Google+ launched nearly a year ago, and I remember it vividly. It seemed like such a cool concept: an answer to all the annoyances that were found throughout Facebook. I got in on the action early, before the wider unveiling. And I found myself meeting new people and engaging in fascinating conversations.

The Google+ crowd was savvy and smart. Granted, much of the conversation initially was pretty meta. We were using a new tool to discuss how cool it was to be using a new tool to discuss how we were using it… that sort of thing.

But I could ask questions like “do you tip when you order takeout / to-go orders?” or “what’s the best way you’ve found to discover new music you like?” and end up with dozens of solid responses. And it wasn’t just questions that made for good conversations. People on Google+ were genuinely more interested in dialogue and engaged sharing than people on Twitter or Facebook.

So what’s changed in the last year? I’m not sure exactly. Perhaps the magic wore off. Another prevailing theory is that the atmosphere somehow changed once the unwashed masses joined the party (as compared to the techie early birds). The irony is that while my follower count has steadily increased to over 15,000, it has been inversely correlated to the rate of engagement.

Nowadays Facebook is where most of my online engagement takes place even though I tend to cross-post most everything I share onto Google+ as well. As it turns out, high Google+ engagement was an anomaly while Facebook engagement has always been pretty steady.

Facebook, with all its annoyances, is more effective than ever at engaging and connecting me. With all its flaws, it feels closer to how human interaction happens in the offline world insomuch as I’ve met personally almost every one of my 400+ friends.

And perhaps that’s the way it should be.

*Update* Two days later and Fast Company has quite the article on the same topic: Exclusive: New Google+ Study Reveals Minimal Social Activity, Weak User Engagement

Unless you’ve tried really hard to avoid tech news, you probably know that Netflix made two big announcements within the past few weeks: 1) it’s splitting up it’s DVD-by-mail and streaming media businesses and 2) it’s splitting up it’s DVD-by-mail and streaming media businesses.

The first time it made the announcement, it was just a price increase. If you wanted to have both services, you had to pay much more whereas previously you paid one price for both. The second time it made the announcement — get this — audaciously as an “apology” for lack of foresight for the consequences of the first announcement, it announced that not only where both services separate, more expensive prices but also that both services would be run now as independent companies with no integration.

What that means for the consumer is two separate accounts, two separate websites, two separate passwords, two separate places to rate your movies and get recommendations based on those ratings, etc. etc. In some ways, one might argue that this is a blessing in disguise. I mean, imagine if Comcast split it’s infamous bundle into three separate companies (phone, TV, and Internet) with a price increase for each. What would your first reaction be as a consumer?

I can tell you what mine was with Netflix: “It’s time to shop around.” I’ll still be keeping the Netflix DVD-by-mail service. (I’m not even going to try and type it’s new name, it’s faster for me to type this long sentence explaining that I have to look up the spelling of the stupidly named new company every time I want to mention it in writing.)

Netflix’s DVD service has the biggest catalog of “almost-on-demand” shows and movies I’ve ever found. And I’m generally willing to wait for something in the mail when it comes to older, eclectic content that I might want to watch.

But now that the streaming service is a separate company that offers no integration with the Netflix DVD service (a major competitive advantage that Netflix chose to give up), Netflix streaming no longer has my complacency to thank for me not looking elsewhere by default. You see, I was a loyal Netflix fan (for years) and just assumed that the company had it together and was better than alternatives out there.

Loyalty goes a long way. I was never that impressed with the Netflix streaming selection, and I had quality issues as well. (I pay for extra fast Internet and still had trouble getting HD to stream, after switching ISPs and making several 3-way calls between Netflix and my ISP with each side blaming the other, I never did get it resolved fully.) Now that Netflix is getting rid of most any reason for me to preserve my loyalty, it was time to look around. Enter Hulu Plus.

Hulu Plus costs $8 per month and is a Netflix streaming competitor that focuses on current TV shows. Another key difference is that it still includes some very limited advertisements that interrupt your TV watching experience. But after a weekend of playing with it, I haven’t had any issues streaming HD, and I’ve found the selection much better as compared to Netflix.

I’ve largely ignored Hulu (blogged about it back in 2008) in terms of usefulness for me personally because it always felt like an “online only” media experience. And I rarely, if ever, use computers or mobile devices to watch anything more than short clips. When it comes to real TV or movies, I prefer sitting back on my couch and looking at the big screen. Lucky for me, Hulu Plus makes that possible (as did Netflix) via nicely done integration with my Xbox 360.

In short, thank you Netflix, for trying so hard to destroy my loyalty toward you. As it turns out, it was keeping me from something that is a much better service for me.

Back in 2008, I was finishing up my MBA at Purdue University when an opportunity presented itself. I was the teaching assistant to Scott Jones (yes, that Scott Jones) who was, at the time, teaching an entrepreneurship capstone course.

A PhD student approached me with a demo of patent pending technology that had already received $50,000 of funding and asked if I’d be interested in putting together a business plan. I said yes. We entered three competitions in the area and placed first in one and third in the other two.

Here’s the first paragraph from that business plan (from March 2008, unchanged):

iPrivacyManager (iPM) is an intelligent Internet application that allows online users the ability to manage how their information (profiles, pictures, etc.) is shared on social networking sites (e.g. MySpace, Facebook). iPM is based on patented technology invented at Purdue University by PhD student Arjmand Samuel and professor Arif Ghafoor. This technology allows users a simple but powerful approach to managing subsets of friends, conditions of access, and specific rules for sharing of personal information.

Paragraph two continued on to explain how it worked (again, unchanged from 2008):

iPM easily integrates with the existing information store of an online user profile (via the open standard XML) and uses a unique, graphically interactive way for the user to define criteria (also known as “context-aware disclosure rules”) that dictate who can see what under what environmental conditions.

Later on in the business plan we referenced Facebook and explained a key disadvantage of social networking as compared to “real life”:

Currently, user profiles posted on Facebook and other sites are potentially accessible in an identical way by a wide range of acquaintances, who are typically kept separate in real life (employers, coworkers, fellow students/alumni, friends, family, and relatives).

Sound familiar? It should, unless you’ve been ignoring tech news for the past two weeks. Google, via Google+, has essentially built from scratch the magic we were trying to bottle up in hopes of selling to social networking sites circa 2008.

So what happened to iPrivacy Manager? Arjmand and I both received offers from Microsoft (coincidentally, from unrelated business groups) and each decided to go the cautious route. We knew that we had something potentially big on our hands.

But that’s just it, we weren’t really past the potential stage, competition winnings notwithstanding. We were both married. We were both students. We were both cautious entrepreneurs.

*Update* I have been asked what the moral of the story is and thought I’d add a mini-epilogue here. For me, this is the story of entrepreneurship often untold. You have to give up a lot for the hopes of a nice pay off, and the odds are against you. But what happens when you go with a decision where the odds are in your favor?

I’m cautious by nature, so also being entrepreneurial is a bit of a paradox. But I have no regrets on this. I think being cautious worked out well for me, actually. That said, if you choose the cautious route, be prepared for someone else to do exactly what you were planning (in my case, Google!).

So I bought a new monitor from Staples the other day and, of course, the sales associate pushed the extended warranty on me. Sure, why the hell not, for $20 it covers dead pixels plus another year on top of the manufacturer’s warranty. But it was only after I paid that I heard, “be sure to register your product to activate your warranty.”

Great. A new task to do, and this was just after I finished filling out a paper form for the “Staples Rewards” program. You know, the other thing that gets pushed on you when you buy something. “Fill out this form, and you’ll get X% back the more you buy.” It doesn’t cost anything, and who knows, maybe I’ll shop at Staples again at some point, right? Either that or I’m just a push over in person.

So then I get home and go to the site given me for product/warranty registration. And wow, is it a color-coded, form filling good time! Click on the graphics above and below to experience it for yourself.

Since I got this far, I figured I may as well blog about it. Staples isn’t the only time I’ve seen this, but it’s the most recent. My suggestion to retailers: automate all of this and get your systems talking to each other, and you might just get more than the push over customers!

Greetings from the sky! I’m writing this on my flight back to Seattle from Boston and noticed that the tech-news-o-sphere is all abuzz about Amazon’s new cloud music products recently announced. In a nutshell, Amazon automatically now is giving its MP3 customers accessibility to their music anytime and in any place via an online digital media locker (“cloud drive”) and an online music “cloud player”.

My predication is that this is the beginning of consumers (mass consumers, not just early adopters) migrating from an ownership mentality to an accessibility mentality. Here’s what I mean:

Moving from the CD to the MP3 was the first shift for me. I remember a few years ago when I still preferred to purchase CDs and then rip a copy for myself so that I’d have my music both in digital format and in a physical format. It was important for me to “own” it and know that I had something tangible.

But then I started realizing what a hassle that was and began just purchasing MP3s without CDs. Nowadays, ironically enough, my biggest concern (in terms of managing my media) is dealing with the limitations of my “ownership”. I like to listen to music on my computer(s), in the car, during a workout, while playing Xbox, at home, at work, during travel, etc. etc.

And it’s not just music, it’s all my media (movies, shows, music, pictures, and books). My biggest constraint is often figuring out which device has how much storage and how best to micromanage my “ownership” to optimize my usage of particular media on-demand.

In short, my perceived need for local “ownership” is a pain. Wouldn’t it be great if ownership wasn’t the first priority? Imagine a world where storage space is no longer an issue. Your media content is online, “in the cloud” in such a way that you can get to it from wherever you are.

That’s not what Amazon announced. But rest assured, that’s where media consumption is going. And I can’t wait!

About a month ago, I got the following email from Mozy:

Dear Mozy Customer,

Thanks for being a valued Mozy subscriber. For the first time since 2006, we’re adjusting the price of our MozyHome service and wanted to give you a heads up. As part of this change, we’re replacing our MozyHome Unlimited backup plan and introducing the following tiered storage plans:

50 GB for $5.99 per month (includes backup for 1 computer)
125 GB for $9.99 per month (includes backup for up to 3 computers)

You may add additional computers (up to 5 in total) or 20 GB increments of storage to either of the plans, each for a monthly cost of $2.00.

While this policy takes effect for new MozyHome customers starting today, your MozyHome Unlimited subscription is still valid for the duration of your current 1 year term. In order to ensure uninterrupted service, you’ll need to select a new renewal plan.

As the leader in online backup, we’re committed to continually providing the highest levels of service and protection that you’ve come to expect from us as well as delivering those innovations you’ve been asking for. For more information on the factors that led to this change, please read my note or visit our FAQ.

Be safe,
Harel Kodesh
President

Since I was using Mozy to backup 390 gigabytes of music, pictures, movies, and documents… well, my monthly bill was about to go up 760% from $5 per month to $38. Not cool. Luckily, there’s plenty of competition out there, and I decided to give Carbonite a try.

I started with a free trial of Carbonite earlier this month but then just decided, what the hell, I’m going for it. With Carbonite, I prepaid $130 for 38 months or $3.42 per month. That wouldn’t even get me through 4 months of Mozy. Put another way, Mozy would have cost me 11 times what I’m now paying for Carbonite! Crazy.

First, a quick recap on Radiohead’s place in the world of digital distribution experimentation:

In 2007, Radiohead decides to release their album “In Rainbows” exclusively on Radiohead.com with a unique “choose your own price” model. You pick how much you pay (free being an option), and you then can download the album. Next, comScore releases numbers from the Radiohead experiment, which suggest that most of us are cheapskates and freeloaders.

Then, Radiohead responds to comScore’s numbers and says they “no way reflect the true success of the project” even if also stating that the real numbers are “not for public consumption.” Finally, Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke calls the whole thing “a one-off response to a particular situation.”

Fast forward to 2011, and we have Radiohead’s latest distribution model: their new album The King of Limbs is only available on their site for a price of $9 and up (depending on which version you get). The release date was February 18, 2011. But even if I call myself a mild-to-moderate Radiohead fan (have — and have paid for — most their music), I haven’t yet listened to “The King of Limbs.” Here’s why:

My music purchase behavior starts with Zune (I am a Zune Pass subscriber, which means I can listen to most mainstream music via a monthly subscription fee), then goes to Amazon MP3, and then moves to iTunes as a last resort. Occassionly, a fourth location I’ll go for music purchasing is Amazon, for the physical product once known by many: the CD. However, that’s only in the case where the CD comes with something I can’t get with just the digital download.

So where does Radiohead land in my music purchase process? Nowhere. It’s not on Zune, Amazon MP3, or iTunes. And Amazon has the CD listed with a release date of March 29, 2011, but with no extras included.

So why don’t I just go to Radiohead’s site and pay them directly?

1. That’s not where I shop.
2. That’s not where I trust my credit card to be stored/used.
3. That’s not where automated services reside post-purchase to make sure my downloads automatically integrate into my two platforms for music organization (Zune & iTunes).

In short, the fulfillment experience is messy. That’s what I’d expect if I were to opt-in to pirating music. But if I’m paying? It needs to be seamless.

Radiohead should stick with what they know: music. And I’d rather make a statement by not purchasing Radiohead’s album, than make a statement by jumping through their hoops.

About a week ago, a New York Times article titled “Blogs Wane as the Young Drift to Sites Like Twitter” painted a bleak picture for blogging by making pronouncements like “blogs were once the outlet of choice for people who wanted to express themselves online.” The article then goes on to suggest that Twitter and Facebook are the culprits stealing blogs’ thunder.

While some prominent bloggers came to the defense and proved these pronouncements to be inaccurate or at least misleading, there were still some thoughts in this article that really resonated with me. For instance:

“Former bloggers said they were too busy to write lengthy posts and were uninspired by a lack of readers.”

Yup. That’s true for me. I haven’t blogged for six months before this post, and why? Well, it takes times and effort. And the payoff is unpredictable (I characterize “payoff” as discussion and readers). Most times hardly anyone comes to say anything. And other times, it’s a ghost town.

That is, unless you blog frequently enough (and are insightful frequently enough) that you have folks stopping by regularly. But the blog equivalent of “friending” or “following” is mostly dead (it’s called RSS). So you can’t count on people to stick around or come back unless you really stick with it and/or are consistently interesting.

Compare that now to Twitter or Facebook. Neither take much time nor effort, and it’s really not hard to say something that will get read and/or start a discussion. While in the blogging world, you might track visitors and traffic, in the Facebook/Twitter world, you don’t care about that (nor can you really figure it out). It’s been replaced by even better gratification in the form of “retweets” or “likes” plus replies/comments.

This probably comes across cynically, in the sense that I’m suggesting indirectly that blogging/Facebook/Twitter are all done primarily for self-gratification purposes. There’s probably a better way to say that, but connecting/interacting/sharing with others is something most humans enjoy immensely. And Facebook & Twitter make it so easy! Whereas blogging…

Perhaps the conversations don’t run as deep or the discussions aren’t as stimulating, but Twitter and Facebook have a certain “good enough” feel to them. Let me put it this way:

If I told you that you can get in really good shape by walking and that you’d notice results on day one, you’d totally do it, right? But then if I told you, you know what, you might be able to get into slightly better shape (than the first option) if you exercise regularly. But you won’t notice results for at least two months.

Which would you choose?

I think most would (and will continue) to choose walking if it means most of the payoff but none of the hassle / hard work. (Incidentally, I think we’d all love it if only short walks really did get us most of the payoff of regular, more intense exercise.)

By the way, I’m back and ready to blog more (well, at least, more than every six months).

A couple weeks ago, my wife and I were on a road trip through northern California when we decided to stop for lunch in a little town named Eureka. I couldn’t help but notice (and overhear) a few grandmas sitting in a booth across the way. They were very engaged in a lively conversation about sharing photos with daughters/grandkids.

One in particular was explaining how she preferred to use Facebook over MySpace because of her preference for how picture sharing works on Facebook. But then, one of the other grandmas interrupted and asked: “What’s MySpace?” Good question, I thought to myself, what is MySpace?

I haven’t been to MySpace in months (years?). I didn’t even join MySpace until after Facebook and Twitter. My main reason for joining was to see what I was missing. As it turns out, not much. I was first annoyed by how they sent my password over email followed shortly thereafter by my first friend request being spam. But then, just browsing profiles made me dizzy.

So what is MySpace again? The logo I’m using in this post (which I captured circa 2008) says “a place for friends”, though they’ve since dropped that apparently. I thought, then, what better place to figure out what MySpace is than MySpace itself. They’ve got to have an about page, right? Not that I could find. The closest thing to an about page seems to be only available after you click “Sign Up!” (something I rarely click before knowing what a website is).

When you click “Sign Up!”, you get a nice little “Why Signup for MySpace?” blurb. The first reason is in all caps and bolded with a smiley face: “It’s FREE!” You know, the most convincing argument made for why you should sign up for anything… in 1995.

The next three reasons appear to be more promising:

But back to the grandma in the restaurant. The interesting thing there was what wasn’t said. You see, she knew what Facebook was and didn’t need to ask. (That was part of the discussion prior to MySpace coming up.) But as soon as MySpace came up, she needed an explanation. And what explanation does MySpace give? See above. For a grandma who’s never used it, it probably sounds a lot like a Facebook clone.

And therein lies the problem: MySpace is now a Facebook clone for those who’ve never used anything but Facebook for social networking. What’s worse, if this crowd were ever to get as far as to actually use MySpace, I’m betting they’d be pretty disappointed. MySpace probably does have something about it that makes it different or better in some way, but I couldn’t figure it out quickly enough to mention it here.

If anyone out there wants to let me — and the rest of the Facebook-using world — know why we should use MySpace, feel free to comment below. Otherwise, let’s all wave goodbye together.

Full Disclosure: I work for Microsoft and enjoy my job. And this blog post is my opinion, not Microsoft’s.

This past week ended up being one of the most intense, yet rewarding, weeks of my career. For the past three weeks, I put my day job mostly on hold and took on the challenge of leading a team to put together a free virtual training event for Windows Phone 7 developers. We had developers in the thousands participating in four 3-hour sessions that covered the ins and outs of developing applications and games for Windows Phone 7.

(FYI- If you’re a developer and missed it, don’t worry, the class resource page with all course materials and demos is open to all, plus recordings of the event are coming soon. Also, see below for some behind-the-scenes pictures from the studio we used to broadcast/film.)

For better or for worse, it seems that tech blogs, Wall Street, and much of my family are using the success of the “smartphone” as the current most important defining characteristic of how a given tech company is doing. Sure, Microsoft had record earnings and sold 175 million copies of Windows 7 in nine months. And sure, Xbox 360 + Xbox Live + the upcoming Kinect is the best thing to have happened to gaming in the past 10 years (speaking as a die-hard PC gamer turned console convert).

I could go on and mention several other billion dollar businesses Microsoft has built over the years, but they’re the unsexy, enterprise type that tend to bore blog readers. The real question on everyone’s mind: how will Microsoft play in the smartphone market? Well now that there’s tons of coverage on that, we’re all in wait-and-see mode. I, for one, have loved what I’ve played with and am also very encouraged by the overwhelmingly positive response we’ve gotten from developers who took our training.

So while Wall Street yawns, I continue to use a more holistic approach to measuring the success of a tech company. Not least of which starts with it being a great place to work!

Thanks to Rob Miles and Elese Moran for the pictures.