The first argument that makes no sense is, “should we want free to be the future?”

Who cares if we want it? It is.

The second argument that makes no sense is, “how will this new business model support the world as we know it today?”

Who cares if it does? It is. It’s happening. The world will change around it, because the world has no choice. I’m sorry if that’s inconvenient, but it’s true.

Having read Gladwell’s piece, he never asks the first question. What Gladwell first questions is if the concept of “free” is indeed a law of the digital economy:

And then there is [Anderson's] insistence that the relentless downward pressure on prices represents an iron law of the digital economy. Why is it a law? Free is just another price, and prices are set by individual actors, in accordance with the aggregated particulars of marketplace power. “Information wants to be free,” Anderson tells us, “in the same way that life wants to spread and water wants to run downhill.” But information can’t actually want anything, can it? Amazon wants the information in the Dallas paper to be free, because that way Amazon makes more money. Why are the self-interested motives of powerful companies being elevated to a philosophical principle? But we are getting ahead of ourselves.

From the start, Godin is working off an assumption that “free” is the future whereas Gladwell views it as a condition imposed by powerful interests. Would Godin support the idea that the future is “free” because those interests will make it so? Based on his definitiveness I would think not.

Unfortunately, Godin doesn’t get the second question right either. Here, Gladwell’s argument was not about “how will this [free] business model support the world as we know it today.” Instead, Galdwell focused on rebutting Anderson’s claim that “free” is the only business model of the digital age:

The only problem is that in the middle of laying out what he sees as the new business model of the digital age Anderson is forced to admit that one of his main case studies, YouTube, “has so far failed to make any money for Google.”

…

And there’s plenty of other information out there that has chosen to run in the opposite direction from Free. The Times gives away its content on its Web site. But the Wall Street Journal has found that more than a million subscribers are quite happy to pay for the privilege of reading online. Broadcast television—the original practitioner of Free—is struggling. But premium cable, with its stiff monthly charges for specialty content, is doing just fine. Apple may soon make more money selling iPhone downloads (ideas) than it does from the iPhone itself (stuff). The company could one day give away the iPhone to boost downloads; it could give away the downloads to boost iPhone sales; or it could continue to do what it does now, and charge for both. Who knows? The only iron law here is the one too obvious to write a book about, which is that the digital age has so transformed the ways in which things are made and sold that there are no iron laws.

As these paragraphs indicate, Gladwell’s focus is not really about if the principles of Anderson’s Free have merit. For example, Gladwell points to the Times as a company operating by the philosophy of “free.” Rather, from the start, he investigates the absoluteness of “free” and quickly shows by Anderson’s own case study and several other examples, that “free” is not an “iron law.”

The remainder of Godin’s post are all fair points in examining how digital technology is changing the world. Sure, people don’t want to pay for stale news to be delivered to their homes. Yes, a digital world means more people “get to play” because scarcity is not a factor. But those points do not support that “free” will become the only business model of the future.

As Godin notes the irony that he “read Malcolm’s review for free” while Anderson’s “arguments [are read] most cogently by paying for them” it’s equally as ironic that Godin writes, “[o]f course, it’s ironic that sometimes people pay money for my books.” In that sentence, Godin shows that “free” can be a choice. And that’s exactly Gladwell’s point.

Out with the Old, in with the New
Competition is a great thing. With the growing number of Twitter clients, users continue to benefit from choices. Of course, that makes it hard for Twitter client developers. But that hasn’t stopped new entrants. For example, check out Mike Rundle’s Beak app (Mac only).

A competitive market means less users will lock themselves to a particular client. I recall that Twitterific use to dominate the marketplace. Adobe AIR apps like Snitter, Twhirl (purchased by Seesmic), and eventually TweetDeck came along and changed all that. One reason is that the latter versus for the former are cross-platform, finally allowing the large PC userbase to actually have decent options to try.

Anecdotally, in a given day, on my desktop, I switch between TweetDeck, Tweetie, Beak, and some Firefox add-ons. On my iPhone, I again use Tweetie, TwitterFon, and now TweetDeck. Yesterday, I also re-installed Seesmic Desktop, after being unimpressed with its initial release. The point here is that unless the developers start figuring out features that keep users from switching to the “coolest” updated app, this trend will continue.

One Client to Rule Them All
A major reason I’m usually switching between apps is because each Twitter client seems to miss one thing I need. On the Mac side, Beak gives me easy access to my favorite tweets but Tweetie let’s me click on a user and see his recent stream (in Tweetie, I have to look at my own profile to see my favorites). Now, with Seesmic Desktop, instead of jumping over to bit.ly to shorten my link with my own account (instead of generically), I can do so directly in the application. TweetDeck provides a seamless transition from any of my desktops (I use PC + Mac everyday) to my phone. You get the picture.

While I’m sure my feature set is not exhaustive, I’ve created a mindmap of what Twitter client developers should try to include in their builds. This list assumes that for the most part, the developers have already covered the basics. It also does not overly focus on the user experience of the application. The latter is a key factor because these features need to be included intelligently.

(full size on Flickr)

My Current “Winners”

On the desktop, Tweetie is starting to be opened more and more. It incorporates the most features from the list above, in a way that’s intuitive. Overall, it will be harder for Adobe AIR apps to compete on the Mac platform. So, from that perspective TweetDeck will have a tougher time with Mac users but will likely completely dominate on the PC. That being said, I am one of those crazy ambidextrous users who works both on a PC and Mac throughout the day and syncing groups and other settings is very appealing.

Plus, TweetDec on the iPhone just blew up the App Store. There are no other apps (not just Twitter-specific) like TweetDeck. Syncing is going to push Mac users to sacrifice the beauty of a native Mac Twitter client for the functionality of seamless Mac to iPhone usage.

Conclusions

Going forward, I think Tweetie could add groups, easier favorite access, and if it wanted to really “go big” syncing with iPhone. It would then compete head-to-head with TweetDeck’s big feature and solidify its grip on Mac users. Syncing is a large effort and that’s probably why TweetDeck focused on it. For TweetDeck, an easy win would be adding third-party integration for services like bit.ly, which would lessen Seesmic Desktop’s “wow” factor.

1. I’ve worked with web startups, either as an individual consultant, vendor, or employee during the last five years. I also have tinkered with a number of my own projects.

2. I live on the East Coast, in the D.C. area, where historically this region has been known for political and non-profit organizations.
3. I consider myself a student of demography and am interested in how today’s technology impacts the need for geographic proximity. My employer has multiple remote offices, so I have firsthand experience in understanding what it means to work in a distributed workforce.

It might seem shortsighted to focus on these two particular topics. So, let me be clear that there are many other elements of web startups to question and explore. These happen to be the most timely and relevant, both for me and the larger web community.

Part 1 – Does Venture Funding Still Matter for Web Startups?

Entrepreneurial Incentives – Then and Now

Based on research from Professor Robert Hendershott of Santa Clara University, the NYT asked Do Web Entrepreneurs Still Need Venture Capitalists? and promptly concluded “no.” The Times does a nice job highlighting Professor Hendershott’s research but his actual paper has the data to support his claims.

Hendershott spends quite a large part of his discussion focused on conventional VC investment models as they relate to entrepreneurial incentives in the current marketplace. While staged investments are better at keeping entrepreneurs incentivized, ultimately they still promote an environment where selling a company early can be more advantageous to an entrepreneur than the risk for a larger upside. Traditionally, investor ownership stakes and liquidation preferences have offset this misalignment of incentives.

In recent times, however, less capital has been needed for companies to build technology. For example, cloud computing and cloud storage greatly reduce costs typically associated with early stage startups. With less capital needed to build technology, lower first stage investments result in entrepreneurs winding up with greater ownership into their companies. Subsequently, they would earn a larger percentage of a first round sale. Basically, historical checks are removed. Hendershott explores this unravelling more but the end game is that “[p]otentially, the venture model for finding, developing, and vetting new Web-based businesses breaks down.”

The iPhone Gold Rush

Even without Hendershott’s analysis, there are enough anecdotal iPhone success stories to see that it takes far less resources to bring a new web (or more generally “digital”) startup to market today. For those that have the business and technical skills, places like Apple’s App Store provide a large and immediate distribution channel that handles logistics like payment authorization and to a lesser extent, marketing.

The App Store represents a marketplace that significantly lowers barriers to entry (e.g., cost and time) and mitigates the risk of failure. Unsuccessful attempts to launch an application may not simply be brushed aside but they also likely won’t break the bank.

Venture 2.0

Professor Hendershottt doesn’t go as far as to say that Apple is replacing venture capitalists but he does indicate that the environment the App Store fosters “mimics” venture models. He also points to traditional VC firms like KleinerPerkins’ iFund, who are adapting to this new world.

Rather than adapting, TechStars and Y Combinator have focused on a strategy of much lower seed stage investments. By taking this very smart approach, they’ve played the odds in their favor. Hendershott actually lays out the type of mindset of investment funds like TechStars but never directly makes the connection:

“The first round investor, while also risk-averse, is presumably diversified across a portfolio of similar young firms. This makes the investor more willing, even eager, to take the chance of a complete loss in any given portfolio company in exchange for a good chance at a much higher gain in at least one portfolio company.”

Of course, the idea behind “Venture 2.0″ mostly speaks to VCs reinventing themselves to stay relevant and a factor within the web startup equation.

Future – Venture Funding for Web Startups

It would be presumptuous to believe that venture funding will play no role in the future of web startups. Hendershott carefully chooses his words when he writes (my emphasis), “entrepreneurs should recognize that venture capital may play a smaller role in their future start-ups, and plan accordingly.”

My instinct is that taking VC investment will largely relate to the preference, experience, financial stability, comfort level, and skills of the entrepreneur.

In other cases, the choice will be dictated by the idea itself. For example, a YouTube-like startup could not get off the ground without the funds to cover its large bandwidth costs. Any explosive idea will require the capital to cover the scalability of infrastructure, even with the cloud.

Now – To Raise or Not to Raise?

Since VC funding for web startups is not disappearing tomorrow, it is important to understand if or when it’s a good time to raise funding. FreshBooks CEO Mike McDerment recently penned a piece entitled five milestones to reach before raising venture capital. The first milestone is the best:

When: you don’t need the money

This may seem counter-intuitive on a whole bunch of levels, but the time to raise money is when you don’t need it. What I mean by “don’t need it” is you can carry on without it, or you have alternatives (like other people who want to invest, or a house you will mortgage). Many entrepreneurs don’t understand the value of finding their way without VC money, or they think they need the money more than they actually do, or they think they need it sooner than they do, or all of the above! (READ: the 7 ways I’ve almost killed FreshBooks) The result is they spend a lot of time too early in their businesses lifecycle focused on serving VCs instead of serving their customers. Raising money is a negotiation. You need options when you are sitting at the bargaining table – you need a path without capital, a legitimate path.

Note: I work for a venture-backed web startup and I’m thankful for that. Venture capitalists have been enabling entrepreneur dreams and big ideas for many years and as I indicate above, I generally expect their involvement to continue in some fashion, especially for non-web startups.

To state the obvious, users do play a role in product development because they are the ones using the product (or a similar one) each day. The problem with looking to users (or a user) only is that they are sometimes greedy (e.g., “We want all features…now!”), often are not knowledgeable about the larger marketplace, don’t always represent the correct sampling of the entire user base (or target user base), and typically are blind to business goals (e.g., how to make money).

Marshall Kirkpatrick’s recent analysis of Twitter highlights these types of issues from another angle. Namely, that Twitter employees might not truly understand how to develop Twitter successfully because they are not “power users.” Overall, he focuses on the volume of their tweets and number and type of people the employees are following compared to “power users.” Marshall uses this example to help bolster his argument:

To follow that analogy, if you were someone who used a heavy duty washer and dryer in your home and found out that the electric company didn’t employ people who regularly used any appliances bigger than a toaster – wouldn’t you be a little concerned about the long term viability of your power supply?

There are two issues with this example and Marshall’s piece in general: 1) The assumption that Twitter employees are average users. 2) His focus on what he considers “power users” and his unstated bias that they are the most important element in shaping a product.

Let’s consider the example above for a moment. A “power user” of electricity is probably doing more than just running a “heavy duty washer and dryer.” He’d probably be running about a hundred of them. Most average users of electricity are likely using a handful of appliances, with a central heating system, as well as some lights.

There’s recent data that supports that Twitter employees align more closely with a “power user” labeling than with the average user. Keeping the metaphor alive, Twitter employees probably aren’t running a hundred washers and dryers…but definitely many more than one. Harvard Business Publishing’s stats showed that “a typical Twitter user contributes very rarely” and that “over half of Twitter users tweeting less than once every 74 days.” Comparatively, it would seem Twitter employees are well ahead of the curve if they post several tweets a day and are following more than several hundred people. That point debunks Marshall’s premise of Twitter employees having a “different understanding” of Twitter but it doesn’t address if “power users” should be looked to as product sages.

While never defined, let’s assume that the “power users” are the most devoted and obsessive users of a particular product or service. They are the ones that might leverage a product outside its originally intended use, are the most vocal about what they like or dislike, and have the highest expectations for what a product is now and what they expect it to be. For most startups, consider “power users” to be tech celebs, influential digerarti, early adopters, and many people living in Silicon Valley.

If you are building a product or service that you hope will one day completely infiltrate the masses (like say, Twitter) and continually attempt to satisfy this group of “power users,” you are going to fail. “Power users” will never represent the types of users that use cases need to be developed against, are usually going to find something to complain about, and will always somehow feel entitled to dictate what a product should be even if they are not tied to the company or didn’t originate and build the idea themselves. On this last point, Marshall quotes Dave Winer who has concerns that Twitter users may not like Twitter’s business model when its revealed. Oops! That’s right, Twitter is supposed to have approval for its business model(s) from its “power users” or else!!!

The advantages of “power users” are clear — free promotion, feedback, and traction, especially during early stage development. But the pitfalls with this group are equally as clear — bad press, criticism, and threats to leave (and take others with them) when their whims are not addressed. In the case of Twitter, it’s fairly evident that the last category now holds little weight as Twitter has broken into mainstream vocabularly and widespread adoption.

Here’s the bottom line: power users are just one segment of a user base and users are just one factor in influencing product development. Does that mean that a power user has more, less, or an equal voice in the overall user base? The answer depends on the maturity of the product and the goals of the company. For example, “power users” might not equate to paying customers. In this case, if a goal is to see revenue growth, the features “power users” want should receive a much lower priority on the product roadmap and release cycle.

To put it frankly, “power users” may kick and scream with certain product releases. That’s happened with Twitter, Facebook, and others lately. It’s to be expected because people don’t like change and users think they know exactly what is right. As companies listen to users though, users also need to extend some trust to companies. After all, these companies and their founders are the ones who originally brought these extremely innovative and useful products to market. They spend countless hours in product meetings, study competitors, talk with advisors, and interact with a wide range of users (not just “power users”).

In conclusion, there are some fair questions in Marshall’s post. But ultimately his laser focus on Twitter “power users” driving product development is equally as problematic as “unknowing” Twitter employees doing the same.

I have a unique advantage in that I don’t have a common last name. Right now, for example, there are no “Profile results” when someone searches on my name. For common or popular names like “John Smith,” this feature becomes a game changer.

A secondary reason I would counsel others to be careful with a Google profile relates to the “vanity” URL. Danny Sullivan explains:

Oh joy. If you have a Gmail account, and you claim your vanity URL,then you expose you email address to the world. Google explicitly warns you that this can happen, but it’s still pretty sucky. Why not operate the way that Google’s YouTube does or Yahoo’s Flickr, where you can have a username that is different than your email address?
…
But wait! Life certainly isn’t so simple at Google. I actually have at least two active Google accounts, one of which isn’t linked to Gmail at all. I think I got that one by signing up for AdWords or some other service before Gmail existed. I’m also far from the only person in this
situation, given I’ve seen ample Google help pages over time on how to transfer a particular service between different Google accounts.

I think this later point is actually going to come back to bite Google in the search engine. Ever scour the web seeking an email address of someone who doesn’t have one listed? Well, if they have a vanity URL, a Google Profile gives you insight into how you can reach that person,. Just take the vanity URL and try adding “@gmail.com” to it. Jackpot. You now have a decent chance of discovering a previously unknowable email address.

As is stated in Sullivan’s article, you don’t have to use a Gmail account. Any Google Account will do. It just becomes a pain linking up your Google services. In my opinion that effort is worth it, in order to not expose an email address on the World Wild Web.

My abstaining does not downplay the importance of this move for Google, who has effectively just built a people search competitor to Facebook, MySpace, and the gang, or to individuals that want an easy way to be found on the Web’s most popular search engine. It’s a big, bold play for Google…just one that I am passing on…for now.

Your active network consists of all the people with whom you stay up to date. What makes your active network different from other networks is the way you communicate with the people in it.

…

This stream communication, rather than reciprocal and direct communication, forms your active network.

By this definition, Facebook states that active networks indicate a user tracks two to four times more people through the stream than through direct or reciprocal communication.

Several thoughts immediately come to my mind:

1. Why is the definition of “active” linked only to the stream? This definition seems to try to sell the stream over being accurately defined. Active should include stream plus reciprocal communication. After all, reciprocal communication shows that a relationship is healthy and engaged.
   
   Further, it could be easily argued that the reciprocal communication should be the sole metric to define the active network.  A commonality of all direct and some stream communication is one-way. In the direct scenario, I send a communication with no response. In the stream scenario, I click on a stream activity and similarly have the possibility that this intention is not reciprocated (i.e., the recipient of my stream activity does not click on anything from my stream).




2. Direct and reciprocal communication are mutually exclusive and stream communication should be considered the same way. That is, Facebook should break out stream communication only when it is the sole means that a user interacts with another person.
   
   For example, I message Billy and Billy writes me back. I also click on a photo of Billy’s dog in the stream. It appears Facebook considers this later interaction a stream communication and thus considers Billy both a friend in the reciprocal and stream category.
   
   This accounting biases the stream category. It essentially gets to count people that might also have had direct or reciprocal communications. The same does not occur for the other categories. A person cannot exist in the direct and reciprocal category. It is one or the other. By removing people that are a part of the reciprocal or direct communication category, the proper importance of the stream will be revealed.
   
   Consider the Facebook definition versus thinking of stream as stream-only. Notice how the stream could reduce in size once the intersections of the reciprocation and direct were dropped:
3. Would the stream-only communication still show that a user tracks two to four times the number of people than other communication options? If a user is a fan or “friend” of a large number of profiles, it might. But it might also show that for a person with a smaller number of actual friends, the stream simply acts as a complementary interaction. This strengthens the argument the active network is likely not accurately defined in its current form.

Facebook is doing some very interesting research but I think the definition of active network and the accounting of the stream needs to be reconsidered. Perhaps the above actually is part of their current methodology but it doesn’t seem so from their descriptions.

Despite the fact that Wikipedia is now a household name and the definitive source of homework answers around the globe, it really doesn’t compare to the multimedia environment of the software version of Encarta. Encarta brought the encyclopedia to life. Most features are interactive and include audio, video, and animations.

Encarta, in part, was ahead of its time. Wikipedia defaulted back to a mainly text-based encyclopedia, with the primary benefits being that it’s free, “always” current, and editable by any number of people. Of course, the last point is what provided Wikipedia its explosive growth.

With the demise of both Encarta and Wikkia Search, Wikipedia appears set to be the world’s encyclopedia. The reasons might be that Wikipedia has the “right model” but they also relate to the Web’s failings.

More than a decade after Encarta was released, modern browsers still cannot replicate the type of experience created by a 1990s software program. Yes, there is audio and video on the Web but many online multimedia experiences are cobbled together. HTML is still a language that is focused around displaying text. Consider that compared to Microsoft developing a multimedia markup language for use in Encarta and other software back in the late 1980s.

Clearly, Encarta has been an alternative to consumers. But it was a choice that required Encarta not to be around when it was most needed. Who wants to fire up a program when researching on the Web? More to the point, who wants to fire up a paid program when researching on the Web?

Even if the software version (not the Web version) of Encarta, could be ported into the browser with all its multimedia glory (which it can’t), unless it was free, there’s a good chance it still would lose to Wikipedia. For example, Wikkia Search’s death is about it not having the traction needed to continue. Is that fallout because it does not have the breadth of Wikipedia content, that people don’t want ads in their encyclopedia, or both?

The “freeness” of Wikipedia suffocated Encarta, as well as Wikkia Search. That, in many ways, leaves us with an inferior product not in terms of the content but in terms of the possibilities. People will continue to settle for some version of granddad’s text-based encyclopedia, just a webinized version of it. Unfortunately, this case is only one small example of how the Web’s democratization and open nature compels people to choose free over better.

The software version Encarta will be on sale through June 2009 and is available on the Encarta site. Buy a copy so you can show future generations, “We gave up Encarta for Wikipedia….Why? Because it was free!”

“When I was a boy, there was no such thing as Google. I used to write my homework on paper. It took several hours for photographs to be developed…if you were lucky.

…

I’m serious. You once had to go to a library to do research. Written communication occurred through what you now call ‘snail mail.’ Many people did not have the Internet.”

If my memory serves me well, I’ll detail the early days of the Internet and especially the brave new world that blogs, social networks, and video sharing sites were.

“Yep. I was one of the early bloggers and received an earful for it from my less technically savvy friends who just didn’t ‘get it.’ Back then, you needed to sort of be a geek to be on the Web.

Being a geek helped though. Those who got online in those days had a good chance of being ‘heard.’ It was actually possible to put a website up and become a success in a relatively short period of time.”

I’ll unfortunately need to be nostalgic, just as I am now about the cartoons of my childhood.

That changed over time. There was just too much of…everything. The Web stopped being the voice of the individual and started becoming the noise of people. The ones who yelled the loudest got the most attention.

…

We just couldn’t figure out how to save the good parts of the old ‘atom-based’ systems. The objective journalism of newspapers was replaced by citizen punditry, in part because people stopped reading. Bands stop caring as much about albums in search of their one hit top downloaded wonders.

…

The variety experienced in the early days of the Web faded over time. Small ventures either died or were sucked into vast digital empires, which dwarfed the decried physical monopolies of the 20th century.”

While I’ll want to continue, I imagine I’ll have them sleeping by then or telling their parents, “Grandpa’s boring us with his Internet stories again. ‘Back when I was a kid, I used dial-up to connect to the Internet.’”

Now, to put the necessity of Facebook in context, it is essential to understand that Facebook is symbolic. It is the current face of social networking technology. It is Friendster v3. It appears to be a technology necessity but it may only represent it. Nonetheless, it will serve this discussion, if only it is a placeholder.

Even after technological necessities are integrated into everyday life, they are not necessarily embraced. Today, for example, people both love and hate email. Email overload is a constant complaint but an email outage is a horrible, life threatening experience. Without email, business simply would not function or even exist for many in the workplace. Some that now must use it daily, at one time, never cared for it, thought it was dumb, or just a fad. Those ideas were destined to die with the CDs that propagated the sweet, sweet sound of “you’ve got mail.”

To be fair, the early days of email, like a lot of technology, was dumb. For whatever reason, the paradigm of the day was to create ridiculous email addresses like brightsprkles13@aol.com or fisherguy0414@excite.com. There were not too many rules, as long as the handle had at least an age, birth date, or a particular interest like a hobby or sports team as part of it. Bonus points were scored if alternate spellings were used for common words, all to ensure that a person was destined to unsuccessfully send email to friends like krazyankee17@hotmail.com.

It took some maturing but email became the Web’s killer app. The second coming of the Web –- Web 2.0 — included technology like blogs, wikis, RSS, and podcasts; they haven’t fully materialized. Important? Certainly. Necessity? Definitely not. They had little chance though. After all, their names are “blog,” “wiki,” “RSS,” and “podcast.”

The reality is that while simplified over the past several years, these awkwardly named technologies in no way became as accessible as email. At its most fundamental level, email requires a login, password, and knowing a person’s email address goes in the “To” field. Even technophobes have (mostly) mastered email.

It was its accessibility that helped email flourish. Accessibility prevents technical know-how from limiting adoption to only tech savvy individuals. It is the wider adoption that produces the network effects required for explosive growth. In nerdier circles, this latter concept is embodied by Metcalfe’s Law, which states that the value of a network grows as the square of its number of users.

Facebook has realized Metcalfe’s Law unknown times over. It learned from its less sophisticated social networking predecessors and innovated around simplicity and accessibility. For example, instead of allowing screen names, Facebook forced people to use real identities, with actual names tied to a legitimate email address. It placed people in “networks,” helping them find their college peers and eventually, friends from geographic areas.

By some accounts, it is now ranked as the top social network. Since then, the stats have been constantly paraded even though they didn’t need to be. Getting that Facebook invite from grandma was the only “stat” required.

Is “everyone” being on Facebook enough to join it? Are the mind numbing elements of Facebook enough to not? Could Facebook be surpassed by an Internet giant, fledgling, or some future unknown entrant? Have you completed your “25 Random Things about Me” yet? These are all questions to be answered. The answers, in order, are: no, no, yes, and who cares.

The “social utility” that is Facebook has come into its own. Yes, it has critical mass but more significantly, it is changing the way people view, understand, and consume the Web. Yes, it facilitates inanity, as does the Internet as a whole, but it is also providing ways for people to engage each other online. Not users. Not screen names. But people…with their true, known identities.

Perhaps most importantly, is that, for better or worse, Facebook and other social networks, define the Web for an entire generation. This same generation does not use email, watches most of its TV online, and is constantly connected. Facebook is their world of fun and world of work. They send messages to friends but also organize fundraisers. They discover where both the weekend parties and study groups are. 

Facebook may not be the final manifestation of the technological necessity of social networking. There may not be one single “social network to rule them all.” But the writing is on the wall. At the very least, Facebook presents a glimpse of a piece of the Web that will be part of any Internet users experience. Abstainers, those who choose not to participate, will have coins for their calls, only to discover that pay phones no longer exist.

There is a two pronged strategy behind the iPhone version of the Kindle:

1) Strengthen Kindle Loyalty

Kindle owners are thrilled with the iPhone app announcement…because most of them own iPhones. I’ve heard many Kindle owners state, “I can now leave my Kindle at home. I’ll use my iPhone to read on the bus or train.” The iPhone app increases their satisfaction and builds their loyalty to the Kindle.

2) Entice Kindle Purchases from Likely Kindle Buyers

After using the Kindle app on my iPhone pretty extensively post-launch, there’s just no way it would become a main reading device. It is very convenient, however, to read a couple of pages while standing in a line or waiting for a friend. The app would be considerably more valuable, however, if I had an extensive library at my fingertips.

As an iPhone-only Kindle “owner,” I’m not that interested in making many Kindle purchases without owning an actual Kindle. I don’t want to read a 400+ page book on an iPhone-sized screen. Being a gadget hungry iPhone owning consumer though, my Kindle app entices me to think about a Kindle purchase. Amazon knows the number of iPhones in the market; it also knows that iPhone owners are likely Kindle buyers.

Concluding Thought

I’ve used every iPhone book reader, most recently including Shortcovers. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. Apps like Stanza offer better reading experiences, while others like Shortcovers offer innovative features like purchasing individual chapters. The Kindle for iPhone as a standalone app is nothing special. But with the Amazon Kindle library behind it, whispersync, and an actual reading device (i.e., Kindle or Kindle 2), it’s a strong sell.

It’s exciting to see this space innovating (a little). Google Book Search, Shortcovers, Plastic Logic, Amazon, and others are looking at bringing books, periodicals, out-of-print works still under copyright, etc. into the world of 0’s and 1’s.

Considering that these products died (or are dying) at one of the leading Internet companies, more and more questions have arrived about web apps and their reliability. That’s especially the case of those examining cloud storage and the much touted “Gdrive.”

Web applications haven’t proved to be everything that so many people thought they could be. Accessing the same data on any machine with only the need for a web browser has proved to only be a “beta” for the software-as-a-service paradigm. If you think about the “system requirements” of the traditional client installation, in the web app model, the necessities are an Internet connection, browser, and often an e-mail address. But it’s time for that to change. Here are some of the standards that should be adopted:

1. Offline Access

While Internet access is becoming more ubiquitous, there are still are many situations where connections are either unavailable or spotty. To be useful, web apps need to be available at all times, whether in an “offline” mode through the browser or in some client installation that stores changes locally and syncs them back to the network when connectivity is once again present.

2. Offline Storage

Offline access and offline storage go hand-in-hand. Users of web apps should be able to view or edit network data and create new data, regardless of the state of their connectivity.

3. Data Export (and Import)

Users are at the mercy of web app providers, especially because many web apps are free. It’s been a mutually beneficial relationship though, because companies running web apps typically thrive with a large user base. With web apps dying and issues of trust and reliability becoming paramount, it will take more than a cool product for people to get hooked on a new web app. They’ll need assurance that if the service dies, they can easily take their data with them in a standard data format. And because there are now web apps providing similar services, importing data from another service (again, in a standard format) should become a baseline feature.

4. Constant Syncing

There should be constant syncing between local and network storage. This shouldn’t be an option, it should be built into the web app and working by default. It not only protects the user, it makes them happier because they can use the product with all the same data wherever they want.

5. Better Terms of Service

If you take the time to read many of the "Terms of Service” (TOS) offered by web app providers, you’ll find that you have little to no rights. Not only that, most providers give themselves the ability to immediately shutdown their services. Even if their service or elements of it are free, that puts users in a bad position. Users need fairer TOS.

6. Richer “Webtop” Experiences

There’s more that can be done in an AIR-like environment than a standard browser. That will likely change over time but web apps can greatly benefit from leveraging client-side computing power with server-side storage – the webtop.

Some of the most recent complaints surround FeedBurner not picking up changes to feeds quickly enough and changing their ping address without notifying anyone. While not critical to the average blogger, large blogs need to beat each other (up) to breaking stories and have been frustrated with the lag. Ironically, since they are all using FeedBurner, they’d all be affected and hence not truly be harmed. But that’s not really the point.

Historically, the major concern with FeedBurner was outsourcing the management of a vital part of a blog — the RSS feed — to a third-party. While it seemed that FeedBurner had the best intentions, ultimately, it’s hard to argue that these fears weren’t valid.

Today, FeedBurner appears to be dying. If blog publishers want to leave the service, they are left with no useful way to export their historical data and a lousy 30 day re-direct to a different feed, where half of that time — days 16-30 — there is a simple note to update the feed subscription to a new address.

What’s worse still, is that bloggers and other publishers are not aware of alternatives to FeedBurner — because there really are none. At least not in a FeedBurner-type existence.

Why is there no competition? There’s little incentive for innovation or new entrants in the feed management space as it currently exists. FeedBurner owned feed management and bloggers were happy with it during the pre-Google days. Since becoming part of Google, FeedBurner now offers all of its services for free. It also just so happens to be backed by the largest company on the Web. In addition to all of that, any new company would have to fight to regain the trust of bloggers, who appear to be disillusioned by this failing service.

The writing is on the wall. Bloggers are going to start leaving FeedBurner. There is going to be a mass exodus of the service unless the old FeedBurner returns to the scene. While FeedBurner publishers will need to leave their stats behind, the benefits are clear –the security of “owning” a feed, including its statistics, update speed, branding, and more.

Of course, there will need to be viable alternatives to FeedBurner. The good news is there is hope…

If I had to guess, what you really couldn’t live without in 2009 has less to do with these products and more to do about the data they have:

You probably couldn’t live without your cell phone in 2009. Or maybe you just couldn’t live without having your phone book with you at all times.

You probably couldn’t live without your e-mail in 2009. Or maybe you just couldn’t live without the contents of your e-mail inbox.

You probably couldn’t live without Amazon.com in 2009. Or maybe you just couldn’t live without your wishlist of books to buy.

You probably couldn’t live without search in 2009. Or maybe you just couldn’t live without getting movie times, finding directions, or looking something up in an encyclopedia instantly.

You probably couldn’t live without your blogging software in 2009. Or maybe you just couldn’t live without all the posts you’ve written as a blogger .

You probably couldn’t live without Facebook in 2009. Or maybe you just couldn’t live without all the contact information you have available in it.

For all the usefulness of the Internet and digital technology, entrusting so much confidence in 1’s and 0’s can be exceptionally detrimental to our personal and professional lives.

The reality is that we, as users of many free Web products, are completely at the mercy of these oddly named companies. They owe nothing to us. In fact, many of their Terms of Service make no guarantees about their future existence or abruptness of a possible demise. And why should they? After all, many of them are free.

Data is the real “must have” of 2009. Anyone that has our data knows that…and should feel comfortable amidst trying economic times.

1. Stop texting / playing with your cell phone when you are with out with friends or family, eating with anyone, or engaged in any real world face-to-face conversation.

Or just go hang out with the people you are texting since they are apparently more important / interesting.

2. Stop hiding behind text messaging / e-mail / IM to do your “dirty work.”

Don’t use text / e-mail / IM to break-up with people, have extended conversations, or do anything where you should either pick up the phone or meet face-to-face.

3. Stop relying on Facebook or other social networks as the record of life.

Don’t try to interpret messages, photos, or status updates to make conclusions about people and their relationships.

4. Stop blogging / tweeting about Twitter.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter how many followers you have, how many times someone retweets your tweet, or to have a public log of everything you do each day.

5. Stop having public person-to-person conversations on the Internet.

There is simply no reason to write more than one message on a “wall” or blog, that is specific to a person. No one cares about your personal exchanges and you likely are going to get burned by having extended private discussions indexed on the public Internet.

6. Stop blogging / FriendFeeding about FriendFeed.

Friends don’t let friends FriendFeed about FriendFeed.

7. Stop TiVo’ing / DVR’ing the same old tired TV shows.

Imagine this…you TiVo a show that will actually teach you something.

8. Stop thinking the Internet is all about YOU.

It’s actually not just about your tweets, your “personal brand,” your authority, your blog, your expertise, your links, the number of your followers, etc.

9. Stop spending so much time in your virtual world.

Facebook, e-mail, MySpace, FriendFeed, cell phones, Twitter, DVR, iPhone apps, etc…go meet your neighbors!

At first glance, the Google SearchWiki leaves you scratching your head. Why bother promoting search results, Google? That’s called bookmarking. I don’t need to promote a result for “bike trails” if I know the best site for it. I simply bookmark that in my browser, Delicious, etc. and use that bookmark to visit the site later .

Well, then the argument might go that people are lazy and that they don’t bookmark their sites. Only geeks bookmark. Everyone else simply googles the same sites all the time. But if people are too lazy to bookmark, why would they bother promoting or demoting a site? And would they ever comment on one from the search results page?

I don’t think that Google is banking on the majority of their users running with the promotion/demotion part of this innovation. And the innovation really isn’t even the creation of your own search results – although most observers are focusing on that (e.g., see these headlines on Techmeme).

The true power of Google SearchWiki is going to be on what is now a very hidden link at the bottom of the page – “See all notes for this SearchWiki.” It’s the “wiki” part of the “SearchWiki.”

Click on that link and you’ll be brought to a world (note – you must be signed into a Google account to see this page) of Google that has only existed on the “Reviews” sections of Google Maps.

As you can see by these zealous commenters, they are excited to be showing on Google pages but also concerned. K. Lewis writes, “I give this 24 hours before this gets abused.” True.

Other Initial Thoughts and Observations

SEO Implications

Google SearchWiki, if widely adopted, could have major implications on the world of SEO. In theory, promoting a site has no impact on other’s rankings. But that doesn’t matter. If even a relatively small percentage of users start creating their own results, traditional SEO tactics will begin to be undercut — people simply won’t be using the top SEO results as much.

Let’s not forget the massive data driven company that Google is. Will they mine this data to somehow alter their PageRank algorithms? They wouldn’t be Google if they left that data untapped.

SWO?

SearchWiki optimization (SWO) could become a whole new frontier. While never truly figuring out search algorithms and PageRank methodology, many have understood what influences SERPs.

We’ve seen the evolution on sites like Digg, where top diggers could easily help get links to the homepage. These sites have been gamed. And Wikipedia entries have also been corrupted.

So, why not hire a SWO expert to put a hit on your competitor’s SearchWiki entry? Why not get a top commenter to defame the SearchWiki of the person you are running against for office?

It’s not clear how the top comments are selected yet – but things could get embarrassing.

SearchWiki “notes”

At the top of a SearchWiki page, Google indicates the number of “notes.” You would think, at first glance, that this might just be the comments or perhaps the number of entries. But it is in fact the following formula –

Total Notes = Total Promotions + Total Demotions + Total Comments

“Notes” appear to be all those elements.

Conclusion

Google continues to define and redefine the way we use and understand the Internet. The introduction of SearchWiki has opened a can of worms that I’m not sure the Web is ready for – but that’s just Google being Google.

The Obama campaign’s use of the Web has been ambitious. BarackObama.com was a sharply designed website but beyond that, the campaign used social networking, text messaging, and even an iPhone-specific application to push their message and keep supporters involved.

Thus, it was no surprise that Change.gov was launched almost immediately after the Obama campaign win. Requesting “Change.gov” was bold. It was an obvious message to tell supporters and more generally Americans that change was not just a slogan. It was now somewhat legitimatized by the highly regulated GSA domain “.gov.”

The initial government sanctioning of the Obama change mantra and the era of his administration was birthed at Change.gov. Yet soon after that birthing, observers noticed that the big ideas of President-elect Obama went missing. His agenda items were removed. Speculations ran wild – were their legal issues related to copying the BarackObama.com agenda to Change.gov or did the future administration already have a change of heart?

Perhaps the more important sentiment expressed during this particular change to Change.gov was that supporters didn’t really understand what was happening to the site. Some digital commentators suggested that the Change.gov site require a change history, similar to a Wikipedia entry, chronicling anything added, removed, or updated.

While asking for that sort of visibility may seem excessive, it is not unrealistic considering the tone of Change.gov. The content of the site contains appealing phrases like "open government" and "it’s your America" that link to contact forms where visitors can share their vision and ideas for America to the forthcoming administration.

The problem is that Change.gov is not Change.org and it never can be. It has been suggested that elements of Change.org – a non-government website – would have been a better model for Change.gov. Herein lays the temptation of “open government” in a country that has existed as a representative democracy. Change.org is a non-government site run by the people. Change.gov is a government site that exists for the people. It is a subtle distinction yet one that should be clearly articulated by the impending Obama administration.

President-elect Obama not only faces tremendous known challenges in America, he embarks on a new journey as the first YouTube President. The ideas of Change.gov will likely soon become the realities of WhiteHouse.gov. With all the benefits of the Web, the Obama administration must have a strategy for balancing how to hear the voices of Americans through his “open government” initiative without being overrun by the tyranny of the mob.

Look no further than the social media darling Twitter. Once out of graces with technocrats of the Web but now popular enough to require tactics and strategies to succeed with it.

No, it’s not popular simply to use Twitter as one desires. It’s critical to follow etiquette. It’s key to have a massive following. For example, follow those who follow you. If not, you will often shortly be unfollowed once your follower recognizes your unwillingness to follow.

Oh, and make sure that you include links to interesting news items in your tweets. After all, you are using Twitter to break news. At the very least, retweet someone else’s tweet but just change the words around. Be creative.

Blogs are soooo early 2000. Thankfully, we no longer have to write blogs about blogs. But we do have to write tweets about Twitter. At least through the rest of 2008.

I don’t know about you but I’m planning on giving up Twitter and all micro blogs as part of my 2009 resolutions. Everyone knows that 2009 will be the year of the inviso blog. It’s so mobile and transparent that it’s always there yet you might not even be able to read it. iPhone app to launch shortly.

]]> http://www.technosight.com/from-blogs-to-micro-blogs-to-inviso-blogs/feed/ 0 http://www.technosight.com/from-blogs-to-micro-blogs-to-inviso-blogs/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/technosight/~3/GZ6g8Qs9BZs/ http://www.technosight.com/five-reasons-1st-gen-iphone-beats-3g/#comments Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:54:39 +0000 Ken Yarmosh http://www.technosight.com/five-reasons-1st-gen-iphone-beats-3g/ Thomas Hawk beat me to it. Last night, I drafted my five reasons to stay on my current 1st gen iPhone. That’s even considering that it has a cracked screen. Yes, cracked. Functional but cracked. Did I mention cracked?

1. The Numbers Don’t Add

Well, unfortunately, they do.

With tax, my original iPhone was $420. To upgrade, I assume $220 for the 8G (w/tax). Based on eBay numbers, even a cracked screen 1st gen iPhone could likely sell for $200. If that was it, not too shabby. I could upgrade for $20.

Not so fast.

I’d wind up paying an extra $15 a month for a new two year agreement. $10 more for the data plan and $5 for text messages. That’s $360 over two years.

Potential Cost for iPhone 3G: $220-$200+$360

$380

Potential Total Cost on all iPhones (w/out 1st gen service costs): $380+$420

$800

2. Twice the Speed My Foot

I’ve seen the YouTube videos and charts comparing load times. My anecdotal and very non-scientific tests of my iPhone against the 3G often yielded similar loading times (yes, the 3G was on the 3G network). My phone actually beat 3G too.

I won’t pretend that, in general, the two compete. But the 1st gen should always be trounced by this $380 upgrade. The fact that mine beat a 3G is absurd. 3G network needs work.

3. GPS That Doesn’t Tell You Where to Go

From what I have seen, no 3G iPhone app offers turn-by-turn navigation like a true GPS navigation device. Yes, Google Maps can find your exact location but how often do you need that over the soft GPS built into the 1st generation?

I am sure someone is working on this problem. In the short-term though, without turn-by-turn GPS, the GPS is not a selling point yet is routinely used as one.

4. Battery Life that Drains Your Patience

I’ll let Thomas Hawk, the disappointed 3G iPhone customer explain:

On my old iPhone I could always get at least one day’s use out of the iPhone on a full charge. Several times when I’ve been using my new iPhone the phone has died before I’ve had a chance to recharge it again at night. Using the web seems to drain the battery the most, but then again using the web seems to be one of the main selling points of the new iPhone. It sucks when I need to call my wife to pick me up from the BART station at the end of the day and have to boot up my Mac, EVDO and skype to make a telephone call because my iPhone is dead.

Amazing phone feature…being able to make calls.

5. Plastic is for Tonka Toys

I know it is not plastic. It just looks like it. In any case, it’s not metal.

I’ve heard that the new iPhones collect more fingerprints than Diddy does names. Apparently, the trendy white version also cracks.

For the record, I don’t care how it blends, metal just is cooler.

In a recent Wired article, Chris Anderson explores the data intensive world of the Internet, through the lens of Google. His thesis is that the Petabyte Age, the age of what appears to be infinite data, represents the end of models:

There is now a better way. Petabytes allow us to say: “Correlation is enough.” We can stop looking for models. We can analyze the data without hypotheses about what it might show. We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find patterns where science cannot.

Google represents the ultimate data-driven company. Not only does it use tools like its own Google Website Optimizer to constantly tune and improve customer interaction with its sites, over the years it has produced one of the best pulses on culture – the Google Zeitgeist – has recently upgraded its trends tool, continues to buy or innovate in the online media space, and has more servers than McDonalds has hamburgers. They’ve got a lot of data and that’s just the public face of the company.

Anderson notes that the humble beginnings of the Stanford dropouts was really just about math applied to data:

For instance, Google conquered the advertising world with nothing more than applied mathematics. It didn’t pretend to know anything about the culture and conventions of advertising — it just assumed that better data, with better analytical tools, would win the day. And Google was right.

Later, he writes:

Out with every theory of human behavior, from linguistics to sociology. Forget taxonomy, ontology, and psychology. Who knows why people do what they do? The point is they do it, and we can track and measure it with unprecedented fidelity. With enough data, the numbers speak for themselves.

Anderson believes the Google philosophy is “poised to go mainstream.” Google’s data-driven, computer-intensive approach will have significant impacts on science and will offer “a whole new way of understanding the world.”

I agree. The concepts in the Petabyte Age are only beginning to surface. Google is the model and the far surpassing leader. Those that follow their model, at some level, will survive. Those that fail to understand the importance of this paradigm will become obsolete.