The problem with a lot of "intelligent" content-driven sites, is that they create an almost obsessive focus for the user. In truth this is occurring in lots of places, not just on the web, but there seems to me to be something of a rush to make it real. Google's Desktop News Gadget proudly explains that it will provide you with news stories that are tailored against what you have been looking at. If I read lots of sports stories then it will increase the number of sports stories made available to me. Not a bad thing you might think. But at what cost?
Assuming I only have a limited time available for the consumption of news (or any information really), then it follows that if I spend more of that time reading sports news, then something else that I would have read will disappear. For someone like me that's a bit worrying, but at least I'm aware of the problem. Read lots of stories about sport - get nothing but sport - which means I read lots of stories about sport - etc, etc. Fine if all I want to read about is sport, but it does rather imply that I miss out on some "random discovery" opportunities.
The prevalence of data and the ease of personalisation that abounds on the Internet makes it something of an extreme example, but this has actually been going on for a while now. Newspaper editors have long influenced the views of their respective readerships, but theirs was always an inexact science. Market research helped tell them a bit, but not in quite such an efficient way. And it wasn't that long ago that most of our TV news came from short, broad-interest, telecasts from the BBC or ITN. Nowadays, with the advent of 24 hour news, it is entirely possible to find a news channel that focuses on the type of news you like, and maybe even with the political slant you like. Again, you may well be saying: "So what? I never cared about the silly story with the dog that can say 'Sausages' anyway". Perhaps, but by appealing to a broad range of interest, the editors of these services were almost always showing you something you might not have sought out when left to your own devices. And it may be that it turned out to interest or influence you.
An abundance of choice, which is certainly what the Internet provides, theoretically leads to a broader range of knowledge. But when that choice becomes overwhelming and tools are put into place to help filter it for you, then a strange kind of censorship occurs. The truth is not as bleak as I'm making out here. There will always be external influences that affect us and the things we're interested in, otherwise my daughter will end up with a lifetime of reading about Polly Pocket. However, it's not easy to guard against something unless you're aware of it.
Be careful how you set your preferences..
Monday, 4 February 2008
Monday, 28 January 2008
Scrabulous..?
I have no idea how I feel about the great Scrabulous debate.
For info, Scrabulous is a game that has been added as a third party application running on Facebook. It has, seemingly, more users than the entire population of the Earth and is currently free (except of course that it generates ad revenue for its developers). The problem is that it is blatantly a rip off of the classic board game Scrabble (almost including the name).
There are a number of arguments floating around in my head. I'm someone who wants to dream big dreams, and come up with great ideas that (hopefully) might make me some commercial gain as well as change/save the world. And the way that happens is through the process of IP (intellectual property) protection - patents and the like. Now these two guys who built Scrabulous have taken someone else's IP and stolen it. I don't really like the precedent that this sets. As someone who might someday have a Big Idea, I wouldn't want the free-for-all notions that the Internet has enabled (and somehow morally justified) to be applied to my innovations. What's the incentive for me? The trouble is that this, of course, has been going on since time began and a lot of progress is actually built off the work of others. A computer operating system that uses "windows", electrically-powered vacuum cleaners, etc, etc.
Some of the defence of Scrabulous is that it hasn't taken any business from the makers/owners of Scrabble, indeed people are saying that they discovered the joys of the game through the Facebook version and have subsequently gone out and bought a real-life set (making money for the Scrabble guys too). That's a great example of a sort of virtuous symbiosis, a relationship where everybody wins.
And then I keep coming back to the central notion of "Yeah, but they stole the idea.."
I really can't decide.
For info, Scrabulous is a game that has been added as a third party application running on Facebook. It has, seemingly, more users than the entire population of the Earth and is currently free (except of course that it generates ad revenue for its developers). The problem is that it is blatantly a rip off of the classic board game Scrabble (almost including the name).
There are a number of arguments floating around in my head. I'm someone who wants to dream big dreams, and come up with great ideas that (hopefully) might make me some commercial gain as well as change/save the world. And the way that happens is through the process of IP (intellectual property) protection - patents and the like. Now these two guys who built Scrabulous have taken someone else's IP and stolen it. I don't really like the precedent that this sets. As someone who might someday have a Big Idea, I wouldn't want the free-for-all notions that the Internet has enabled (and somehow morally justified) to be applied to my innovations. What's the incentive for me? The trouble is that this, of course, has been going on since time began and a lot of progress is actually built off the work of others. A computer operating system that uses "windows", electrically-powered vacuum cleaners, etc, etc.
Some of the defence of Scrabulous is that it hasn't taken any business from the makers/owners of Scrabble, indeed people are saying that they discovered the joys of the game through the Facebook version and have subsequently gone out and bought a real-life set (making money for the Scrabble guys too). That's a great example of a sort of virtuous symbiosis, a relationship where everybody wins.
And then I keep coming back to the central notion of "Yeah, but they stole the idea.."
I really can't decide.
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Information Penetration
I bought a shiny new toy the other day. And it wasn't even Christmas anymore.
The Asus eeePC (http://eeepc.asus.com/uk/index.htm) is a dinky little PC with a solid hard drive that makes it pretty robust. It's also very easy to use. The Linux operating system finishes start up within around 10 seconds of switch on, which means you're not faced with that "barrier" to surfing for something trivial.
The machine itself has been co-opted by a number of the family so far, with by far the most common thing being for web browsing. The screen is not big, but most sites work well enough on it (it is basically Firefox running on a smaller resolution). Tom & Jerry Flash games, browser-based email and cooking recipes have all been found to be very useful. And the machine has been dragged all round the house in a way that the other 2 laptops don't seem to be.
And suddenly I'm struck by the realisation that true "on demand" information is pretty much here (or at least in my house). The interface is one the family are all familiar with. They don't have to wait for 2 minutes for the machine to be ready to surf, it weighs so little (and is so small) that it gets lugged around in one hand (even by the 6 year old). Conversations that start in the kitchen with the line "oh, you should have seen what Bob emailed me today" end up with a physical demonstration of said email, and a view of the links that Bob sent.
So what? Well, the much-hyped UMPC (ultra mobile personal computers) may actually be getting here now, and indeed finding their way into the home. The beastie that I bought can be found in ToysRUs for £219 (when in stock) or even cheaper online. Time to start thinking about the commercial opportunities that may exist in this world. Is it just a bunch of people wasting even more time on Facebook? Or is it more than that?
The Asus eeePC (http://eeepc.asus.com/uk/index.htm) is a dinky little PC with a solid hard drive that makes it pretty robust. It's also very easy to use. The Linux operating system finishes start up within around 10 seconds of switch on, which means you're not faced with that "barrier" to surfing for something trivial.
The machine itself has been co-opted by a number of the family so far, with by far the most common thing being for web browsing. The screen is not big, but most sites work well enough on it (it is basically Firefox running on a smaller resolution). Tom & Jerry Flash games, browser-based email and cooking recipes have all been found to be very useful. And the machine has been dragged all round the house in a way that the other 2 laptops don't seem to be.
And suddenly I'm struck by the realisation that true "on demand" information is pretty much here (or at least in my house). The interface is one the family are all familiar with. They don't have to wait for 2 minutes for the machine to be ready to surf, it weighs so little (and is so small) that it gets lugged around in one hand (even by the 6 year old). Conversations that start in the kitchen with the line "oh, you should have seen what Bob emailed me today" end up with a physical demonstration of said email, and a view of the links that Bob sent.
So what? Well, the much-hyped UMPC (ultra mobile personal computers) may actually be getting here now, and indeed finding their way into the home. The beastie that I bought can be found in ToysRUs for £219 (when in stock) or even cheaper online. Time to start thinking about the commercial opportunities that may exist in this world. Is it just a bunch of people wasting even more time on Facebook? Or is it more than that?
Friday, 28 December 2007
Information Availability vs Innocence Lost
As I watched my 6 year old daughter surf the web, looking up information on Samuel Pepys and the Great Fire of London, it struck me just how different her upbringing would be to my own. She will have the combined knowledge of the majority of modern civilisation at her fingertips. Doubt will last just a few moments until a definitive answer can be sought from Wikipedia or a myriad of other sites. It is hard to argue that this isn't a very good thing indeed.
But then again, some of the traditional ways of finding things out may be lost in the process. Pestering a busy parent (and learning the social skills required to do this without being shouted at) will be much less necessary. Thumbing through reference books and using a bit of lateral thinking about where on earth to even begin finding something out will be skills that are lost. Will we see a generation so dependent on search engines that they will stand around like little lost sheep in the event of a power cut?
And, given the time of year, how long can we keep our children believing in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas? What a shame it would be if we lost some of the less tangible beauties of childhood.
But then again, some of the traditional ways of finding things out may be lost in the process. Pestering a busy parent (and learning the social skills required to do this without being shouted at) will be much less necessary. Thumbing through reference books and using a bit of lateral thinking about where on earth to even begin finding something out will be skills that are lost. Will we see a generation so dependent on search engines that they will stand around like little lost sheep in the event of a power cut?
And, given the time of year, how long can we keep our children believing in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas? What a shame it would be if we lost some of the less tangible beauties of childhood.
Monday, 17 December 2007
Funding and the evolution of ideas
Much of the investment popularly labelled "VC" or "Angel" is delivered not just as an endorsement of an idea, but rather more so the people behind it. The perception is that an individual idea will change over time, as the realities of market forces, further research and good old-fashioned "doability" collide with the vision that was held on day 1.
Now compare this with a model that I've been looking at in recent times, the corporate sponsorship of innovation. OK, what does that mean? Essentially it is trying to get a large blue chip organisation to pay a retainer with an innovation team or organisation that guarantees them first dibs on anything that may come out of the pipeline (and preferential rates). The model sort of encourages investment in the organisation rather than any individual ideas, which tallies as well I guess. The challenge is getting the funding organisation to believe in the idea-generation organisation. Where this has historically worked well has been the pharma/drug-discovery sector, where the big players will put independent researchers on a contract that prevents them selling anything of interest to rivals, whilst encouraging the development of promising drugs that have commercial application.
So, coming to the crux of this post, is it better to present fully-fledged ideas that have already been built up, with the opportunity to generate rapid returns (assuming they get "bought")? Or is a longer-term approach of investment in people a better decision?
It seems to me that it is possibly a combination of the two that works. Building up credibility through a series of discreet deliveries (that are successful!) opens up the door to a larger conversation about retainers, etc. I hope to try and put this to the test at some point, so I'll keep you posted about the reactions I get.
Now compare this with a model that I've been looking at in recent times, the corporate sponsorship of innovation. OK, what does that mean? Essentially it is trying to get a large blue chip organisation to pay a retainer with an innovation team or organisation that guarantees them first dibs on anything that may come out of the pipeline (and preferential rates). The model sort of encourages investment in the organisation rather than any individual ideas, which tallies as well I guess. The challenge is getting the funding organisation to believe in the idea-generation organisation. Where this has historically worked well has been the pharma/drug-discovery sector, where the big players will put independent researchers on a contract that prevents them selling anything of interest to rivals, whilst encouraging the development of promising drugs that have commercial application.
So, coming to the crux of this post, is it better to present fully-fledged ideas that have already been built up, with the opportunity to generate rapid returns (assuming they get "bought")? Or is a longer-term approach of investment in people a better decision?
It seems to me that it is possibly a combination of the two that works. Building up credibility through a series of discreet deliveries (that are successful!) opens up the door to a larger conversation about retainers, etc. I hope to try and put this to the test at some point, so I'll keep you posted about the reactions I get.
Monday, 26 November 2007
The triumph of the little guy?
It is now possible to provide an online experience, for example when selling books, that rivals that of Amazon.com. There are an estimated 4 million independent online retailers, and there has to be a good chance that their sites are some of the best on the web. Even if you just do the maths, the number of people coming up with different ways of solving the problem must be in favour of the little guy. And yet, the number of small independent retailers being held up in the public eye as a great example of how to sell online can be counted on the fingers of one.. um.. nose.
So what's happening? Do you need a marketing budget and a PR consultancy in order to "get noticed"? Surely that's against the spirit of the so-called web 2.0 revolution? Word of mouth is supposed to be the biggest thing these days isn't it?
OK, so what about other factors. Maybe the little guys simply aren't producing the goods. Well, just from my own line of work I'd say that this is probably true of 99.9% of online ventures, but then again there are lots of small businesses that are actually getting good help and advice from little web agencies (and sundry other experts) across the land. I know we ourselves have built some pretty cool things for little businesses, that have helped them compete with the best of the web.
All of this leaves me a little perplexed. If it isn't the lack of cracking small business web sites, some other dynamic in the equation must be failing. I suspect it is.. and I may not be popular (or even correct) for saying this, but I think it's the audience.. The problem with web 2.0 and its democratic distribution model is that it requires the consumer to be sophisticated enough to be able to tell a good one from a bad one. When the differences aren't that great, then maybe its easy to forgive people that lack of distinction and just go with "the brand they know".
It does make me wonder just how effective all this hype will ultimately turn out to be, and whether there is anything other than hope and ambition left to comfort the tiny startup looking to dominate against the big guys. Come on someone, tell me about cases that I've forgotten about where the little guy has triumphed.
So what's happening? Do you need a marketing budget and a PR consultancy in order to "get noticed"? Surely that's against the spirit of the so-called web 2.0 revolution? Word of mouth is supposed to be the biggest thing these days isn't it?
OK, so what about other factors. Maybe the little guys simply aren't producing the goods. Well, just from my own line of work I'd say that this is probably true of 99.9% of online ventures, but then again there are lots of small businesses that are actually getting good help and advice from little web agencies (and sundry other experts) across the land. I know we ourselves have built some pretty cool things for little businesses, that have helped them compete with the best of the web.
All of this leaves me a little perplexed. If it isn't the lack of cracking small business web sites, some other dynamic in the equation must be failing. I suspect it is.. and I may not be popular (or even correct) for saying this, but I think it's the audience.. The problem with web 2.0 and its democratic distribution model is that it requires the consumer to be sophisticated enough to be able to tell a good one from a bad one. When the differences aren't that great, then maybe its easy to forgive people that lack of distinction and just go with "the brand they know".
It does make me wonder just how effective all this hype will ultimately turn out to be, and whether there is anything other than hope and ambition left to comfort the tiny startup looking to dominate against the big guys. Come on someone, tell me about cases that I've forgotten about where the little guy has triumphed.
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Data, data, everywhere!
Well, the UK government seems to have lost a lot of data.. including mine. I can't quite work out how I feel about this. I know, in some sense, that the chances of me being exposed by this are still relatively small (anyone who has lost stuff in the post may know how unlikely the damn thing is to turn up), but then again all this publicity will almost certainly mean that anyone coming across a couple of discs will check to see what's on them. Ho hum.
I'm also feeling a pinch of sympathy for whoever lost the data in the first place. I worked in a major insurer, alongside colleagues who were manipulating massive amounts of data like this. The problem, as has been pointed out in some areas of the press, is actually a cultural one. It is easy to forget that these details belong to people. That they aren't just bits and bytes, records and extracts. They are bank accounts and addresses, names and dates of birth.
It's bad enough that we don't look after our own data well enough, but when the government (and other organisations) starts handing out lots of it through carelessness, then we really are left hoping rather than knowing that we're safe.
I'm also feeling a pinch of sympathy for whoever lost the data in the first place. I worked in a major insurer, alongside colleagues who were manipulating massive amounts of data like this. The problem, as has been pointed out in some areas of the press, is actually a cultural one. It is easy to forget that these details belong to people. That they aren't just bits and bytes, records and extracts. They are bank accounts and addresses, names and dates of birth.
It's bad enough that we don't look after our own data well enough, but when the government (and other organisations) starts handing out lots of it through carelessness, then we really are left hoping rather than knowing that we're safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
