activities while simultaneously increasing quality, employee satisfaction, and customer loyalty.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Visual Thesaurus
I don't know how I ever lived without the Visual Thesaurus. Go use it (there is a demo mode) and you'll be instantly hooked as well. Type in a word and there is a visual constellation of related terms surrounding your word. Click on any of those other words and it becomes the center of the conceptual map, with new terms growing around it. Is this the first application of Ray Kurzweil's visual "mind mapping" tools? Or was it independently developed? Check out The Brain for an open ended version of the visual thesaurus, into which you can pour your own conceptual relationships...
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Am I terribly rude?
A reader of my blog wrote in response to my previous post regarding George Bush and his religiousity:
What was amazing to me is that the Bush campaign has made an enormous effort to get evangelical Christians to the voting booth in support of his presidency. Aside from Bush's own religious convictions or his commitment to a particular congregation, it would seem like a relatively easy thing to attend church every Sunday when regular church goers are a key part of your constituency. I found it remarkable that he hasn't bothered to do this.
Perhaps my ironic rhetorical question "...does Bush really believe in God after all?" was the portion of my post that this reader found rude. I could have perhaps found a better way to pose this question, but I think the question is valid and important -- and frankly applicable to both candidates. How much is the religious positioning of the candidates a genuine reflection of their own views and how much of it is just packaging for the voters? Religion has clearly been a crucial litmus test for a candidates. Will this always be the case? In past elections, service in the military might have been a test, or drug use (the lack of drug use)... will each of these fall over time? Are we becoming cynical about these pillars of our society? Especially when these pillars become merely planks in a candidate's packaging.
That comment is really below you. I have been reading you since your early days of blogging, but that was terribly rude.As I do not intent rudeness, let me respond. First, I repeated the report in the New Republic because I was genuinely amazed at the allegation. By the way, I came across the article in The Week a terrific summary of news from the right, left, middle, and international press.
What was amazing to me is that the Bush campaign has made an enormous effort to get evangelical Christians to the voting booth in support of his presidency. Aside from Bush's own religious convictions or his commitment to a particular congregation, it would seem like a relatively easy thing to attend church every Sunday when regular church goers are a key part of your constituency. I found it remarkable that he hasn't bothered to do this.
Perhaps my ironic rhetorical question "...does Bush really believe in God after all?" was the portion of my post that this reader found rude. I could have perhaps found a better way to pose this question, but I think the question is valid and important -- and frankly applicable to both candidates. How much is the religious positioning of the candidates a genuine reflection of their own views and how much of it is just packaging for the voters? Religion has clearly been a crucial litmus test for a candidates. Will this always be the case? In past elections, service in the military might have been a test, or drug use (the lack of drug use)... will each of these fall over time? Are we becoming cynical about these pillars of our society? Especially when these pillars become merely planks in a candidate's packaging.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Bush Doesn't Go To Church
It seems unbelievable. The President who constantly speaks of his religious convictions doesn't belong to a congregation and rarely goes to church. In her article Empty Pew (subscription) Amy Sullivan of The New Republic writes:
Bush's supporters say "it's bad form" to point this out, arguing that you don't have to go to church to be religious... They also say that it's logistically difficult for a President to attend church. But that didn't stop Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, who were regular Sunday worshippers during their presidencies."I guess the big question is, does Bush really believe in God after all? Or is this just part of the packaging that has been used to sell him to the Christian right?
How to Throw the Election
Ed Felten, of the incredibly interesting and useful blog called Freedom to Tinker provides details on how Diebold has completely screwed up the electronic voting machines that will be used both here in California and in a number of states across the country.
Want to vote more than once? Here are instructions posted on Wednesday
Want to shut down the voting booth? Here are instructions posted yesterday
In both cases, a $50 smart card programming kit will give you the power to disrupt our national elections. Don't think it will happen?
Want to vote more than once? Here are instructions posted on Wednesday
Want to shut down the voting booth? Here are instructions posted yesterday
In both cases, a $50 smart card programming kit will give you the power to disrupt our national elections. Don't think it will happen?
Indymedia Update
In an Indymedia press release, the alternative media outlet reports that "on Wednesday, October 13th, Indymedia's seized hardware was mysteriously returned in the same way it disappeared -- without any information provided as to who took it or why, and on whose orders."
While Indymedia itself is on the political fringe, serious mainstream jornalism organizations are questioning the seizure of Indymedia's servers. The online website journalism.co.uk reports that
While Indymedia itself is on the political fringe, serious mainstream jornalism organizations are questioning the seizure of Indymedia's servers. The online website journalism.co.uk reports that
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) is lobbying MPs to find out why the FBI ordered the UK government to confiscate web servers belonging to independent news network Indymedia. The seizure, which happened last week, brought down 21 of the group's regional sites including the UK, Brasil and Poland.The article goes on to repeat a number of interesting allegations that Indymedia has made about why the FBI might be trying to disrupt their operations. One issue was the previously reported photos of Swiss undercover police said to be posted on one of Indymedia's web sites. Given that the FBI has confirmed that they were acting on behalf of Switzerland, this seems to be the most likely explanation. Other issues raised were more machiavellian. From the article:
The IFJ has stated that the seizure may also be related to information published by Indymedia San Francisco that claimed to reveal problems with electronic voting systems scheduled to be used in next month's Presidential election. The manufacturers, Diebold Election Systems, applied to the Californian courts to have the documents removed but Indymedia successfully opposed the application.Hopefully the professional journalism associations will continue to apply pressure to the UK and US governments for an explanation of how the FBI could have used the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), (an agreement that allows countries to co-ordinate investigations into international terrorism, money laundering and kidnapping) to seize this media company's publishing and distribution apparatus.
Indymedia's news is produced by volunteer political activists and campaigners around the world and the network's strong anti-corporate agenda has been highly critical of the invasion of Iraq.
In August 2004, IndyMedia claimed that the FBI and US Secret Service had been trying to disrupt the relationship with its hosting provider Calyx Internet Access.
The FBI had issued a subpoena for log information and contact details that would identify anyone who had posted a list of delegates attending the Republican National Convention.
Monday, October 11, 2004
US Government Shuts Down Independent Media?
BBC News is reporting today that a US court order has forced a UK based ISP to turn over servers owned by an "alternative media network known as Indymedia: in this article: US seizes independent media sites.
PC Pro writes
I don't know who the heck Indymedia is, but the EFF is already involved, offering legal assistance to Indymedia. Could it be true that our government is shutting down legitimate discourse? According to the PC Pro article "In August the US government attempted to subpoena server logs from the organisation's ISP in the US and the Netherlands before the Republican convention." Perhaps the government thinks that readers of these publications are terrorists?
The Register offers one possible explanation in their article on the matter, Feds seize Indymedia servers.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" -- Thomas Jefferson
PC Pro writes
Last week, the FBI obtained a court order involving Rackspace, demanding that the company hand over two Indymedia web servers. Rackspace, which provides hosting services for more that 20 Indymedia sites at its London facility was forced to comply and hand over the requested servers, effectively removing those sites from the Internet.The full article is available here: Feds seize Indymedia servers in London
I don't know who the heck Indymedia is, but the EFF is already involved, offering legal assistance to Indymedia. Could it be true that our government is shutting down legitimate discourse? According to the PC Pro article "In August the US government attempted to subpoena server logs from the organisation's ISP in the US and the Netherlands before the Republican convention." Perhaps the government thinks that readers of these publications are terrorists?
The Register offers one possible explanation in their article on the matter, Feds seize Indymedia servers.
While Indymedia is not exactly sure what prompted the action, the group does have one strong idea. A French Indymedia site last month posted photos of what it believed to be undercover Swiss police officers photographing protesters at a French event. Indymedia received a request from the FBI to pull those photos down, as they "revealed personal information" about the undercover police, said Indymedia press officer Hep Sano.According to more information in this story, "Indymedia (AKA Independent Media Center) was set up in 1999 to provide grassroots coverage of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) protests in Seattle." While these opinions may not be popular amongst the majority of US citizens, doesn't our constitution protect these people's right to free speech? Are we witnessing the beginning of a new era of censorship? Is this being done in the name of the "War on Terrorism?" So far, the American authorities have failed to comment. Hopefully tomorrow will bring clarification of the crime that Indymedia is accused of committing.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" -- Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, October 07, 2004
SpikePost - Polese's New Business
Kim's presentation:
Kim Polese says that strange things are happening in IT. Brazilthrows out Microsoft. So do regions of Spain, Germany, Belgium. China does its own Linux distro. Kim says "this is a revolution." And its happening "from the bottom up."
She contrasts this with the way that things used to work -- power was concentrated at the top, "the industrial egosystem." And this has worked in IT -- "monolithic vendors mad monolithic systems."
But then the Net came along and everything changed. A whole new software habitat now exists. A home on the range for developers. "Soon the ecosystem as opposed to the egosystem was filled with a whole new breed of software."
Open source adoption is exploding. This is a movement. This is a revolution. 70% web server share of Apache. 33% CAGR for Linux. 30% of all new apps using mySQL. And it is deployed at bug companies - Cisco, Goldman Sachs, ...
Web 2.0 arrived when demand began to supply itself. First it happened to programmers. Now it is spreading out to the rest of the world.
"The IT guy is the unsung hero of the economy."
The Net and Open Source were both built on principles that will change the world forever.
When anybody can improve software, it gets better.
The software industry IS maturing and commodifying -- but this is a GOOD thing.
But there is a whole new world of software business opportunities,, because innovation is moving to a whole new level.
Process innovation is becoming the new innovation in the software industry.
SpikeSource is leading this innovation
Muragan Pal and Ray Lane founded and incubated the company at KPCB
Kim joined 2 months ago as CEO
This is a "new breed of open source IT services company"
Kim Polese says that strange things are happening in IT. Brazilthrows out Microsoft. So do regions of Spain, Germany, Belgium. China does its own Linux distro. Kim says "this is a revolution." And its happening "from the bottom up."
She contrasts this with the way that things used to work -- power was concentrated at the top, "the industrial egosystem." And this has worked in IT -- "monolithic vendors mad monolithic systems."
But then the Net came along and everything changed. A whole new software habitat now exists. A home on the range for developers. "Soon the ecosystem as opposed to the egosystem was filled with a whole new breed of software."
Open source adoption is exploding. This is a movement. This is a revolution. 70% web server share of Apache. 33% CAGR for Linux. 30% of all new apps using mySQL. And it is deployed at bug companies - Cisco, Goldman Sachs, ...
Web 2.0 arrived when demand began to supply itself. First it happened to programmers. Now it is spreading out to the rest of the world.
"The IT guy is the unsung hero of the economy."
The Net and Open Source were both built on principles that will change the world forever.
When anybody can improve software, it gets better.
The software industry IS maturing and commodifying -- but this is a GOOD thing.
But there is a whole new world of software business opportunities,, because innovation is moving to a whole new level.
Process innovation is becoming the new innovation in the software industry.
SpikeSource is leading this innovation
Muragan Pal and Ray Lane founded and incubated the company at KPCB
Kim joined 2 months ago as CEO
This is a "new breed of open source IT services company"
Peter Norvig talking at Web 2.0
Peter Norvig is going deep into the science of search. It is intersting following the research person from IBM who talked about how they have research labs all over the world. Peter started his talk saying "Google doesn't have beautiful real estate all over the world, Google Labs is more about a state of mind..."
He is demonstrating semantic clustering -- very impressive to be able to see how documents are clustered by relationships between terms.
He demonstrates using the terms "george bush" and "john kerry" and everyone laughs when there are document clusters around George Bush that include "stupid" and "idiot" but these terms do not occur around John Kerry... Peter comments "this isn't what I think, this is what the web says..."
He is demonstrating semantic clustering -- very impressive to be able to see how documents are clustered by relationships between terms.
He demonstrates using the terms "george bush" and "john kerry" and everyone laughs when there are document clusters around George Bush that include "stupid" and "idiot" but these terms do not occur around John Kerry... Peter comments "this isn't what I think, this is what the web says..."
Web 2.0 Observations
Having written critically about the Blogon conference earlier this year, I am happy to report that Web 2.0 has been a GREAT conference, especially in contrast... Terrific speakers, really interesting topics, and (like Blogon) great attendees to interact with. And there is an enormous amount of buzz about the Internet -- a "resurgence" said one speaker.
What has Web 2.0 done right? Unfortunately for the future of conferences, they have returned to the model of the past -- key speakers or panels, narrowly focused on specific topics, and speaking TO the attendees not WITH the attendees. Now, the fact is that this model works and we haven't figured out the new model of the conference.
But it is worth mentioning that the two things that Web 2.0 tried to do toward a conferences 2.0 have failed:
(1) The idea of workshops is good (the first day of the conference) but the execution was poor. One problem was simply that the conference has been TOO successful -- a lot of people have shown up to participate. It is tough to run a participatory workshop in a standing-room-only meeting room. But the other failure was that no attempt was made to utilize a back channel for managing and directing the interaction. See my earlier post on this or Martin Tobias' post made after supernova.
(2) A Wiki for a conference COULD be a great tool, and the folks at Socialtext did a great job of creating a shell for a compelling online place for Web 2.0 attendees to interact with each other online. HOWEVER - organizers please take note! If your speakers do not engage on the Wiki and post info about their talks, and interact with attendees, and post their presentations, then you will not achieve a critical mass of value in the Wiki to attract attendees to participate. Thus the Web 2.0 Wiki is an eerily empty and silent place, rather than a vibrant interactive community.
Nonetheless, kudos to the organizers for creating a conference that hit a lot of the right topics, with great speakers, and an energized industry that is ready to leave here and make the Web 2.0 happen!
What has Web 2.0 done right? Unfortunately for the future of conferences, they have returned to the model of the past -- key speakers or panels, narrowly focused on specific topics, and speaking TO the attendees not WITH the attendees. Now, the fact is that this model works and we haven't figured out the new model of the conference.
But it is worth mentioning that the two things that Web 2.0 tried to do toward a conferences 2.0 have failed:
(1) The idea of workshops is good (the first day of the conference) but the execution was poor. One problem was simply that the conference has been TOO successful -- a lot of people have shown up to participate. It is tough to run a participatory workshop in a standing-room-only meeting room. But the other failure was that no attempt was made to utilize a back channel for managing and directing the interaction. See my earlier post on this or Martin Tobias' post made after supernova.
(2) A Wiki for a conference COULD be a great tool, and the folks at Socialtext did a great job of creating a shell for a compelling online place for Web 2.0 attendees to interact with each other online. HOWEVER - organizers please take note! If your speakers do not engage on the Wiki and post info about their talks, and interact with attendees, and post their presentations, then you will not achieve a critical mass of value in the Wiki to attract attendees to participate. Thus the Web 2.0 Wiki is an eerily empty and silent place, rather than a vibrant interactive community.
Nonetheless, kudos to the organizers for creating a conference that hit a lot of the right topics, with great speakers, and an energized industry that is ready to leave here and make the Web 2.0 happen!
Mitch Kapor at Web 2.0
Mitch Kapor tells us that:
Democracy is broken
Technology is (partly) to blame -- in the form of broadcast media
Technology will be the way to fix democracy
Primary issue: citizens opting out of the process. Secondary issue: transparancy (or the lack thereof)
Line that got applause - "If Thomas Paine was writing 'Common Sense' today, he would be doing so on a Linux laptop"
The politicians took the wrong message from the Dean campaign -- they heard that the Net was a way to raise money. They missed the way in which the Net became a way to engage citizens in the political process.
Bloggers are holding politicians accountable, the Net can create greater transparency and involvement, and - though there are challenges - we can fix democracy.
Democracy is broken
Technology is (partly) to blame -- in the form of broadcast media
Technology will be the way to fix democracy
Primary issue: citizens opting out of the process. Secondary issue: transparancy (or the lack thereof)
Line that got applause - "If Thomas Paine was writing 'Common Sense' today, he would be doing so on a Linux laptop"
The politicians took the wrong message from the Dean campaign -- they heard that the Net was a way to raise money. They missed the way in which the Net became a way to engage citizens in the political process.
Bloggers are holding politicians accountable, the Net can create greater transparency and involvement, and - though there are challenges - we can fix democracy.
Cory Doctorow at Web 2.0
Cory Doctorow speaking eloquently on the topic of digital rights management, how Intel amongst others are, in Cory's words, "selling out the tech industry" and how EFF is fighting for fair use and a healthy industry. Send money, call your senator, march on Washington.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Music is a Platform
Hank Barry starts out his panel with an impassioned plea to contact your legislative representatives to fight the INDUCE act, which he says is moving forward in private negotiations under the leadership of Senator Hatch.
Panelists inlude Mike Caren of Atlantic Records, Eddy Cue of Apple, Danger Mouse - the "hottest hip-hop producer in the world", Michael Weiss of Morpheus
Mike -- my job is to find new music and new talent, and then developoing that talent. The Internet is now part of everything I do. I have to look in ever nook and crany which used to be scouts and local shows but is now also reading blogs and looking online for favorite play lists and individual reviews. On the developing talent side, we are recording almost 100% directly to digital which reduces costs and facilitates distributed collaboration.
Hank - can you give me an example of a band that has broken out on the Internet?
Mike - not a perfect example. The Internet has been useful as an indicator of say that a video will be a hit video. But I can't say that there was one artist that has truly been an Internet artist.
Eddy - I think this is going to happen in the next year, where there will be an artist that really emerges from the Internet. We have more and more artists that have direct deals with iTunes.
Danger Mouse - Talks about how he created the "Grey Album" background from his web site --
Michael - Neonet is the next generation of peer to peer search technology which is going to drive people crazy in the intellectual property business.
Interesting, though wandering conversation about intellectual property rights, the use of the Internet to promote vs. steal music... But nothing really new here.
Panelists inlude Mike Caren of Atlantic Records, Eddy Cue of Apple, Danger Mouse - the "hottest hip-hop producer in the world", Michael Weiss of Morpheus
Mike -- my job is to find new music and new talent, and then developoing that talent. The Internet is now part of everything I do. I have to look in ever nook and crany which used to be scouts and local shows but is now also reading blogs and looking online for favorite play lists and individual reviews. On the developing talent side, we are recording almost 100% directly to digital which reduces costs and facilitates distributed collaboration.
Hank - can you give me an example of a band that has broken out on the Internet?
Mike - not a perfect example. The Internet has been useful as an indicator of say that a video will be a hit video. But I can't say that there was one artist that has truly been an Internet artist.
Eddy - I think this is going to happen in the next year, where there will be an artist that really emerges from the Internet. We have more and more artists that have direct deals with iTunes.
Danger Mouse - Talks about how he created the "Grey Album" background from his web site --
Danger Mouse raised the bar on hip hop experimentalism by dropping the infamous Grey Album, which used the full vocal content of Jay-Z's Black Album, recorded over new beats and production created using the Beatles White Album as it';s sole source material. The resulting record is a unique hybrid of work, a re-interpretation being touted as the one of greatest remix albums of all time. With one million downloads in a week and ensuing battle between major record companies, the media, Internet and copyright advocates, the release of the Grey Album has been nothing less than a watershed moment for music.
Michael - Neonet is the next generation of peer to peer search technology which is going to drive people crazy in the intellectual property business.
Interesting, though wandering conversation about intellectual property rights, the use of the Internet to promote vs. steal music... But nothing really new here.
Lessons Learned, Future Predicted
Who doesn't want to know the future? But I sort of expect that Marc Andressen and Dan Rosensweig are more likely to have useful comments on the first half of this panel's topic.
BROWSERS:
Marc predicts that Microsoft will come back and attack Firefox and Opera and the other browsers that are emerging with a revitalized IE strategy and one that "screws with people's business models, leveraging the monopoly that they control..."
Dan believes that Yahoo's direction is to become more and more open. He does believe that there are things that can be done with a client application and pointed out that Yahoo already has a number of rich clients, including a browser.
WALLED GARDENS:
Marc observes that we live in a world where software is more and more open - this is not the world of web 1.0 where the experience is a walled garden, but he believes that data is the new walled garden -- data lock in. You can't get your reputation out of eBay, for example -- "the plantation owner - sharecropper relationship"
Dan agrees that data is absolutely essential. But Dan thinks the walled garden of data leaves companies vulnerable -- if you lock up data, you just create a world in which companies and people are all trying to extract that data. So if you build your business on the premise of controlling that data, your business will unravel. So the important thing is to create a compelling user experience around data. That user experience will provide a lasting business model.
WEB OS
Marc -- Google is being lead willingly and unwillingly by press, wall street, users, into a direct confrontation with Microsoft. And I've seen this before. (Dan - how did it turn out? (Marc - you're going to find out!). They are being lead because everyone is spoiling for a fight. The result of that is that you have Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer on stage taking it personally and saying we will have to kill Google. It will be very interesting to see and it is still very unclear how it will line up. Google on your browser is one way, but there are other ways that they can screw with Microsoft's business model. (John Battelle (moderating) - but John Doer said that Google isn't going to do a browser -- Marc - the day that Google listens to John Doer is the day that they don't do a dutch auction...)
Dan -- Yahoo focuses on the user. What is the long term value for users. Long term value for users creates long term value for investors and employees. Its important not to get caught up in the issue of the moment and to stay focused on that long term value. "At the end of the day we are all going to end up surrendering to what the user wants to do."
BROWSERS:
Marc predicts that Microsoft will come back and attack Firefox and Opera and the other browsers that are emerging with a revitalized IE strategy and one that "screws with people's business models, leveraging the monopoly that they control..."
Dan believes that Yahoo's direction is to become more and more open. He does believe that there are things that can be done with a client application and pointed out that Yahoo already has a number of rich clients, including a browser.
WALLED GARDENS:
Marc observes that we live in a world where software is more and more open - this is not the world of web 1.0 where the experience is a walled garden, but he believes that data is the new walled garden -- data lock in. You can't get your reputation out of eBay, for example -- "the plantation owner - sharecropper relationship"
Dan agrees that data is absolutely essential. But Dan thinks the walled garden of data leaves companies vulnerable -- if you lock up data, you just create a world in which companies and people are all trying to extract that data. So if you build your business on the premise of controlling that data, your business will unravel. So the important thing is to create a compelling user experience around data. That user experience will provide a lasting business model.
WEB OS
Marc -- Google is being lead willingly and unwillingly by press, wall street, users, into a direct confrontation with Microsoft. And I've seen this before. (Dan - how did it turn out? (Marc - you're going to find out!). They are being lead because everyone is spoiling for a fight. The result of that is that you have Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer on stage taking it personally and saying we will have to kill Google. It will be very interesting to see and it is still very unclear how it will line up. Google on your browser is one way, but there are other ways that they can screw with Microsoft's business model. (John Battelle (moderating) - but John Doer said that Google isn't going to do a browser -- Marc - the day that Google listens to John Doer is the day that they don't do a dutch auction...)
Dan -- Yahoo focuses on the user. What is the long term value for users. Long term value for users creates long term value for investors and employees. Its important not to get caught up in the issue of the moment and to stay focused on that long term value. "At the end of the day we are all going to end up surrendering to what the user wants to do."
Mary Meeker at Web 2.0
Talking about China -- points out that in 1850, China was 33% of the world's GDP. Today they are only back up to 4% but they are the fastest growing.
59 million Chinese Internet users
24 million Chinese broadband subscribers
15 million online gamers
The economic picture is enormously different in China --
GDP per capita -- $619 China $37,000 for US
Huge labor surplus still in China:
Opex per employee $6.5K in China vs $73K in the US and $333K for Microsoft
"In the middle of most towns in Europe is a church. In China it is a Kentucky Fried Chicken or a McDonalds or both -- pointing to the enormous commercialization of China."
59 million Chinese Internet users
24 million Chinese broadband subscribers
15 million online gamers
The economic picture is enormously different in China --
GDP per capita -- $619 China $37,000 for US
Huge labor surplus still in China:
Opex per employee $6.5K in China vs $73K in the US and $333K for Microsoft
"In the middle of most towns in Europe is a church. In China it is a Kentucky Fried Chicken or a McDonalds or both -- pointing to the enormous commercialization of China."
James Currier at Web 2.0
James Currier of Tickle, Inc -- recently sold to Monster.com (not to be confused with Monster cable of Monster Park here in San Francisco). James makes the case that there has been an enormous consumer psychological shift SINCE the Internet bubble (since 2000-2002). He argues that Web 2.0 will be about people defining the Internet in a way that is core to the way they live their lives -- the way they buy, meet each other, learn, etc.
The psychology of web 1.0 was "make me safe, put me in a walled garden"
The psychology of web 2.0 is "let me roam and explore"
Web 1.0 was about getting someone's email address
web 2.0 is about creating a "quality conversation with persistent presence"
Web 1.0 was about does it work, can I get the transaction done?
web 2.0 is about help me get this done, give me more information...
The psychology of web 1.0 was "make me safe, put me in a walled garden"
The psychology of web 2.0 is "let me roam and explore"
Web 1.0 was about getting someone's email address
web 2.0 is about creating a "quality conversation with persistent presence"
Web 1.0 was about does it work, can I get the transaction done?
web 2.0 is about help me get this done, give me more information...
Dave Sifry at Web 2.0
Dave Sifry says that there are over 4 million blogs, less than half are now in English, politics is the number one factor driving blog posting growth.
Example of blog power -- the kryptonite lock problem (pickable with a bic pen) broke on blogs 5 days before the mainstream press picked up the story.
Blogs are starting to get the same kind of attention that mainstream media gets.
Corporate blogs are proliferating. But the numbers are still really small -- only about 5,000 corporate and executive blogs and over 50% are from small companies.
Only 31% of all blogs have RSS feeds but the most influential blogs (approaching 90%) have RSS feeds. By influential Dave means, people who are linked to by other bloggers.
What happens next?
Make things easy for RSS readers (attention.xml)
Make things easy for web developers (synthetic feeds, hot topics...)
Example of blog power -- the kryptonite lock problem (pickable with a bic pen) broke on blogs 5 days before the mainstream press picked up the story.
Blogs are starting to get the same kind of attention that mainstream media gets.
Corporate blogs are proliferating. But the numbers are still really small -- only about 5,000 corporate and executive blogs and over 50% are from small companies.
Only 31% of all blogs have RSS feeds but the most influential blogs (approaching 90%) have RSS feeds. By influential Dave means, people who are linked to by other bloggers.
What happens next?
Make things easy for RSS readers (attention.xml)
Make things easy for web developers (synthetic feeds, hot topics...)
Mobile Panel at Web 2.0
The panelists inclide Trip Hawkins of Digital Chocolate, Russell Beattie, Jory Bell of OQO, and Juha Christensen (Psion, Symbian, Microsoft...) currently at Macromedia.
Russell -- "consumers are going to start realizing that they are carrying around little computers in their pocket..."
Trip -- "The voice business still dominates (the carrier's) thinking. But clearly the mobile phone is turning into a social computer. ...ways of connecting with your virtual village. But the carriers are like the gas station that has a convenience story and what they haven't grasped is that data is going to be the tail that wagged the dog... clearly the screen size is going to prevent this device from being used as a desktop computer would be used... but there are all of these ways that people can be helped in their mobile lifestyles."
Juha -- "one of the ways in which the phone is different from the PC is that the UI remains fairly static after you buy it as opposed to the PC which is vastly customizable. But this is changing, despite the battles between the manufacturers and the carriers for the control -- ultimately the users will be the ones that decide how their phones work."
Russell -- as a UI the reason SMS has been so successful on the phone is because it is so simple -- but this is not so different from the PC in fact the example would be Google -- SMS and Google are the same in the sense that you basically have one field and you fill that one box out and something valuable happens - in either environment (mobile or PC) simple is a key to broad succcess"
Jory -- "today we can put the entire Windows environment into a format that fits into your pocket, so why don't we put the entire think on phones, instead of worrying about all of these problems with bad UIs..."
Juha -- "by (200?) there will be 1.8 billion phone subscribers, this is not a market where one solution will fit all needs - I would argue that there is a divergence going on in the market, with a lot of innovation going on -- bigger devices, smaller screens, watches -- and many different user experiences."
Trip -- "computers in this (pointing to phone) form factor will outnumber PCs 10 to 1, just like the PC came into the enterprise... there will be billions of people carrying these devices..."
Russell -- (mobile phones will kill the ipod)
Russell -- "consumers are going to start realizing that they are carrying around little computers in their pocket..."
Trip -- "The voice business still dominates (the carrier's) thinking. But clearly the mobile phone is turning into a social computer. ...ways of connecting with your virtual village. But the carriers are like the gas station that has a convenience story and what they haven't grasped is that data is going to be the tail that wagged the dog... clearly the screen size is going to prevent this device from being used as a desktop computer would be used... but there are all of these ways that people can be helped in their mobile lifestyles."
Juha -- "one of the ways in which the phone is different from the PC is that the UI remains fairly static after you buy it as opposed to the PC which is vastly customizable. But this is changing, despite the battles between the manufacturers and the carriers for the control -- ultimately the users will be the ones that decide how their phones work."
Russell -- as a UI the reason SMS has been so successful on the phone is because it is so simple -- but this is not so different from the PC in fact the example would be Google -- SMS and Google are the same in the sense that you basically have one field and you fill that one box out and something valuable happens - in either environment (mobile or PC) simple is a key to broad succcess"
Jory -- "today we can put the entire Windows environment into a format that fits into your pocket, so why don't we put the entire think on phones, instead of worrying about all of these problems with bad UIs..."
Juha -- "by (200?) there will be 1.8 billion phone subscribers, this is not a market where one solution will fit all needs - I would argue that there is a divergence going on in the market, with a lot of innovation going on -- bigger devices, smaller screens, watches -- and many different user experiences."
Trip -- "computers in this (pointing to phone) form factor will outnumber PCs 10 to 1, just like the PC came into the enterprise... there will be billions of people carrying these devices..."
Russell -- (mobile phones will kill the ipod)
Bubble 2.0?
Now on at Web 2.0 is a panel discussion by a group of venture capitalists with the question -- is it a new bubble? Panelists include Safa Rashtchy of Piper Jaffray, Lanny Baker of CitiGroup, William Janeway of Warburg Pincus, and Danny Rimer of Index Ventures.
According to the group, the big difference between what will happen during this growth phase of the Internet and the last one is revenue. While last time there was a blind faith that building an audience would result somehow, someday, in revenue -- this time people know that it is possible (and Google proved it) to build a very profitable business around that audience. So companies have to prove that they know how to make money.
So what are these investors looking for as an investment in Web 2.0? Bill Janeway - "the integration of what has traditionally been back office, batch processing and analytics with real time network generated data..." Danny Rimer - "...the use of the Internet to introduce disruptive technologies... companies that are upsetting traditional economics..." Lanny Baker - "...it is still about building the largest audience..."
Bill - "Web 1.0 was about experimentation. The Bubble allowed us to overbuild the network, we funded enormous productive waste - and waste, trial and error, is a virtue. This set of proofs allowed us to create Web 2.0. This time around, the cost of capital is substantial which transforms the opportunity for experimentation. There will be a lot of people creating cool concepts but they will likely be acquired by big companies that have a proven audience and revenue... With extraordinary execution a few new companies may emerge... but otherwise, 'successful' companies are more likely to be acquired than to go public."
According to the group, the big difference between what will happen during this growth phase of the Internet and the last one is revenue. While last time there was a blind faith that building an audience would result somehow, someday, in revenue -- this time people know that it is possible (and Google proved it) to build a very profitable business around that audience. So companies have to prove that they know how to make money.
So what are these investors looking for as an investment in Web 2.0? Bill Janeway - "the integration of what has traditionally been back office, batch processing and analytics with real time network generated data..." Danny Rimer - "...the use of the Internet to introduce disruptive technologies... companies that are upsetting traditional economics..." Lanny Baker - "...it is still about building the largest audience..."
Bill - "Web 1.0 was about experimentation. The Bubble allowed us to overbuild the network, we funded enormous productive waste - and waste, trial and error, is a virtue. This set of proofs allowed us to create Web 2.0. This time around, the cost of capital is substantial which transforms the opportunity for experimentation. There will be a lot of people creating cool concepts but they will likely be acquired by big companies that have a proven audience and revenue... With extraordinary execution a few new companies may emerge... but otherwise, 'successful' companies are more likely to be acquired than to go public."
Brewster Kahle at Web 2.0
Brewster Kahle wants you to know that it is possible today to take all (published) human knowledge available to all of humanity, everywhere in the world. He is talking about his project to put the world onto the Internet. You might remember Brewster as one of the early Thinking Machines employees. Brewster's organization The Internet Archive has text documents, movies, audio recordings... all available for free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Top themes...
advertising
(2)
brand experience
(1)
business culture
(3)
customer service
(2)
innovation
(3)
marketing
(6)
media 2.0
(5)
mobile
(4)
open management
(5)
open source
(3)
social media
(24)
twitter
(4)
web 2.0
(5)