Cyberspace Chronicle

Spotify kisses mp3 bye bye

2010-06-06T14:18:00.031+02:00

Spotify launches in Europe
Spotify - a British/Swedish music streaming service - launched a couple of weeks ago in Europe offering a huge music database with pop music as well as jazz and classical. Not exactly a new concept but Spotify offers such high-quality service that it could very well threaten online music stores like iTunes and Amazon. After a few weeks of intensive trial I'm convinced it could mark the transition from mp3 to streaming music and consequently the beginning of the end of both (illegal) p2p downloading as well as of buying online music.

Getting started
is fairly easy. Make an account and download the client to your computer. It automatically detects the music that's already available on your hard drive including playlists you've made in iTunes. It's all imported in the Spotify player. Also it connects automatically to your Facebook friends who use Spotify. They show up in the upper right of the player window. From there you can graze through their playlists and the playlists from others they've subscribed to. You can hop from one to another on and on, the browsing possibilities are endless enabling you to discover new music and people's playlists you like.

The end of owning music
The Spotify player is quite basic compared for instance with iTunes that has a lot of possibilities to categorize your music collection just the way you want it. And that's actually the hardest part of getting used to for an old geezer like me. The concept of owning music simply disappears with all music all the time available "in the cloud". My digital music collection currently consists of some 1000+ albums using over 60 GB of my hard drive and carefully backed up to an external hard drive. This collection was carefully compiled over the years by ripping old cd's, downloading music and categorizing it all in iTunes according to my "system". One of the fun parts of owning music - grazing through your collection - disappears when there's no more need to store anything locally. Then again, the trick ultimately lies in knowing Music rather than owning music so I guess we'll have to figure out a new system that helps remember the old stuff we (used to) like.

Different plans
The basic open subscription is free and allows 20 hours of streaming per month accompanied with ads both in audio (every 15 minutes or so) as quite large banners in your player screen. The €5.00/m unlimited plan releaves you from both ads and streaming limitations. The €10.00/m premium plan ads better (actually terrific) music quality (320 kBps in ogg vorbis-format) and the possibility to sync with a mobile player (currently Android, iPhone and Symbian).

Syncing with smartphone
One of the great advantages of having Spotify on your smartphone is that it syncs your music instantly without the need to ever connect it to a home computer. Compared to the hassle of syncing your iTunes music to your mp3 player that's quite a relief! You can choose to listen to it streaming (if you have decent data connection and a flat fee contract) or make your playlists available off-line by just syncing it over the air.

To enjoy online music and watch movies and tv shows I recommend a cheap netbook that's connected to stereo and tv set. To improve sound you could consider a DAC like the V-DAC from Music Fidelity

Check out My Trackbook

2010-05-14T13:41:00.000+02:00

My Trackbook offers a multilingual platform to share your maps with the world. It's also a site where you can easily find public Google Maps submitted by others.

The homepage consists of a global map. You can zoom in on the area of your interest, choose different categories and click on markers to go to the submitted maps that they represent.

To submit a map you simply submit the URL of the Google Map or a KML/GPX file. After approval your map will be added to the site and you can submit more maps.

Read review

Chat Roulette new internet hype

2010-03-22T14:25:00.001+01:00

Every now and then a new hype emerges on the internet. The newest is Chat Roulette, a simple website that connects people randomly with their web-cams. You go to the site, you give permission to connect with your cam, start new game and there you go... In no time you'll be connected with a perfect stranger somewhere in the world who's staring in your face.

It's weird, it probably won't lead to deep and meaningful contacts and it's certainly not meant for underaged. But it's understandable why it's such a big hit. The procedure is dead -simple. You wonder why this wasn't invented earlier. You don't need to do anything, just watch what comes along. You can start a chat - even talk with each other - but intelligent conversations are very rare as most will click you away instantly after seeing you're not a beautiful girl willing to show boobs.

The site already has made one guy famous: Merton. He's playing the piano and improvises songs based on who appears on the screen.

The web 2.0 revolution on the workplace

2010-03-16T15:47:00.005+01:00

In a guest post on TechCrunch of feb 24 2010 Marc Benioff, chairman and CEO of Salesforce argues that enterprise software should take its cues from Facebook and become more social.

"In this decade, I’ve become obsessed with a new simple question: “Why isn’t all enterprise software like Facebook?” ( ) The compelling aspect of feeds, profiles, and groups, amplify the service’s stickiness. So does its functionality on a mobile device like an iphone—necessary to secure a service’s status as a “killer app.” Facebook is where I start my day to find out what my friends and family are doing. It’s where I go to see the important events in my social life. Everything I care about and need to know is pushed to me—and it requires no work on my part.

Now, we need to take this idea to our businesses. We need to transform the business conversation the same way Facebook has changed the consumer conversation. Market shifts happen in real time, deals are won and lost in real time, and data changes in real time. Yet the software we use to run our enterprises is in anything but real time. We need tools that work smarter, make better use of new technology (like the mobile devices in everyone’s hands), and fully leverage the opportunities of the Internet."

Anticipating on this coming revolution Salesforce has developed Salesforce Chatter an application that presumably unites the best of Facebook and Twitter and applies it to enterprise collaboration - making people more productive and businesses more competitive.

Other companies like Yammer, SocialText, Jive, SocialCast, and others compete with similar applications, some running "in the cloud", others running on internal servers. No doubt one force not to be taken lightly will come from Google that recently opened up an open source marketplace for Google Apps and Gmail integrated contextual apps extensions. See earlier post. These let developers integrate all sorts of enterprise data right into Apps and Gmail. Whilst a company like Salesforce has a few million users, Google already has 25 million Apps users and apparently this number is vastly growing. For companies like Salesforce this is potentially a huge marketplace that they should either embrace or compete with.

For whom it may concern: here's Google's elaborate "Campfire presentation" where they announce the marketplace. The presentation is divided in several different 10 minute video's including a number of business cases.

Android: Something happened

2010-03-11T12:18:00.001+01:00

On iTunes U you can find audio and video from loads of universities. The course "The future of the Internet" from Ramesh Johari from Stanford University dates from 2007. In this fragment he discusses "Network Neutrality" on mobile networks. At the end he tells about rumours that Nokia is developing an open-source Operating System based on Linux and discusses the consequences if that would happen.

"An open platform on which people could develop anything they wanted... It seems to me that's not likely to happen, but it also seems to me it would really be nice if it could happen. I just don't know - given past history - what the economics are that line up with the technology..."

Less than 3 years later we can conclude something did happen - not with Nokia though.

Google Apps opens open-source marketplace

2010-03-10T13:11:00.005+01:00

Today Google announced a marketplace that'll give third party developers the opportunity to sell applications to businesses that use Google Apps. According to Google there are currently 25 million Apps users divided over 2 million companies and it's growing at fast pace. Up ´till now Apps mainly consisted of `GMail`and gmail-linked apps like `Talk` and ´Tasks´, ´Calendar´, ´Docs´, ´Discussion Groups', ´Sites´ and ´Video´.

The main advantages of Cloud-Computing are

No more need to update/upgrade software
Savings on IT maintenance
No more need to back-up files on (external) data servers

These advantages combined with an open source platform where an unlimited amount of third party software can be offered, opens up the road to a potentially very powerful marketplace.

At the start of the marketplace today there are already more than 50 businesses selling applications across a range of categories.

Example of Manymoon: a social productivity tool that simplifies your work life by letting you organize group projects, tasks, documents...

From the official Google Blog

We've found that when businesses begin to experience the benefits of cloud computing, they want more. We're often asked when we'll offer a wider variety of business applications — from accounting and project management to travel planning and human resources management. But we certainly can't and won't do it all, and there are hundreds of business applications for which we have no particular expertise.
In recent years, many talented software providers have embraced the cloud and delivered a diverse set of features capable of powering almost any business. But too often, customers who adopt applications from multiple vendors end up with a fractured experience, where each particular application exists in its own silo. Users are often forced to create and remember multiple passwords, cut and paste data between applications, and jump between multiple interfaces just to complete a simple task.

Android analogy
How powerful an open source platform combined with an open market for third party developers can be is proven by the Android Market. Within a year more than 20,000 applications - the majority offered for free - were developed, and consequently Android became in no-time a major threat for Apple´s iPhone dominance. See earlier post.

Microsoft and Apple team up against Google

Meanwhile the dinosaurs from the 20th century - former arch-enemies Microsoft and Apple - are more and more beginning to feel the heat from the Open Source threat to their closed-source fundamentals. They even begin warming up to each other when it becomes clear to both companies that Google is becoming their biggest competitor. Microsoft and Apple are reportedly close to adding Bing search to the iPhone. BusinessWeek on Jan. 19 reported the companies were in extended talks about replacing Google as the iPhone's default search service.

Google pulling a Microsoft on Apple

2010-03-04T15:02:00.016+01:00

This week Apple announced a lawsuit against HTC. It's quite clear that the lawsuit is all about Android, being Apple’s response to its skyrocketing popularity.

from the 1996 PBS documentary "Triumph of the Nerds" in which Jobs quotes Picasso's "good artists copy, great artists steal" and adds, about Apple: "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

The iPhone is currently clearly the leader with 63.7% market share. But this position is challenged by Android, in February the iPhone lost 3.2% of its market share while both Android and RIM gained market share. Since its introduction in the end of 2008, Android has steadily been gaining ground on the iPhone, but the growth has accelerated considerably over the last four months. For example, Android’s market share has grown 44% over the past quarter, and has doubled over the past year. All the while, the iPhone has lost 5% from last quarter and 10% from last year.

Apple always relied heavily on the integration of hardware and software. Mac computers with Mac OS. iPods with iTunes. iPhone with its own closed operating system and closely controlled applications. They undeniably give a product that does the things it does very well. It will look cool, it will function as advertised and it will be integrated with the other core Apple products.

History repeating
In the 1980's however, this strategy was crushed by Microsoft's operating system - DOS - that evolved to Windows, gradually adopting many of the features that initially were developed by Apple. Whilst the hardware became a commodity with loads of manufacturers, Microsoft managed to achieve a near monopoly with their complementary OS. This actually looks an awful lot like the strategy Google has deployed with their Android OS for mobile smart phones that's now flooding over the market. The big difference: unike Windows, Android is free and it's open source, thus challenging the principles iPhones are built on. Google does not necesarily need to make money out of it because for them both device as OS are just links between people who click on and companies that pay for their ads.

New York Times, march 12 2010: Apple’s Spat With Google Is Getting Personal

Battle for Bandwidth

2010-03-04T10:39:00.002+01:00

Google recently announced plans to offer experimental fiber internet access 100 times faster than standard DSL connections to 50 - 500,000 households in the US. While Google is characterizing the move as an "experiment," it clearly strikes at the core of companies like AT&T. The approach is similar to the way Google has taken on incumbents in other industries, offering a radically different approach within a marketplace. For telecom industry this threat follows:

The Development of Google Voice - that offers free sms text messages and - eventually - will make free Skype-like VoIP conversations through your mobile phone possible.
The development of the Android open source operating system for mobile phones that gives developers and users the opportunity to develop and install software without intervention of neither manufacturers nor cellular phone companies.
And lately the introduction of the Nexus One `Google Phone` that´s being offered unlocked without the ususal ties with a long-term contract with a cellular phone carrier. So, manufacturers (who are at the mercy of the cellular phone companies selling their product) and cellular companies (who ultimately give the final thumbs up or thumbs down with regards to which apps can run on their networks) have no say in what happens on or with Nexus One.

Google's long term business strategy is to be a major hub on the expanding internet and sell ads on their (partnering) sites.It's a quite simple numbers game: the more time people spend on the internet the more money Google makes. So, you need e-mail? No problem here's G-mail. Need to make a phone call or send a message? We'll give you Google Voice. Need to search the web? Speak out your query and Google's "voice to text" takes you to the nearest gas station or coffee shop making use of their Google Maps Data. Then there is Google Docs, Calendar, Wave, Picasa, Youtube, etc. Everything you need from the cloud and always on.

A world wherein internet will be available as a datasphere around the planet - accessible from everywhere at any time - is dawning and Google wants to be the major hub in this sphere. In order to accomplish that, they have to either dominate or commoditize what sits between the person clicking on an ad and the company paying for the ad. According to Chris Dixon this roughly breaks down to:

Human - device – OS – browser – bandwidth – websites - ads – ad tech – relationship to advertiser – $$$

In this chain Google obviously dominates websites, ads (search and syndicated AdSense partners), ad technology and relationship to advertisers (adwords). Devices are already highly commoditized (except for mobile hardware, hence Google Phone Nexus One). Operating system and browser are dominated by archenemy Microsoft. Hence Chrome, Chrome OS and Android.

Bandwidth is dominated by wireless carriers, cable operators and telcos. Because of massive infrastructure investments it's a hard market to get into for new players and consequently it's expensive, competition-free, and scarce. A recent FCC report concluded that 93 million Americans lack access to high-speed Internet service, with affordability being the primary barrier. This is a serious obstacle to Google's continued growth. The same goes for Facebook, eBay, Twitter, Amazon.com, Apple's iTunes Music Store and every other website or online service you can think of. But it's Google that has the pocketbook and the self-regard to attempt to do something about it. Besides, it might prove to be a wise investment of a part of the mountain of cash they've piled up in recent years; profit margins on internet services were no less than 95% last year...

How Apple and Google's Romance Turned To Hate - Apple - Gizmodo

2010-03-03T11:15:00.000+01:00

How Apple and Google's Romance Turned To Hate - Apple - Gizmodo

TAT Face recognizer

2010-02-17T09:02:00.002+01:00

This looks cool!

TAT web site

Search engines getting a foot in the door

2010-01-29T12:20:00.003+01:00

Without the big public being aware of it, there's a war going on out there between search engines trying to get their foot in the door to our computers. For the majority of people a search engine is a commodity: as long as it does the job. Google has proven though with their multi billion revenues that for search and advertising companies it is major business.

Here are a few examples I ran into the past weeks:

1. Using Internet Exlorer at a friend's place I discovered that Microsoft is - understandably - plugging their Bing search engine as default in their Internet Explorer address bar. More and more people use their browser as search engine instead of going to a specific search engine homepage. Internet Explorer still has a huge market share, so do the math... One of Google's responses is a huge - for Google unprecedented - on and of-line marketing campaign for their own browser: Chrome.

2. When downloading Google's newest Picasa update, a menu appeared with a few pre-checked options. One of them was: "Set Google as default search engine in Internet Explorer". No evil huh? Duh...

3. When installing a free anti-spyware application, the following warning from Google emerged from my system tray:

So I pressed OK. Then yet another warning - this time from the other camp - appeared. What's going on here!?

4. And then the news broke that the idealistic Open Source guys from the Linux/Ubuntu camp had fallen for the big money. They announced changing the default search engine and home page bundled into Firefox from Google to Yahoo. The switch is due to a new, and presumably more profitable, revenue sharing agreement with Yahoo, and will be implemented in the next official release.

Probably to be continued......

Nexus One Multitouch Available Now; Floodgates Open for Hackers - Nexus one multitouch - Gizmodo

2010-01-22T10:24:00.000+01:00

Nexus One Multitouch Available Now; Floodgates Open for Hackers - Nexus one multitouch - Gizmodo

Google's China defiance brilliant marketing move

2010-01-13T13:11:00.011+01:00

After a hack attempt to Chinese dissidents' gmail accounts Google defied Chinese government by threatening to completely shut down their business in China. With this move Google imposes an ultimatum on the Chinese to allow free unfiltered internet in a so far heavy censored marketplace.

As a first reaction of investors Google shares immediately went down , whilst shares of Chinese competitor Baidu won 7% after hours. Although quite cynical - the free market supporting censorship - as a first reaction this seems to make sense because - as JPMorgan analyst Imran Khan estimates - Google's China revenues at around $600 million this year are at stake. But it's very probable those 600 million will prove to be be a very smart investment, both from a short as a long term investors point of view.

For the short term this move generates an enormous amount of very positive publicity around the world. Once again Google will be the champion of free speach and openness of the internet. Google can do with some positive publicity in a world that becomes more and more suspicious of the monopolistic marketing power of the internet giant. Only a week ago German minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said in an interview with "Der Spiegel" that she was concerned the firm was accruing too much power and information about citizens via programs like Google Earth and Google Books.

On the longer term history will eventually prove the Chinese government unable to completely control, filter and restrain the internet for their citizens. With a (temporary) withdrawel from China - where Google's market share is relatively small - Google will do a lot of damage to the image of the Chinese regime and consequently will gain a lot of sympathy with the Chinese public. Already Chinese dissidents put flowers outside Google's Chinese headquarters. Baidu on the other hand will in the long run be hurt by their image of complying to the regime's demands and restraining their customers from a free information flow. So by temporarily losing some revenue, Google could very well secure a significant gain in future market share in China.

Update march 25, 2010
http://tcrn.ch/9x4u4j

Battle for the Browser: Is Bing threatening Google?

2010-01-11T16:07:00.288+01:00

Last summer Microsoft launched search engine Bing. It more than doubled its US market share from Q3’09, and over the course of the year MS even gained 500% in market share. In Q4’09, this growth apparently came at the expense of Google, which recorded its lowest market share in the US in the 3 years of the study – 72%. This all started at the end of May/the start of June 2009, when Bing replaced their Live Search engine. According to Microsoft, Bing's success is due to a new perspective on the search engine turning it more into a "decision machine".

I doubt if that is the case. The main reason that most consumers use Google is simply because they're used to it. At some point they've probably installed it as their internet startpage, but - in the end - who really cares about a search engine? It's for the average user an extremely low-interest product - as long as it produces results. Now that search is more and more being executed from within the browser - just enter your search in the address bar; no more need to go to the familiar Google or Yahoo! pages - search engines become even less interesting to the average user. And consequently for search companies the browser becomes a much more important tool to generate search traffic. This is why it is extremely important for companies like Google and Microsoft to convince people to use or keep using their browser. Most users however also are completely indifferent about the browser that is being used. They are willing to spend hours considering all kinds of hardware options in the computer store, but when it comes to the user interfaces, most people just use whatever appears on the screen when they turn on their computers. The following video - made by Google - shows how little people actually even know what a browser is and most seem to confuse browser and search engine. "Which browser do you use?" "uuuhhm, Google!" This obviously explains why Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) - generally known to be the worst browser both in terms of speed as in functionality - is still the browser of "choice" of 65% of US and 80% of EU users.

So what then explains the sudden soaring of market share and the shift of about 11 million people in a half years time to Bing? The answer is quite simple. It's most probably the introduction of Windows 7. A new Windows version makes you having to set up your user settings, including opening page and default search engine. A fresh start so to speak. So, knowing that most people simply use what they're used to or what's pre-installed, this is the perfect time to strike for Microsoft. So you decide to keep using IE, it's pre-installed, the icon's familiar, it always seemed to work. So why bother? Now what do you think happens when you start searching using the URL address bar in IE?. Bingo, you're directed to .....BING! Without even being aware of it, you've become a Bing user! Again, for the average internet surfer, this is no big deal, as long as you're getting your results right?

In 2010, after a whole lot of negotiations and being fined billions of U$, Microsoft is now set to offer European users of its Windows operating system with a browser choice. This choice is not (yet?) offered to US users though. On internetnews.com Sean Michael Kerner complains:

"Why don't U.S. consumers get the same choice?Yes I know full well that any user can go and download Safari, Firefox, Chrome or Opera for Windows. I also know that for a whole lot of people out there, who just don't know any better the big blue E is the Internet and that's all there is to it.

Google´s response
Google of course is fully aware of its reliance on their search engine's paid clicks that obviously make out a good deal of the revenues they generate. They constantly develop or acquire new products to commit their users to their free on-line services and generously give away free online storage space. If you use Gmail, you can store more than 7 Gigabyte of emails and attachments on the net. Picasa gives away 1 GB of photostorage. YouTube (max 1 GB per video!) and Docs don't even seem to have limits. But despite this diversification efforts they´re still for a good part dependant on the massive use of their search engine. According to CEO Eric Scmidt Google "is always one click away from losing the end user". They even seem willing to compromise their "do no evil" motto in their efforts not losing the customers to Bing. When I recently upgradedy my Picasa version, a box with a few options appeared. One of the pre-checked options was something like "Make Google default search engine in Internet Explorer". And who can blame them? The huge interests at stake with regards to the low-interest internet browser are also illustrated with the recent massive billboard and newspaper campaign for Google's new Chrome browser. Another attempt to make the big crowd a little more aware of the existence of browsers other than Internet Explorer. Although the word of mouth approach has done wonders for most of its products, Google decided not to rely entirely on that marketing strategy for their Chrome browser. This clearly illustrates the intensifying "Battle of the Browsers".

Van Google Chrome campaign

The billboard and full page newspaper ads are - in Google style - mostly white. They describe typical internet sessions that involve some heavy browsing, resulting in a lot of open tabs and .... ultimately: 0 crashes. They claim the browser to be "made for everyone", thus trying to appeal to the mainstream internet users.

Van Google Chrome campaign

How Google Could Change the Telecom Industry | The Atlantic Wire

2010-01-08T10:26:00.002+01:00

How Google Could Change the Telecom Industry | The Atlantic Wire

By NIRAJ CHOKSHI on January 07, 2010 3:05pm

Google's plunge into the telecom industry accelerated this week with its Monday proposal asking the FCC to let it manage a new white space database and the Tuesday release of the Nexus One smartphone. (Catch up on Wire coverage of the Nexus phone here.) Both are part of a what is widely believed to be a broad telecom strategy for the Mountain View company, but what exactly is Google doing and how might it change telecoms?

Beginning of a Grand Strategy Before petitioning to become its administrator, Google long championed the creation of the FCC white space database, which will track free TV channels, enabling companies to use them. So why does it matter? The Ottawa Citizen's Vito Pilieci saysGoogle wants the database up and running so it can become an irresistible carrier: "The company wants its products to be available to you always. You need e-mail? No problem, here's G-mail. Need to make a phone call? No problem, here is Google Voice. ... Then there is Google Docs, Calendar, Wave, Picasa, Youtube, etc." As far as Pilieci's concerned what Google is doing in the consumer electronics market has only been rivaled once: by what Microsoft's Windows OS did to the PC market.

Revolution Is Coming, but Slowly Wired's Ryan Singel sees a lot of as-yet untapped potential to shake up the mobile phone industry. But he laments that the company didn't use the Nexus One as a way to welcome the uninitiated or turn the standard business model on its head: "How about a smartphone starter plan, deeply subsidized by ads, that offered a cheap data plan to entice the 'I don't need a smartphone' crowd into joining the revolution? Even better, would have been an order form where you could buy the Google phone and then choose from three or more carriers who are competing to provide you with a data and voice plan -- just as you do when you buy a laptop." While the company hasn't revolutionized phones yet or streamlined the buying process, there's still time, he writes.

Hands Tied by Business Partners While there is plenty of potential for the new phone to help Google's broader telecom push, the company may have to tread lightly, write Reuters reporters Alexei Oreskovic and Sinead Carew. "For all Google's might on the Internet, analysts don't see it upending the wireless business model in the near term, saying the company must tread carefully so as not to upset the business partners of its Android mobile operating software." And besides, the company doesn't seem to be in any sort of rush, Current Analysis analyst Avi Greengart told Wall Street Journal reporters Jessica E. Vascellaro and Niraj Sheth: "Unless [Google] gives it a big push with marketing dollars, which they are not, consumers aren't going to know the phone exists," he said.

The Debate

A Possible Revolution? Ryan Singel, Wired Epicenter
Google As Carrier Vito Pilieci, Bits and Bytes (The Ottawa Citizen)
Moving Slowly Jessica E. Vascellaro And Niraj Sheth, The Wall Street Journal
Google Should Tread Lightly Alexei Oreskovic and Sinead Carew, Reuters

Is Google Wave a failure?

2009-12-08T21:44:00.004+01:00

I hate to admit it, but after having toyed with Wave for a good month I come to the conclusion that it's not going to work. maybe in some professional settings but not not in daily life.

The expectations after the presentation early this year were sky high. A new Google tool that potentially could replace e-mail, social networking and... Yeah what not? I immediately subscribed for getting an invite and to my surprise I was one of the very few that received one in november. At first I was quite excited about the whole thing discovering step by step all it's new possibilities. I spent a few weeks learning and discovering it's full potential, which actually is quite impressive once you get your head around it. I also learned that setting up and maintaining a good wave needs a lot of attention and most efforts die quickly after a tumultuous start. Most waves I participated in were about Wave by the way.

And that raises the question for which specific situations and what specific groups Wave could be a good solution in daily life? Obvioulsy there are situations that could be apropriate for a wave. The planning of an event where a group of people is involved is an example where using Wave could be handy. But how often do these events occur in daily life? And if they occur: how many people will at that point be familiar with the use of Wave or willing to get an account and learn the complex structure and features?

I invited a couple of dozen persons to Wave. People in my own network whom I considered possible early adopters and after that a bunch that was begging for an invite on Facebook. Around 80% had a first look, dropped a line or two and then never came back, didn't respond anymore, gone. Around 15% was prepared to give it a try. They tried out a few gadgets, responded to each other for a week or so and then they were also gone. That leaves a mere 5% that were prepared to make an effort. And this was not a randomly picked group. These were people that specifically expressed their interest in getting an invite.

At the moment Google is apparently handing out invites to all people who subscribe(d) for it. This is supposed to broaden the user base so users can start waving with the people of choice instead of being limited to the very few that were invited so far. Given the above numbers and my experiences so far I'm not very optimistic about it.

Google Navigation for Android

2009-10-29T10:15:00.005+01:00

Yesterday Google annouced its Google Maps Navigation app.

This obviously is the beginning af the end for specialized navigation companies like TomTom and Garmin. With this move they're definitely yesterday's news unless they can come up with some new business model, which I doubt. Google's announcement follows closely after the announcement that Google doesn't use third party maps (Tele Atlas) for the US anymore because they rather make the maps themselves using all their available internet data, satellite images and Streetview data.

What's more interesting in my opinion is the new battle this move causes between Android and iPhone - read Google and Apple.

In the recent past the two parties - who were quite close to each other with Eric Schmidt on the Apple Board - have clashed about free Google applications available for iPhone. Apple recently has rejected Google Voice and Google Latitude for their users. Other Google applications like Maps, News, Reader (RSS), mobile Blogger, and Calendar are only available for iPhone through internet, thus bypassing downloading and updating through Apple's app store.

Whether Google Nav will be made available for iPhone could be a tough cookie for Apple to chew on for a while. Obviously they won't be making money on the free app unlike for instance the TomTom app that costs $100 and making the free app available will piss off their current navigation partners. On the other hand, denying this free state-of-the-art "killer app" to their customers could deteriorate their customers base and give competitor Android a huge push in the back.

Google

2009-10-19T03:20:00.010+02:00

View the full GOOG chart at Wikinvest

I sort of ran into Google whilst living abroad and discovering there that all the cool people I knew, especially from US, used Gmail. So I at last switched from my Planet Internet account - that charged me for it - to free and much more state-of-the-art Gmail. Then I discovered YouTube, Maps, Docs, Calendar, Blogger, Android, Picasa and so forth... I have a very strong belief in Google simply because I am their standard customer and a very satisfied one. I think the Internet is in a relatively early stage of development in the history of evolution of mankind and that they understand what that means better than anyone else out there. Besides of that, they have unlimited resources because they earn shiploads of money. So I think Google is to stay for a while, the dominant party in the most pristine and promising field of the global economy: the Internet. In the near future I think applications like Google Voice (telephone) and Google Wave could be big hits. The open source Android operating system could very well become a fierce opponent for the iPhone.

I don't have actual shares because I think they can handle some leverage. So I bought trackers called "sprinter" issued by ING. I started buying Google when they traded around $300,-- and accumulated until $ 475. They now trade around $ 500,--. This means Google is valued by the market at 163 Billion U$. Microsoft's at 230 and Apple at 169. So take your pick...

Google Wave

2009-10-05T22:31:00.044+02:00

Apparently, at the end of September, Google has sent 100,000 invites for WAVE. One guy put it for sale on ebay to see what would happen.

"Mr. Blount commenced the auction on Tuesday night, and by the time he had woken up at 6 a.m. Wednesday, the day that Google would be releasing Wave invites, his auction had already received 12,000 hits.
As the day wore on, he received about 33 bids for the Google Wave invite, with the winning bid reaching $157".

Here you can read the full story: WSJ:Google_Wave_invites_for_sale_on_ebay

According to Google, Wave is a modern version of email that takes into account all the different types of communication that have emerged and integrates those in a single tool that covers all those types of conversations. A conversation between two or a numerous amount of people becomes a Wave. All contributors to a Wave can add messages, reactions, photo's and other features simultaneously. You can actually see real time what different contributors are doing or typing letter by letter. Contributors can invite other participants to the wave. Those newcomers can rewind the development of the Wave in order to see how it evolved from the start. In May it was presented for developers. Wave developers presentation

Unfortunately I have not received an invitation for Wave yet. But I'll keep on begging for it.... So if you are one of the 100,000: please invite me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Google Wave and Internet Explorer
The Wave development has already been cause for new battleground between Google and Microsoft. Apparently it was impossible to make Wave work inside Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE). So Google gave up on that and instead developed a plug-in for IE - Chrome Frame.

Google pitched the plug-in as a way to instantly improve the performance of the notoriously slow IE, and as a way for Web developers to support standards IE can't handle, including HTML 5. According to benchmark tests, IE8 with Chrome Frame zips through JavaScript nearly 10 times faster than does IE8 on its own.

Specifically, said Google, it was pushing Chrome Frame because it decided it wasn't worth trying to make its new collaboration and communications tool, Google Wave, work with IE. Google developers spent "countless hours" on tweaking Wave for IE, but gave up.

"We could continue in this fashion, but using Google Chrome Frame instead lets us invest all that engineering time in more features for all our users, without leaving Internet Explorer users behind," argued Lars Rasmussen and Adam Schuck of Google's Wave team last week.

Of course Microsoft was not amused that Google decided to "improve" their browser just like that See: computerworld.com

Marketing

The way they put Wave in the market is fascinating. They develop a Beta ( Or even Alpha) version, send 100,000 invites. Here's the First reaction I've found from one of the earliest users:

Eerste indruk

Na een paar uurtjes spelen en testen kan ik zeggen: Google Wave is briljant! Het is mail, Twitter, instant messenging, Hyves, file sharing, wiki en een forum in één en het werkt gewoon erg goed. Tenminste, zodra je door hebt hoe het werkt. Het is namelijk niet zo makkelijk als gehoopt. Het kijken van de instructievideo’s is dan ook geen overbodige luxe.

Interesting Links
These are a few examples of how Wave could work in a business environment:

SAP; Collaborative Business Process Modelling within Google Wave

For People that are interested in more in-depth development issues I can recommend:
googlewaveblogger
googlewavedev.blogspot.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

View the full GOOG chart at Wikinvest

Undercover Boilerroom Buenos Aires

2009-09-29T02:50:00.011+02:00

Published
29 december 2006 Investors Chronicle: `How I cheated Investors` Cover story
11 january 2007 Times, Times 2 supplement "Hello, can I rip you off?" Lead story

Copyright: Financial Times Business Group, London UK

In 2006 I was living in Buenos Aires, working as free lance journalist. I accidentally ran into a boiler room operation and decided to do an undercover piece on it. It was first published in "Investors Chronicles" and then it was syndicated by The Times. This is the version that was published in The Times.

The Times
January 11, 2007
Times2

Hello, can I rip you off?
The offer seems inviting. You’re tipped off that shares, set to rise by 80 per cent, are available via a select German-based company. You buy, and then find they are genuine but worthless. Pieter De Vries spent a month undercover in the Buenos Aires ‘boiler room’ from where experienced British investors are routinely conned

With an alias and the following opening lines, I’ve been approaching thousands of people in the UK during the past month to try to sell them shares in an American oil company. “Hello,” I’d say, “this is Ryan Jansen calling from XXXX Capital Management, the research and advisory house, based here in Frankfurt. You spoke to a colleague earlier in the year about your investments in the stock market . . .”
The calls actually come from a small office in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Inside, there are seven second-hand school desks, with a mix of worn-out chairs. Above the desks, cards are mounted on the walls. One agent encourages himself with a paper sheet that states: “You are John Connally. You’re a broker, be a c***!!!” Some agents use headsets, others normal telephones. The noise of the agents, and of the ever-present Bloomberg Radio, can be almost deafening.

An operation like this is known as a “boiler room”, from where unauthorised sales agents persuade people to buy shares. I ran into it through an advertisement in the Buenos Aires Herald. The names of those targeted come from lists bought by the people who run the operation. Often, they are from shareholder lists of specific companies. So if you own shares in publicly listed companies, it’s quite likely you will receive a call.

The Boiler Room

Opening call
The sales process follows a fixed pattern and for every phase there are scripts. You are “opened” with an introduction to the company: a classy-sounding name, based in Frankfurt. It has a German address, phone and fax number and an internet site, created to make the company appear trustworthy. The website is hosted in Malaysia. It looks professional, but it’s quite basic and gives only very general information. No names of staff or management appear, and the suffix Inc is certainly not German.
The opening pitch claims that the company works for major corporate investors. Names dropped include Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and Barclays. “We compile reports on potential investments for these guys, sourcing the companies that are going to outperform the market and work out what level of return is to be expected.” Then the target is told: “We hold the right to share this information with private clients, thus bridging the gap between the professionals and the smaller private investor such as yourself.” One of the selling points is that “we charge our private clients at the back end, out of the actual profit made”.
It’s important that the “brokers” get information about what investment level the client is accustomed to. The conversation continues with chit-chat about your portfolio and investment strategy, leading to: “How much do you put into a position when you like what you see?” This is used to judge how many shares they can offer you. Some are reluctant to give this data, but many give all the information. Then, it’s explained that, at this point, there are no recommendations but the company will keep them up to date with developments.
Opening is time-consuming, hours of dialling numbers and waiting until a fish finally bites. From my experience, around one person in 25 won’t immediately hang up on you and will be receptive to a conversation.

The Friday call
The following call is brief and always takes place on a Friday. “I’m sweeping up before the weekend, did you have a chance to take a look at the website? Any questions, any thoughts?” This often provides an opportunity to get a bit more informal, for instance by inquiring about plans for the weekend. Building a trusting relationship is key. The call is closed with the news that there aren’t any recommendations but that something might materialise within the next week.

Warm-up call
And, surprise, surprise, the following Tuesday you receive a call: “We are going into a meeting tomorrow. It looks like we’re going to be briefed on a position. It’s yet to be decided if we’re going to use it as a new recommendation but, if this is the case, I’d like to have the opportunity to run it by you.” Many say that they’re not planning to invest. It’s up to the sales agent to hold firm. “I just want to run it by you, it’ll only take ten minutes of your time. If you still decide that you’re not interested, that’s your prerogative, but at least you can make an informed decision.” Most then reluctantly agree.

The sale
On Thursday, as agreed, you are called. What follows is a very comprehensive briefing. In my case it was a tiny American oil company. You’re told that it trades on the Nasdaq and that you can track it by entering its ticker symbol on www.nasdaq.com or any financial website, such as Bloomberg or Reuters. The pitch starts with an analysis of the crude oil market. This comes to the conclusion that high oil prices are here to stay and that oil producers in the US are well positioned to realise record levels of growth. It has just unearthed 700,000 barrels of oil — and this follows the discovery of 4.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas, just 50 miles off the Texas coast. The markets are yet to be made aware of this and, consequently, the stock’s value is a bargain. You are led to believe that the share price will rise up to 30 per cent in a five-week period and increase up to 80 per cent in 18 months, when the time comes to sell out.
At this stage, you’re being pressured enormously to buy at least something, if only to welcome you on-board as a new client and to show you some performance. “It’s a results business and we like to be judged accordingly.” Not investing is not an option. One of the few rules in the boiler room is: never give up and don’t end the conversation until they hang up on you.

The stock will initially grow substantially. On financial websites, you can see that this oil company traded for less than $2 in April, while (at the time of writing) it trades at $7.75. Clients who bought this share saw growth of more than 300 per cent in some cases. These clients are obviously approached again with other proposals. In the weeks that these clients are being “loaded”, the sales volume at the “brokerage” is more than $500,000, generated by only three sales agents.
The new shares sold to existing clients included an online dating company and a development company about to produce an upmarket tourist complex in Belize.

Compliance
If you have agreed to buy, a magic moment follows in the boiler room. Everybody stops phoning and Bloomberg Radio is turned off. Now it is time for a different role-play. One agent assumes the part of the “compliance officer” and calls you in an atmosphere of absolute silence. Everything is being verified and the further proceedings are explained.
After the call, there’s an exuberant atmosphere and the agent is congratulated. The money is not yet in, though. First the investor receives a contract by courier, after which he or she still has three days to enact the trade by wire, transferring the money to the US — time in which they can come to their senses.
Around 80 per cent of people transfer the money. If you’re one of the other 20 per cent, you will be pressurised to follow through. You’re told that the compliance call has been recorded and has legal value. The firm threatens you with legal action and you’re even told that you could be “banned from the stock market”. If you stick to your decision and don’t pay, you’ll never hear from the company again.

The shares
The shares being touted are presented as trading on Nasdaq. And, at first sight, this appears to be true because, as well as on http://www.nasdaq.com/, you can track down the shares on any major financial website.
The shares are real, but they’re not being traded on any regulated market and the price doesn’t necessarily represent their real value. A report by the New York State Attorney-General on stock fraud explains what’s going on: the businesses are so-called “micro-caps”, relatively small enterprises that give out over-the-counter (OTC) securities to raise capital.
The stock is controlled by one or a small number of brokers who sell them over the telephone and many use a number of illegitimate techniques to inflate the stock. Once bought, the stock is impossible to get rid of: no one will buy the shares and, of course, the broker that sold you them, if it’s still operating, will not respond to your request to sell them.

The victims
In general, these are decent, polite elderly men (and sometimes women) who listen to you without interrupting. They can’t imagine it’s a big lie. They are under the impression that you are an experienced senior adviser working for a sophisticated pan-European research house. They’re very vulnerable to the arsenal of arguments fired at them and your persistence.
At one point, a friendly man told me that he was sorry he wasn’t going to buy because he just wasn’t in a position to do so. He assured me that the next time he was planning to invest, he would contact me, because I had put in so much effort. Obviously, most of them are naive, badly informed and trusting. But more experienced investors, who think they know what’s going on out there, can also be conned.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has come to the conclusion that the typical victim of an investment scam is a middle-aged professional male with considerable investment experience. One of my clients appeared to know the ins and outs of the stock market quite well. He realised what was going on only at the very last stage, after he had asked me if these were OTC securities and I — at that time, having no clue what he was talking about — said yes. After which he requested not to be contacted again. There was someone who had second thoughts after the deal was closed. He consult his financial adviser who, of course, warned him not to pursue the transaction. Despite these warnings, after a considerable amount of pressure had been applied, he still decided to transfer the money because he was “a man of his word”.

There’s little reliable information about exactly how many people are being conned by these sorts of operations, but the FSA says its helpline receives approximately a hundred calls each month. It has a list on its website with hundreds of known, unauthorised overseas companies targeting UK investors. But hundreds more aren’t on the list and, if they do ever appear, within a week they change their name — often within the week. A survey the FSA conducted among complainants concluded that the average loss was £20,000 — some were more than £100,000. For these victims, there’s no hope of ever retrieving their money. The fake company doesn’t respond or doesn’t even exist any more — their money will probably be in an untraceable offshore bank account.

I worked in this boiler room for four weeks. I didn’t conclude a deal with any client. If I had, I would have called the victims afterwards under my own name to warn them not to transfer the money.

This article first appeared in Investors Chronicle

Frame: THE SALESPEOPLE
The boiler room in Buenos Aires has been operating for about nine months. The staff consists of four agents who work on a commission basis of 10-15 per cent. There is a constant search for new “talent”, but this is difficult to find. Many newcomers disappear after the first week, when they find out that they have to put in a lot of effort before they start making money. Their training programme consists of learning the scripts and listening to the experienced agents for a couple of days. Then they start calling people and overcome their nerves by learning on the job. None has experience in the financial markets. Their knowledge is based on the scripts and a limited set of arguments, often mounted on the wall.
The guy who runs the show is a young Brit. He’s the most experienced and talented seller. Apparently, he ran into a boiler-room operation in Spain and discovered that he was good at it. He decided to start his own operation in Buenos Aires, where the authorities are neither equipped nor interested in investigating and prosecuting this kind of small illegal enterprise, aimed overseas.
When he’s on the phone, he undergoes a change of character. His expression and posture changes and he truly believes what he’s saying. This is, according to him, the trick. He encourages his people to create a resumé for their characters. His own CV states that he worked for six years at Cazenove in London, until he was headhunted by this firm.
After hours, I asked my colleagues whether they found it difficult conning people. The reactions were unanimous. Although aware that what they do isn’t legal, they don’t see themselves as criminals. They consider it role-playing and are reluctant to think of the damage they do. Objections are brushed aside with the argument that these are people with a lot of money, who have already invested in the stock market. They believe the “victims” know that they run the risk, and so are prepared to take the gamble.

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU’RE CALLED
Check if the company is authorised in the UK. Call the Financial Services Authority helpline, 0845 6061234; http://www.fsa.gov.uk/.
· Is the company a member of a trade body? If based overseas, check if it is authorised by a reputable regulator, as that will be responsible for investigating. If not, the only recourse is legal action.
· Be suspicious of uninvited calls, especially if they offer mouthwatering returns.
· Give yourself time to cool off before making financial decisions.
Get the best advice on share dealing and personal finance with Times Online