“I don’t believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time” – Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google

Actually I think society does understand, or at least we used to. This is exactly why there is a separation between juvenile and adult criminal records. Regardless it’s all the more reason why your information should be your personal property.

Imagine for a second the prospect of an infinite record on everything you have ever done. According to Holman Jenkins, Jr. who was quoted by Marshall Kirkpatrick in a recent article in the ReadWriteWeb

[Schmidt] predicts, apparently seriously, that every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends’ social media sites.

I suspect that Schmidt thinks that this is like having your criminal record purged when you turn 18, but why exactly is it a good thing that I might be “entitled” to change my name (which I can do already if I wanted to). What I should be entitled to is the option to ask Google to delete everything they ever collected on me. The only question is will they provide this willingly or will we have to require them to?

“Privacy is dead, deal with it” – Scott McNealy then CEO of Sun

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” – Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Unknown Friend]: What? How’d you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don’t know why.
Zuck: They “trust me”
Zuck: Dumb f*cks
-Alleged conversation between Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook and an unknown friend

Is Privacy broken?

The problem with privacy, like many things, is counter intuitive. It has very little to do with what information I choose to keep private. The problem instead lies in the question of who owns “my” information once I choose to release it? For example Facebook didn’t force me to enter in my likes and dislikes, I shared it willingly, but unfortunately once I shared it to them, it ceased to be my information and it became their choice as to what they wanted to do with it. More specifically because we allow personal information to be owned by companies and not the person in question we as individuals have little control over what companies do with our information. This is the root of many of our privacy issues and I believe that all attempts to address online privacy issues will likely continue to amount to nothing more than privacy theater until we can call our personal information personal property.

Who owns your age?

If you are 35 years old, who owns that piece of information? Likewise who owns your name, address or coffee preferences? If a company scanned in your birth certificate, looked up your home address in the phone book or paid Starbucks for your choice of coffee the answer is someone other than you. No matter how hard you try to own this information and protect it like you would any other personal property you can’t. Information about you doesn’t have an implied owner (you) and when information is collected about you, that information belongs to the collector. You can ask the collector to delete the information but chances are they are under no obligation to do so because your information is their information. This is the problem.

Simply put, privacy is not going to exist until personal information is given the same protections as personal property. Without that distinction there is nothing to imply that you or I have any rights to the very information that defines who we are. Sure we could inject layers of privacy legislation into the legal system like Germany has done with some of the strictest privacy rules in the world but what if we took another approach and let people own not just their age but the very knowledge of their age?

If you love something, set it free?

Of course there are other alternatives, full and complete transparency and the removal of privacy altogether is one of them. Your might compare this approach similar to life in a village. If you have ever lived in a small community or even traveled with a small group for a extended period of time you know how quickly most privacy goes out the window. Share a secret with a few people and soon the whole tribe knows. There is something liberating in this approach but unfortunately it doesn’t scale. The Internet is not a small village. The reason zero privacy works at a village level is because that transparency also comes with context which helps you put that information into perspective. On the Internet when you read about how some complete stranger jumped through a wall of boxes you might think any number of things about that person but unfortunately you have no context and are free to come to any number of likely wrong conclusions.

The other problem is authentication, unfortunately for modern society we use things that are too easy to learn or obtain (like age, social security number or zip code) to authenticate ourselves which is why identity theft is so easy. This problem would get dramatically worse if suddenly we moved to full transparency without thinking about authentication at the same time. Unfortunately when one starts to think about privacy and threats it leads some people to say things like this:

“The only way to manage this is true transparency and no anonymity. In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it.” – Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, on the misuse of information & technology for criminal purposes

Unfortunately Schmidt confuses eliminating privacy with security by making the claim that in today’s world you can’t have privacy if you want to have security which is a pretty dangerous conclusion to make. Of course full transparency and a verified identity system would be advantageous to a company that makes it’s money from knowing exactly what sort of coffee you like to drink in the morning. But what if you don’t want Google to know these things? Unfortunately there is nothing you can do unless you decide you will start making your own coffee in the morning.

End the Madness

I won’t go into my thoughts on identity other than to say if you want to start thinking about it start with what is perhaps the most famous presentation on the subject of identity by Dick Hardt, CEO of Sxip Identity. Dick outlined a solution for identity that operated much like your driver license and didn’t require a central directory to operate. The lack of a directory is important to privacy because without separating the knowledge of using an ID from the ID issuing party you have a privacy problem (unless of course it’s a closed system).

Instead getting back to the issue of privacy the the problem with either full transparency or limited transparency is again that the issue is not in our rights and ability to keep something private or not, but in the rights we have to our own information when we decide to release it, which inevitably we have to do to function in any society. Even if we were to choose a full transparency model we still wouldn’t own our information. I’m going to give Amazon my address and credit card number because I want to do business with them, but what if I don’t want to anymore? They are under no obligation to delete “my” information. However if we were to start treating personal information as personal property, Amazon would have to ask me for permission before they shared it to someone else and delete (return) it when I demanded it. Society would suddenly have a set of rules and penalties for handling personal information just like we do for any other personal property and the control would move back to where it should have been all along, the individual who likes Caramel Macchiatos.

Of course we could choose to give away our personal information just like we can sell or give away our personal property and then maybe not a whole lot would change. Then again the decision regarding our personal information and how it’s used would be our decision from the start for once. That alone could be a huge change by putting the balance of power back in our hands and changing how we view privacy forever.

What do you think?

I believe that its failure was guaranteed no matter how powerful its designers made it. It wasn’t because of the applications or even its form factor, no its size and note taking, calendar, contacts and other apps including eMail capabilities were all fine for their day. It all came down to the user experience. Using the stylus with the on screen keyboard or worse, the built in handwriting recognition was unbearable.  This highlights something that technology companies regularly forget and it’s why Steve Jobs killed the Newton when he took back control of Apple: The user experience matters. A lot.

The Palm Pilot with its graffiti was first, then the BlackBerry with its thumb friendly keyboard and then the iPhone with its quick responding multi-touch screen. At each stage the innovation wasn’t the devices capabilities, plenty of devices have done what they did before them. The innovation was the user experience that enabled the technology and made it accessible. The iPhone’s multi-touch interface made it a usable applications platform and everyday device, the app store just greased the wheels. Had Apple released the iPhone with a thumb keyboard or stylus it would have been just as successful (and boring) as every mobile device that had come before it.

So as I wait now for my iPad to arrive and I read all the articles for and against it I think most people focusing on battery life, flash support or built in capabilities are missing the point. The real innovation that will decide the iPad’s success will come down to  only one thing, the iPads user experience and how successfully it bridges the gap between humans and technology.

The annoying marketing gone crazy technology looking for a problem award goes to 3D TV

This year it seems everyone was talking about 3D TV’s with CNet, Engadget and others all talking about 3D tv’s like they were the second coming of Christ. I’m not sure who’s good graces they were trying to get into but let me say what everyone else is secretly thinking: 3D TV’s are stupid. Despite the obviousness of this, it didn’t stop CES from announcing the Panasonic VT25 as “Best in Show“. It just doesn’t make sense to make everything we watch 3D. I don’t want to watch the evening news, Old School or any movie with Matthew McConaughey in 3D. Ever.

And then there are the glasses. If you don’t have glasses on, then you get a headache. Anyone who walks in the room while you are watching a 3D show is going to get insta-frustrated. Oh and you look like a total idiot. The only reason this works in a theater is because everyone looks like an idiot so everyone keeps their mouth shut.

No, no one is going to run out and buy a new TV for this unless they have money to burn. Here is the big secret however that no one wants you to know, every TV will soon be a 3D “capable” TV and if your TV can refresh faster than 96Hz already (ideally 120Hz), it might already be ready (the HDMI 1.4 requirement might be a hiccup). This feature is going to be thrown in for free by the end of the year and right now is just a marketing gimmick to justify the cost of higher end TV’s. I expect Vizio to be carrying 3D capable TV’s at Costco around the middle of the year for the same price you would pay today for a regular TV. Unless of course  the TV manufacturers try and create some sort of 3D hardware standards monopoly which is likely because that’s just what hardware companies do. For example everyone is pushing their “Full HD 3D” solution which requires shutter glasses vs. the cheap things you wore when you saw Avatar 3D at the IMAX theater last weekend.

The real winners here will likely end up being the content providers who will try and sell you 3D versions of movies you already have.

The totally pointless but yet I want one so bad award goes to the Parrot AR.Drone

You know something is going to be a success when people are already talking about all the scary things you can do with something and the Parrot AR.Drone has all kinds of awesome scary tricks. Like hovering outside your neighbors windows recording video all controlled by your iPhone scary. The moment you can equip these things with missiles is when I suspect the fun will come to an end but until then, I want one.  Unless this product ends up being somehow fatally flawed and not living up to the hype expect every kid on the planet to be begging their parents for one. Parents everywhere are going to be rushing out to get these things too because they all secretly want this thing as well.

The should have gotten more attention because it’s going to change our life award goes to the RCA Airnergy Power System

Two words: Wireless Power. The RCA Airnergy system sucks up WiFi signals and turns it into electrical current. Let me say that again. WiFi signals go in, power comes out. Despite making everyone suddenly get worried that the WiFi signals in their house are frying their brain (it doesn’t, chill out) the idea of wireless power has the potential to change our lives forever. Think about the sort of devices that become possible when you suddenly don’t have to worry about plugging them in or charging them. I suspect this product is only the beginning of  a whole series of new technologies that will branch out to absorb all kinds of energy and convert it to power. Despite the utter coolness and trans-formative nature of this technology it’s getting almost no attention right now. This either means it’s too good to be true or people just can’t believe it. Kudos to Engadget for also saying what was also on everyone else’s mind: The Airnergy gives RCA a reason to exist.

And the best of CES award goes to…

The product that is going to make the entire CES event seem like a distant and pointless memory, the upcoming Apple tablet. According to John Paczkowski over at AllThingsD the announcement is planned for January 27th 2010. I still stand by my predictions that I made back in August as well as my expectations that the new tablet will be called the Apple MacBook Touch.  Stay tuned!

The WSJ article explains that several of the La La executives will be leading critical aspects of the iTunes service which I think is a very positive sign and one that suggests Apple is serious about injecting fresh thinking into service. It’s a short but good article that validates a few of my predictions on how I think iTunes will transform itself in 2010 and a topic you can be sure I’ll keep a close eye on.

While these capabilities are almost certain to now find their way into iTunes, these predictions miss that something much larger is on the horizon. Apple didn’t acquire Lala just for it’s streaming capabilities, instead I believe that the pending acquisition of Lala by Apple signifies the beginning of an entirely new online iTunes platform and cloud computing media strategy for Apple.

While Apple has made huge investments into cloud computing infrastructure and services already with it’s MobileMe and web based iWork services the high profile iTunes ecosystem has remained strangely absent from any public online strategy. With the Lala acquisition Apple is putting the online strategy for iTunes on the fast track for a big announcement sometime in 2010.

The details will likely start to emerge by Q2 but I believe that a iTunes in the cloud solution will offer the following:

• Merge your local music libraries with online libraries making your music always available to stream to you no matter where you are
• Create a social network for sharing with friends your likes, dislikes and your current playlist driving new music discovery and therefore sales
• Provide a completely online iTunes experience that will eventually replace the need for an iTunes desktop application
• Provide streaming music subscription services

These are just a few predictions, I suspect there will be more to come as details start to become known. A big unknown to me and something I will be keeping a close eye on is how video content and the Apple TV will fit into a future Apple online and in the cloud media future but one thing is for sure: the future of iTunes is all in the cloud.

Recently Apple dropped the price of the 160GB model by $100 and discontinued the 40GB model fueling the rumor mill that changes to what Steve Jobs has described as a pet project are forthcoming. Here is just some of the coverage and commentary:

• Wired wrote a peice titled “Why Apple TV Must Evolve to Avoid Extinction” and referenced industry analysts James McQuivey of Forrester and John Barrett of Park Associates. Together they claimed that the Apple TV didn’t have much life left in it, that Apple needed to dramatically improve the product to compete and suggested things like a Tivo-like DVR feature, Movie and TV show subscription options and a Blu-Ray player.
• David Coursey blogging for PC World suggested that a “New Apple TV For Christmas Seems Likely” and suggested the new iTunes LP format would be a big boost to the platform. David also suggested that the price drop had one goal: clear the warehouses of existing Apple TVs to make room for a new model that he expects in time for Christmas.
• AppleInsider also supported the idea that the new iTunes LP format seems aimed at the Apple TV with some detailed analysis on the new format and the underlying Apple technology called TuneKit.

I agree with David that a new Apple TV model is coming and I give it a 80% chance of landing this fall for the holiday shopping season. The canceling of the 40GB model and the price drop does scream inventory purge and check out this recent conversation at an apple store, something certainly seems up. As for what this new Apple TV will look like however all of the predictions on what will be coming in the next Apple TV seem to be missing the mark, some in the extreme.

Blu-ray is never coming to the Apple TV

Blu-ray may have  just won the format war but in my opinion it’s already dead on arrival. Delivered right at the apex of physical media it is now set to be eclipsed by online access to video and I predict that the era of physical media is set to expire within 3-5 years. With HD content appearing online from Netflix, Apple, Microsoft and others there is increasingly less and less reason to buy a disc.

With most home movies rented, not purchased, the days of the disc are coming to an end and the reasons for this sneakernet holdout won’t remain for much longer. The final nail in the coffin is the obvious one: Blu-ray does nothing to help the Apple online store giving Apple every reason to hasten Blu-rays demise, not support it.

An Apple TV DVR isn’t coming…yet

Apple has eschewed broadcast media for two reasons. First, like Blu-ray, HD cable and satellite broadcasts have their own complicated and expensive licensing  costs and certification “bag of hurt” that Blu-Ray does. It’s these licensing issues that has kept PC CableCard decoders off the market for example although there is supposedly a PCI-E tuner on the way in 2010.

The second reason is because Apple hates kludges and the DVR is the mother of all kludges (bear with me here). The TiVo may have changed how millions watch TV forever but DVR’s exist to address a problem with the medium, namely you can’t pause and remind broadcast media. The future however is content that is bought, sold and downloaded online with the days of advertising interruptions coming to and end and I think Apple is content to wait it out until this future arrives.

There is one snag however that Apple needs to figure out how to deal with: live broadcasts. Live news and sports are not going away and once live TV is easily delivered over the Internet then you can expect to see a DVR option but until then the Apple TV will likely continue to maintain “pet project” status at Apple. If Apple starts to make inroads to solving the live broadcast problem however, this will the key indicator that Apple is getting ready to take on TV.

Why the Apple TV is Apple’s Secret Weapon

So if the Apple TV is only a pet project today and can’t replace your cable or satellite box because of live broadcasts what good is the Apple TV? I believe the Apple TV is a Trojan horse designed to slowly find it’s way into living rooms and eventually build critical mass. Supporting this theory is the fact that Apple is breaking even on the device which means that the goal here isn’t to make money selling the Apple TV, but rather to make money off of the market the devices are meant to create. Expect the Apple TV to slowly build momentum in the coming months if not years but keep a watch out for the following triggers that will signal Apple is getting ready to launch this weapon:

• Apple addresses or make hints of addressing live broadcasts – pause/play/record for Internet broadcasts will likely arrive at the same time
• Resolves the issues between the Apple TV and the Mac mini – Why buy an Apple TV when you can build one with DVR capabilities?

What to expect in the meantime for Apple TV

In the meantime as we wait for the Apple TV master plan to be revealed you can expect a slow trickle of new features that will keep the media from forgetting about this little device. Here is the shortlist of features I’m expecting to emerge within a year or less:

• Fully featured online application, music and video store with “in the cloud” storage of purchases. (You won’t need to sync up with a PC or Mac to get the most of your purchase)
• Online App Store for Apple TV and MacBook Touch applications
• Gaming platform using WiFi based controllers as well as some very unique games and applications that make use of the iPhone/iPod Touch
• Subscription based rentals for movies and TV shows
• And the obligatory Increased capacity and processing power

So those are my predictions for Apple’s pet project. No Blu-Ray, no DVR(yet) but still a lot of interesting things to come. My recommendation to anyone keeping watch over Apple is to keep an eye on the Apple TV. It’s a precursor for things to come and a strategy that has yet been fully revealed.

Energized by Left-Handed Toons

Eventually Apple won out and customers grew tired of having a working solution one day and a broken one the next. The lesson learned from this story however was clear: business models that depend on you hacking your competitors products are a really bad idea.

Fast forward to today and Apple finds itself in the same position again, only this time it’s the Palm Pre with it’s dependency on hacking iTunes. It’s not even clear to me why the Pre needs to sync directly with iTunes this way as there is plenty of software out there that can interface with the iTunes library. Palm should put this misguided strategy behind them and create its own software for keeping everything in sync otherwise I guarantee you, this isn’t going to end well for Palm.