To go from Atlanta to Athens you either drive (Athens, GA USA) or take a few planes (Athens Greece). If you belong to the second category you might feel a bit internet-sick and try to explore your options to connect.

I was like a child in candyshop to discover that in the US you can actually get onflight wireless internet, by GoGo  . Prices from 6$-13$ and a subscription predator at 30$. Killer detail: power dependency. Oups! But still impressive and probably can harm only some revenue and not the strass of the idea and its execution.

Because girls often are used to dieting, I waited until landing to JFK where I supposed that I could get some free internet. Spoiled uh? Yes because in Athens Airport you have a net-spa of 45min for free. Not the case in JFK where you can get power for free…but for internet you are serviced by Boingo. Really jealous of their presence (119,801 hotspots worldwide), I opened my eyes wide for precious lessons from their model and how they manage their business. Prices around 4$-8$ and a subscription model for 8$-10$ per month (119,801 hotspots… )

First Impression score for Boingo was 0.5 points.

1 for growth (119.801 hotspots…  )

1 for interactivity: very charming welcoming chat at registration, good simulation of natural communication

-0.5 for hope turned into undelivered promise: interactivity only on a hook level, if you don’t agree buying their subscription, the chat machine dumps you rudely, not replying at any other question chatted.

-1 for security: no paypal (ok fair enough but a bit destabilizing) What killed me was having to tap my credit card info which figured unmasked on my page.

Should I write stg about sense of privacy in public places or shall I go talk to the nice guy that came suddenly behind my back and asked me how I connected to the internet?

Georgia

It’s funny how our thoughts evolve from one day to the next. Which reminds me that we need to adapt our About page to reflect that a little more, as it’s about 2 years old. My thinking about Always-On Devices comes from a simple pain that I feel when I miss “a moment.” Sometimes I wish that I could… well Andy Warhol in Miraclemen phrases it much better than me.

In Alan Moore’s & Neil Gaiman’s graphic novel, Warhol’s existence is not painted in a very colourful light (pun intended). He has been resurrected as a machine into a society where money no longer plays a role and is very depressed. So his ability to record everything is really not very meaningful to him. Having only read this part of the comic last night, already my sentiments about Always-On are changing towards… and what would it accomplish?

I recently visited an Art Exhibition of independent artists in Maastricht and tested out a little what an Always-On Device would look like to me. I used my camera, a Canon 870 IS, as a recording device, which I held in front of me while walking through the crowd.

I managed to capture the people experiencing an exhibition, a piano player who was adding atmosphere to a room full of art, just hypnotically playing a few notes over and over. What actually intrigued me the most, I captured maybe two dozen miniature sets for the Maastricht Opera house. It was very surreal, the sets which were made out of cardboard and wood mostly, were 3-dimensional, and I was floating with my camera device around it and through it even, capturing it all at angles never deemed possible to me before. As if I was my own film-director.

Of course, apart from the disappointing battery-life on my camera, clearly not designed for video-recording, and the occasionally funny looks that I got, the real challenge is to make that data actionable—a big priority in everything I do. It is a matter of transforming the raw footage into a tight package that can be consumed by others, and the question is really, should this be the responsibility of the creator or of the consumer…?

With us having reached and surpassed the age of the mashup, it makes less and less sense to continue to try and re-invent the wheel, rather delegating that task across far more… interested people (in the area of video-editing at least), of which there is no shortage, as long as the tools and the specific community exists. Clearly, that kind of methodology requires a lax attitude about copyright.

To recap, so that it doesn’t seem like I’m entirely floating in thoughts, an Always-On Device would need:

1. A willing human recorder
2. A recording device designed for capturing experiences
3. A way to process that information into “usable bits”
4. A favourable legal environment
5. And a willing consumer

I’ll leave the question of “do we even want it?” for smarter people than me to decide. In the mean time, I will continue my search for point 2 and 3 on that list (more on this blog, if successful).

Until after Paris,
Vincent

OK, admittedly I’ve gone a little Facebook-crazy, ever since I joined the service ca. 2 years ago. Not Twitter-crazy, as in adding millions of friends, but an infatuation based on real value, the ability to organise activities and communicate with long-lost friends. And definitely not as crazy as the future I envision for Facebook or what I call *real friend*-based social networking™.

Phase 1, five years from now: Real-time

Imagine Google talk’s new innovation, video chat through the webplayer. Also imagine perhaps the most annoying internet-phenomenon of all: “voyeur TV,” made most famous (to geeks) by the likes of Justin TV and other Lifecasters, not to mention Survivor and Big Brother.

Where I see Facebook going in just a few years, is that you tune into a profile and if your friend allows it, you see a live feed instead of a static picture. Already, when I met old friends in Maastricht a few weeks ago, I thought how cool it would be to track a person’s physicial changes real-time on Facebook, instead of seeing what they *want me to see*.

The flaw: most people aren’t that comfortable showing unfiltered feeds. The opportunity: everyday, we’re becoming more accepting of the lack of privacy that the internet provides. The reality: probably a mix of both, where users give consent and only operate the camera when they feel like it.

Phase 2, ten years from now: in your living room

Picture the two innovations that Apple has essentially made mainstream. One, a camera in every electronic device. Two, training users to abandon the keyboard, through the iPhone and now multi-touch gestures. Repeating something I wrote before: this video-review, where a journalist compares typing on the EEE PC vs. the iPhone, at insane speeds in an all-terain vehicle, was really eye-opening how well that “virtual” keyboard works on the iPhone. So much for my first post on the iPhone app-store, that “the iPhone is just for games“…

My vision of a connected society in 10+ years is not that we all become experts at typing. The PC has always been designed by and for geeky engineers and we’ve had to put up with it because there was simply no other choice. Instead, I see every TV, every device perhaps, internet-enabled, in which we manipulate by simple gestures, a shake perhaps, the push of a single button…

In the future, I see people turning on their TV and tuning into Facebook and chatting with their friends as if they came for afternoon tea.

Phase 3, twenty years later: holofriends

In “Avatar,” the new movie by James Cameron, 13 years in the waiting, the story is that people use avatars to explore strange new worlds. In the real world, James Cameron is developing technologies that can capture actors’ facial expressions to the nth degree, and offer a real time preview into how that would look like post-production. Take that together with ca. 2000 cinema screens in the US that have been converted to 3D and perhaps you see where my thinking is going. In a few decades, both the motion-capture technology and the 3D one will become affordable, already 3D filming is a matter of tying two HD-cameras together, and eventually 3D screens will come to our living rooms,… perhaps enabling us to see and interact with hologram friends from Facebook?

Imagine, jogging with a Facebook friend, having your mom “virtual hug” you after you were dumped, having virtual se… ok, now I’m going to far!

Phase 4, fifty years into the future: I’m alive, I’m alive!!!

In the future we will be able to speak to dead friends and family members. Morbid? Perhaps it’s better expressed as, in the future we will live forever, at least digital versions of us.

But perhaps the 300 MB sized data encompassing our brain, as envisioned in the Battlestar Galactica sequel, Caprica, isn’t quite so realistic. Instead, a $100 million Paul Allen foundation, called the Allen Institute for Brain Science, is using digital technology to slice, dice, and capture what our brains are made of. It’s quite sad, because so far they are finding that the data is so excessive and so “personal” (every brain is different!!!), that they don’t yet know when, if ever, they will have finished capturing the brain.

But what is certain is that, eventually, we will develop an understanding of what makes us tick, and perhaps, perhaps, develop technology to transfer our memories to a machine. And when that happens, what’s to stop people from signing up to live forever? And imagine the pressure then coming from friends and family members to experience those memories one last time, and again, and again. It would be the rebirth of a more morbid social network, finally.

Final thoughts

None of this has to be Facebook-powered of course. But there’s no denying that wherever the internet is going, it will be built on more interactions between people, between real people, not these quasi-friendships strangers make on Twitter, mostly for selling and customer support purposes. And right now, as far as those *real* relationships are concerned, Facebook is king.

The end… or the beginning?

Vincent

I started a new job recently, at a financial trust. Part of my job is, for now, to learn about the financial structuring of companies setting up in Luxembourg and wanting to expand internationally. I’m also in charge of marketing (whatever there is to be done in a company that generates most of its customers from word of mouth), and to continue on selected strategic consulting projects (a continuation of my previous (freelance) activity).

A basic administrative requirement of my job is to, of course, have an email-address, containing the domain of the company in it. It’s basic PR, when you contact a potential customer, to use a common domain-name, also increasing brand-recognition. But what about phone-numbers? I get my email-address and business-cards for free, but have to pay for most of my phone-costs myself, the reason being that it’s not really something that has to be associated with the business.

That would be different if the identifier that I used would be a branded one, representing the company I work for.

Today, I had to deal with a payment issue with my Dutch bank, Rabobank. Via their website, you can call them for free, using the very clear “Rabolijn” username on Skype. I would love for something similar to exist on phone, which would instantly identify me as such whenever I call someone.

When you think about it, seeing a number for strangers calling you really seems like something from the 20th century. We use digital mobile phones which communicate across digital communication channels. Already, it is certain that the internet of the next decade will be dominated by mobile communications. So, how hard is it to send a name + a number to another person’s phone, when you are calling them?

My thought is: not very hard.

Vincent

Not my title, hence the quotes. “Smart Products” is the name of a 2006 Ph.D dissertation by Serge Rijsdijk, which I just purchased in a bookstore—I didn’t know you could buy these things. I’m fascinated with this concept, so much so that it was the reason for choosing Sony as my first serious company to work for, and why I worked in several projects / startups that dealt with interesting matters of industrial design. On this blog, I approached the topic a few times, with blog posts about “creating relevance,” about creating software for right-brained people, and probably some other things that I can’t recall at this time.

Before I go on, a little quiz. Which of these do you consider a smart product?

• The one-buttoned iPod? Is the iPhone a smarter product than the iPod? Why?
• The financial derivative, which was designed by many smart rocket-scientists?
• A bicycle gear-system that changes automatically, according to elevation-angle and intensity?

Think about these before you go on. Essentially, what a smart product means to me, is one that is able to interact with smart* human beings (*: by definition, ALL human beings). I would also say that a smart product adapts to the context of the user and does not force the user to adapt to it (though that, for the moment, is very wishful thinking).

An iPod, while on the surface a stupid device with a single button, is smart enough to just do the job we need it to do. It also has as a smart back-end that allows for a wide variety of content to be streamed through your device. An iPhone does the same job, except that it does more and it allows for two-way interaction: smart. A financial derivative may be smart by design but, from my understanding, it is a type of smartness that is incompatible with what humans consider smart, i.e. what makes sense to them. It does not speak our language, hence we should probably kill it (I fear the day that aliens come to our planet). The argument that it is designed for a different type of person, the financial genius, doesn’t apply either, considering the current crisis. The auto-gear system for bicycles, which I made up, but probably exists, is smart because it uses environmental intelligence to make our life easier. But in order to be able to do that, it must not make mistakes or else it becomes a very stupid device—there is a subtle line between smart and stupid, when speaking of technology… or biking.

Serge Rijsdijk has a much more complex definition of smart products, namely that they fit one or more of following seven dimensions:

1. The ability to co-operate: by which he means co-operating with other devices. He has an interesting quote from Nicoll (1999) who thinks that “the age of discrete products may be ending.” An example of this is a PDA that co-operates with a printer (or more modern: a camera that co-operates with a printer)
2. Adaptability: by which he means the ability to learn and improve the match between its functioning and its environment, e.g. my example of auto-changing gears or a thermostat that collects data about room and outer temperature and uses that to fulfil its user’s wishes.
3. Autonomy: meaning that the device can operate without interference from the user, e.g. some of those autonomous lawnmowers and vacuum-cleaners we keep hearing about.
4. Human-like interaction: as the term states, interacting with humans in a fashion that feels natural to them (I use a more broad description than the author). An example given is car-navigation, though I don’t exactly consider that a successful smart product yet—at least, the nagging voice telling you to “turn right” is not necessarily a characteristic of smartness, if you ask me.
5. Multi-functionality: i.e. a single product fulfilling multiple functions, such as a modern mobile phone. The fact that the iPhone has been so destructive to incumbents in this market would suggest that here too the definition of successful smartness need not necessarily always fit.
6. Personality: meaning the product’s ability to show the properties of credible personality. Examples given include the Furby, the AIBO, and (don’t laugh) Microsoft’s paperclip-assistant. My only experience with personable non-organics would be in the films: King Kong, Transformers, and Wall-E, all of which induced an emotional response in me. The AIBO was fun to play with at Sony, but, back then, not even close to the level of a dog. Still, I was sad to hear it has been discontinued. And I’ve killed many a virtual pet or plant (including that stupid paperclip), I’m not very sad to say.
7. Finally, Reactivity: i.e. the ability of a device to react to its environment in a “stimulus / response manner.” An example given is the Philips Hydraprotect hairdryer, which lowers the temperature of the air when the humidity of the hair decreases.

His thesis is focussed on the one issue that smart innovation is all about: how consumers react to smart products. I hope this post has made you think about it! More on this fascinating topic as I get to it.

Vincent

It feels strange to start 2009 with a dream, but a new year means doing new things and this one felt right. I sometimes have some pretty strange dreams and find it worthwhile to write it down. I don’t quite have notebook lying next to my bed, but close enough. This one was strange too, much stranger than what I’m about to tell you.

In my dream I was looking for a Christmas gift for my brother, a T-shirt actually. For some reason, I imagined that I entered some sort of electronic boutique to do it, I went to pick a shirt, and went to try it out (my brother and me are pretty much the same size).

So there I was in the changing room when I noticed some sort of display on my shirt. It gave me all kinds of options, many of which I can no longer remember, but basically they were something like:

• “Do you want to see the news when eating breakfast?”
• “Do you want me to operate as a timer when brushing your teeth?”
• “Do you want to see traffic information when driving to work?”

You get the idea.

I then had another dream within my dream, which was about imagining other applications, like:

• You’re listening to the radio and the thing suggests Wikipedia entries related to the topic.
• You’re doing exercise, and it suggests other related ones, with instructions.
• You put it on and it sends out a signal to other clothes that match and they start beeping.

And then I woke up, good morning and happy new year, guys!

Ignoring some inconsistencies, like where the display could be on a short-sleeved T-shirt, whether it’s not a little unnecessary for it to display traffic information or a timer when brushing, if those technologies already exist in cars and electronic brushes, and some others, this is the way I imagine it, let’s call it e-clothing, to work:

• It has a wireless connection, which enables it to talk to other devices (including clothes.)
• It has an accelerometer, which senses things like you brushing or doing exercise.
• It can be programmed, manipulated within or remotely, to become relevant to your context.
• It takes on the colour of your clothing when it’s dormant.
• It also has no problem being folded, etc., so it’s like e-paper or better, like e-cloth.

That’s all for now. I would personally love for electronics to be part of our everyday clothing, it makes a lot of sense when thinking about exercising-contexts, where other devices are cumbersome, and for finding matching clothes (hell for some).

Hope you had a happy new year celebration!

Vincent

Where does most radical innovation come from? Where, as an individual, can you expect to get plenty of access to that type of information? If your answer isn’t universities, please let me know!

As promised, I’ll be focussing more on innovation on Tech IT Easy these coming months, and you can be sure that my search for content will focus on universities and other institutes, rather than the internet.

It’ll be interesting challenge for sure, particularly as I’ll be reading a whole bunch of dry scholarly articles and dissertations, as well as tracking down interesting organisations for interviews, to hopefully produce something of value for you and me.

As I’ve asked before, if you have interesting ideas for content of this nature, or even want an interview, article, or thesis (summary) of your own to be published here, please drop a comment or mail!

Bookmark this site for more info!
Vincent

I wanted to write a brief follow-up to my Eulogy from a few weeks ago. To recap: my Sennheiser PX 200 headphones died for a second time, not because anything was wrong with their original purpose—to produce great sound—but because a more marginal feature failed: the wires, that connect my mp3-player to the speakers.

I have decided that headphones, especially the more expensive kind, are a big rip-off, because, while the sound may be better per euro/dollar spent, the wires are pretty much identical with whatever model you buy. And it’s the wires that fail 95% of the time, not the USP with which headphones are usually advertised: better sound.

In my opinion, there are three solutions for this problem:

1. consumers buy cheaper headphones and forget about the sound;
2. manufacturers make unbreakable wires or go wireless;
3. manufactures make wires modular.

I thought of the latter, remembering an interview, I heard years ago, with Giles Slade, author of the book “Made to break,” and believer in a great conspiracy: that, ever since the industrial economy took off, manufacturers have create products that were designed to break, because the alternative—a perfectly replaceable modular system—would diminish their profit-potential. The consequence of this philosophy is that, instead of throwing away failing components, we are forced to throw away the whole thing—whatever it is—resulting in great, big thrash-heaps all over the world. The consequence is a higher cost for the environment and for consumers.

The manufacturers’ perspective kind of makes sense. If you look at two computer-companies, IBM and Apple, the one that opened up its technology to be replaceable, was the one who is no longer a computer-company today: IBM. And those technologies that have decided to go modular—razor-blades, printer-cartridges, the iPod-ecosystem—have done so in a way that it is become monetarily painful to replace any part of that technological system. On the other hand, smart companies like Dell have proven that modularity can also create opportunities, but for assemblers more than manufacturers.

Taking it back to headphones, I (egotistically) maintain that a non-modular stance does not apply for the case of wires—though there may be arguments regarding portability. Rather, wires have long been modular for pretty much any application, ranging from mere electrical plugs to the wires that you hook up to your stereo-system. While the quality of wiring plays a real role in the quality of sound, the ultimate value that is attributed to a speaker-brand, is in the quality of the speakers themselves. Sennheiser would lose little by making wires replaceable; rather it would avoid potential PR-scandals and expensive warranty-problems.

This is of course assuming that Sennheiser isn’t one of those companies, whose products are “made to break.”

Vincent

Another way to phrase this is, whether mobile commerce will drastically change life as we know it or not?

Disruptive technologies, according to Christensen, lead to products that are cheaper, simpler, and, often, more convenient to use. By that definition, e-commerce could certainly be seen as a disruptive innovation over brick & mortar commerce, and to some extent, m-commerce could do the same to e-commerce. Or could it?

I look at technological disruption on three levels:

1. Production: will people get fired/hired/retrained? Will production-methods change? etc.?
2. Will technological behaviour change?
3. Will societal behaviour change?

As for the first, I don’t think production will change as dramatically as it did from brick & mortar. Clearly, models like Amazon and eBay wreaked some havoc on book- and second-hand stores. But production and maintenance for an m-commerce application will likely just happen on PCs and will logically be built for both platforms (with some possible exceptions in emerging economies). With the mobile versions of browsers like Safari and Opera, changes also need to be minimal. I do see there being less reliance on keyboards, (i.e. an interface-change), just based on my own clumsy fingers, but e-commerce is not exactly word-intensive.

Regarding changes in technological behaviour, this is clearly already happen and will continue to happen. Things like the Starbucks-Apple partnership for digital music-downloads are just the tip of the iceberg. Eventually, we could be seeing more use of phone’s video- and audio-recording abilities. Imagine taking a picture of your neighbour’s clothes and doing a visual search for that sweater? And of course there could be innovations in terms of mobile payment methods, mobile logistics, rfid and barcode-scanning, etc. The possibilities are endless and only constrained by traditional businesses’ lack of imagination.

Changes in societal behaviour is one I am most excited about. The way I see it, PCs have been an immobile force in our lives for many years, forcing us (in my opinion) to think and act in left-brained ways, not to mention never leave our seats out of fear we might miss something. Now, clearly the 24/7 “crackberry” isn’t exactly the answer, but I’d like the new found freedom that mobile technology enables to lead us down a new or perhaps old path, one where I can even see room for brick & mortar again. Something like:

1. take picture of product in store (after smelling/tasting/touching/trying it on),
2. send picture to warehouse,
3. warehouse ships home.

Removing one the most annoying component of shopping, carrying your shopping-bags home.

Two out of three… I think that qualifies as disruptive! But this is just my opinion of course, and I’m just beginning learn about the world of m-business. Tell me how you visualise mobile technology changing (y)our lives, or perhaps not?

Vincent

This may qualify as the most ridiculous post, I’ve ever written. But it’s a Sunday. And I felt it simply had to be said. Headphones are, to me, a vital part of our society and, at the same time, they are so prone to failure, that it may very well be the biggest pain (read: need for improvement) I’ve ever felt during my life.

I’ve used headphones since I was 14 maybe, back when my first Discman was made out of metal, contained four batteries, and weighed about the same as a satelite-phone (if those still exist). I’m sure if I turned it on today, it would still work. Headphones, however, are a completely different matter.

Headphones have evolved and devolved in my life. I started with the sucker-buys: super-multi-tripple-bass-boosting Sonys. But no matter how many I bought (all earphones), they all broke after a few months, at the latest. That was, on average, a good €20 thrown away every time.

Finally, I got fed up and plunged down to €3 headphones, the kind that lie next to the chewing-gum in your super(tech)market. I figured, why waste money, and instead buy in bulk and replace every few weeks. It worked pretty well for a while… of course the sound is nothing to write home about.

Finally, when I got my first & only iPod, three years ago or so, I discovered the Sennheiser PX200’s.

The upside:

• Not too expensive; paid €60 on the first purchase, and €25 on the second. I generally don’t think people should spend more than that for what is essentially a perishable good.
• Came in white—matching the iPod.
• STURDY – that’s right. Except for a few design-flaws, these are the most sturdy headphones I’ve ever had, the first pair lasting nearly two years; the second about a year.
• Sound-insulating: that way I enjoy the music for myself, and don’t bother anyone else.
• Stay on when I jog—important, as I jog 4 times a week.
• Great sound.
• Very portable—fold into the size of a pair of sunglasses.

The downside:

• A few design-flaws related to the wiring. If you close it a certain way, it actually cuts into the wiring. Also I just broke my second pair, because the wiring at the base, close to the plug, somehow broke… very annoyed with that, and wires in general.
• Insulates you from the rest of the world. Don’t try biking on a busy street with this sucker.
• Insulates you by making you look like a freak. This picture from 2 years ago in Barcelona says enough (well, actually the gigantic sunglasses don’t help either). Wearing these kinds of headphones really shouts out that you don’t want to talk to someone.

After breaking the second pair, I’m saying good bye to perhaps all headphones. They brought me much wisdom—80% of my iPod consumption is from podcasts with interesting people and on interesting subjects. They made me high—running with them is not only super-comfortable, but the sound is excellent, and helps getting your endorphins pumping. But they also made me anti-social, where I should be saying hello to my neighbours, I put on my headphones when I leave the house, forgetting everything around me.

Maybe, I’ll get another pair, I don’t know. Maybe when the next episode of ‘Stanford’s entrepreneurial thought leaders’ or ‘iInnovate’ comes out and I just have to learn something new. Maybe… and maybe I have to go cold turkey, smell the roses, listen to the wind, smile at the nice people around me, and reserve my sound-consumption for a club or a stereo. I’m sad now; an era is perhaps over.

But maybe, you have discovered the ultimate, never-breaking, super-multi-bassboosting headphones yourself? In which case, SHOUT IT OUT in the comments, as I want in.

Vincent

Business is all about three things: generating income, generating growth, and making smart spending-decisions to generate both of them. Within that framework, it’s not surprising that business often make compromises as to the feature-set that they offer. This is especially true of web-businesses, who, while they may have built a relatively cheap business (compared to the physical alternative), also find it difficult to create sustainable business models. And, considering the barriers to entry are as low as ever, I imagine that this situation won’t change anytime soon.

My “rant” today is about relevance, which I define as targeting your app or service to work within the context of your consumer. Many internet-businesses focus on two things: building easy connections to other web-users and trying to prevent total breakdown when viral growth reaches a peak.

The fallacy in that mindset is that users are being treated like nodes, who connect back or connect to other users. A node, in a P2P network, is a static entity, one that doesn’t move. A user is, typically, a human being, one that not only moves, but exists on a different plane, the physical world. A lot of web-businesses fail to make that distinction and it has created not only the reality that we are being bombarded with connections whenever we sit at our PC, but we are expected to be connected 24/7.

I alluded to this last year, when I asked “what place does the web take?” The point of that article was really about the relevance of the web to real life. According to a theory, there are three places relevant to people: the first place, which is home-life, the second, which is work-life, and the third, which is leisure. The web, through email, blogs, work-apps, twitter, media, has become a hub in all three places, but its consequences are both information overload and obesity, both caused by passivity.

When you look up the word “break,” it’s defined as “a period of time taken out of one’s professional activity in order to do something else.” If the web is work and the web is home, then the break should not be the web.

Relevance is, once again, having services be context-driven, i.e. being relevant or shutting up at the right time and the right place and for the right person. A pretty complex task, but that is an ideal to live for.

Let me give some examples. Both TheFilter and Last.fm are services that both passively monitor media-life and actively provide services (such as radio-stations and the like). When I plug in my iPod after a run (a third place-activity), Last.fm asks me whether I want to “Scrobble” my tracks, which it in turn uses to make recommendations. TheFilter is not quite there yet, but it passively scans my iTunes-behaviour and creates custom-playlists for me if I want. You may think this is no big deal, but you’d be surprised how few services make even that tiny step from the web to the desktop.

A bigger deal, in my opinion, is NearByNow, which allows shoppers to search the shopping-malls that they visit, not by searching every store, but by entering a search-term for a product on their mobile or via the web, and having it search the retailers’ inventory. I wrote about it here before. This is just a first step, but especially in retail there’s much room still for merging the web with the shop.

Some more examples are the Nintendo Wii, which brings a physical dimension to gaming, and even the MacBook Air and the Asus EEE, both of which are clearly designed to not chain users to a location.

Relevance is something that a lot of commercial and non-commercial services are battling with nowadays. How do you sell a good online that you need to smell, taste, feel, or try on? How do you integrate virtual friendships into real life? How do you limit the amount of noise that your online customers are exposed to? How do you “synergise” the power of the web—information at a finger-tip—with a fragmented physical world? How do you create business models based on both the online and offline behaviour of consumers?

Those are the real questions to answer, not only for the web to become truly mainstream, but for it to stop treating us “users” like grey square boxes with a blue light shining out of it. We, the kids, the workers, the retired, are people dammit, with muscles (not just in the fingers), mouths, and other senses. We were not put on this planet to read 12/7 and type the other 12.

The next liberation-age is, I hope, about freeing ourselves from the machines and living life again as the hybrid entities that we are, producing both physical and mental energy.

Rant over.

Vincent

(The picture is the cover of the book “Snow Crash“—still the most relevant book about a very possible future of the information age today… if you ask me.)

A week with an iPod Touch… time flies by! a few Pros & Cons so far:

Pros

1) It’s nice, flat (8mm) and light (120g): no bulk here, it’s even more convenient than regular iPods. I haven’t had the chance to test its solidity, but I’m not going to do that voluntarily, even for the sake of scientific progress -sorry.

2) The OS is really intuitive, everything rolls out smoothly and without time-loss. Operating it is nearly a game in itself.

3) The Wi-fi capability is really great, and was one of the main reasons I chose it over a regular iPod. Also, attachments can be opened -which is impossible to do on blackberrys for instance, as far as I know. It is a bit slow, but hey, I didn’t expect anything much faster.

4) Earphones (regular Apple earphones) are pretty comfortable. I often have trouble adjusting to earphones, but not this time, so hurray! However if I wanted to run (which I don’t), I guess I wouldn’t be so happy.

Cons

1) I must say I hate the way it organizes songs with iTunes. I have lots of music with no (or little, or miswritten) ID3 tags, and I litteraly spent a day re-organizing everything, putting right tags and creating lists. Would it have been that hard to be able to keep original folders? (This is a first-approach impression, as I had never installed or extensively used iTunes before. Still, this first impression is a really bad one)

2) The video system is outrageous. It turns out you have to buy an additional software (Quicktime Pro) in order to convert your videos so you can read them on your iPod -and I’m talking legal, .mov movies shot with my point & shoot camera!

3) No plug-ins (flash, shockwave, etc) are accepted while surfing the web -but I imagine it was technically difficult to implement. Still, it is a disappointment.

4) 8 or 16Gb is not a lot. It’s great, but I can’t have ALL my music on it -however I knew that when I bought it, so there.

But nevermind all that, I must say I’m still having lots of fun with my new toy.

Uf!

My faith has been restored: we live in a civilized business world where everybody can be a winner, sky is the limit etc.

More specifically, as far as the 700Mhz part of the sky is concerned, the breaking news are that there are no breaking news and no disruptive solutions:

Winners

US government has won

~ 20 billions of declining US  $.

AT&T has won

the C-block and the pride of carriers being carriers.

AT&T’s lawyers have won

significant fees and gem experience from lawsuits concerning the Openness clause.

Google has won

• the right to patch their apps on (carter)mobiles,
• access to the mobile advertising market (~ 3 billions d.US $)
• and saved ~ 5b.d.US $ to invest on their core business and on P&L  communication (partnerships and lobbying)

Consumers have won

• a stable thus fitter-happier-more productive market
• having the actors empowered and doing their best to focus on client satisfaction with the cease of this corporate battle
• a monetization of their mobile clicking
• federal income

(others)

… you’re welcome to brainstorm.

Geometry: Symmetry and a 3D market that moves in balance.

The equilibrium of this auction is a piece of art.

The main financial flows are organized symmetrically, in analogy of size.

This is my oversimplified prism:

• Big still pay the Big (B to B) : AT&T pays FCC
• MicroPlayers AKA “consumers” pay attention that pays Google (MP to G)

The notorious interoperability in telecommunications could actually apply to business models as well , since each one has found its place in this multidimensional world.

As you can see above  the 700 MHz space has been defined in 3D :

Little red axe: MP to G

Big red axe: B to B

The long red tail: their future interactions.

I commit to review my proposition to do away with auctions as sales procedures, taking off my hat to these infamous Google game theorists.

Hey guys, would you care to take a look into tougher games once you’ve finished with business peace?

Georgia

Judging from Vincent’s latest post (and the comments!) about why he thinks Android will suck, there are many misunderstandings about global smartphone markets. First of all, they are a small subset of all handset market – just about 10%. There are many who are blinded by their US-centric power-user views. The echo chamber of blogs doesn’t help much, especially because most blogs are also U.S.-based. This smartphone market share graph by Volker Weber is one of the best to illustrate that North America is totally different than other markets. The differences do not limit to smartphones, there are huge differences in mobile usage also.

The other thing to note is that the dominating player right now with more than two thirds of the market is Symbian, which is backed by, among others, the number one mobile manufacturer, Nokia. Both have summarily dismissed iPhone and Android as nothing more than niche (“iPhone is nice, but that’s about it”, “Just another Linux phone”?). They are also both usually missing from all reporting concerning Android and iPhone. Not taking them into account is like talking about PC industry and forgetting about Windows and Dell.

It’s always a good reminder that Nokia is also the world’s largest MP3 player and digital camera manufacturer. They also have more than half of the smartphone market. From a U.S. perspective this might not be so visible, because in the U.S. market the best selling smartphones are Blackberry Pearl, Motorola Q and Apple iPhone. If these are your idea of smartphones, do yourself a favour and familiarise yourself with Nokia’s Nseries (for consumers) and Eseries (for enterprise).

In the Open Handset Alliance’s FAQ, the alliance says that the benefits of an open platform for operators and manufacturers are lower costs and flexibility to offer services. For consumers, they promise cheaper prices, but given that most phones are given free by the operator or that it doesn’t actually make any business-sense to do give phones on a discount without a reason, this is probably a joke. Also, do not read too much into the “partnerships” in OHA, as many of those companies are also involved with Symbian and many other mobile initiatives.

The business model of your average mobile carrier is to make money out of you by offering you value-added services. The problem in the marketplace is that most people are just fine with voice and SMS. In the EU, many people feel that mobile data is still too expensive to the extent that the EU will probably mandate some price limits. Seriously, this is an industry that thought WAP and walled gardens were the future. Open competition is an anathema for them.

What the carriers with their monopoly mindset didn’t see coming was that internet is everywhere for far more competitive price and experience than what they can deliver. A surprise hit in Finland is a USB-device with 3G connection with gives you mobile broadband to your laptop with fixed monthly price. Why not just use your mobile’s Bluetooth instead is something a more technically oriented guy would think. But that’s why this guy can’t understand either why Google sees more search activity from an iPhone than from other handsets.

Many ISPs have started to adopt the mobile operators’ tactics now that the basic service is so low-margin. Of course, they can’t go as far as they’d love – you can’t imagine your ISP mandating what kind of computer you can use to connect to the net. In part, this is what the net neutrality discussion is about.

Google reported some time ago, that iPhone is by far the most used mobile user-agent. You can take this as a success story to Apple (and AT&T), but you could also see the sorry state of internet on mobile. A device with a tiny market share dominates internet usage? This is of course good news for iPhone carriers, who would love to have more customers like that. The question is, is the reason that using the web is so easy on an iPhone or because the iPhone owners behave differently? A little bit of both is always the easy way out, but whatever, the bottom line is that it brings more internet traffic revenue to mobile carriers. One point of warning, though, one reason for iPhone’s search dominance to keep in mind is only hinted in the article – the default search engine for many mobiles isn’t Google, but Yahoo! or even an operator’s own.

Then there’s the talk about the open platform of Android. One problem when talking about iPhone SDK and Android is that, right now, neither are “real” in the sense that so far all we have seen is hype. As a Symbian boss said, “We take [Android] seriously but we are the ones with real phones, real phone platforms and a wealth of volume built up over years”. In 2007, 141 different models and 77,3 million Symbian phones were sold. The fight between Android and iPhone SDK is pointless if you don’t include Symbian in it. It is open (to an extent), it’s free, there’s no AppStore (which is good and bad), there’s digital signatures (which is good and bad). And there are almost 9,000 third-party applications.

Want IM and VoIP on your smartphone today? Here’s a Gizmo client for Symbian S60 -platforms by Nokia (See the site for other cool apps if you happen to have a compatible phone). Do not forget the power mobile operators have over their networks, even that app can’t use VoIP on 3G, just on WLAN. Apple and Google are not mobile companies and that’s why they try to change the rules more to the their liking. This is a good thing, but history has proved these efforts have so far been very futile.

This Wired article on Motorola ROKR couple years back is a good reminder of some laws of the mobile market. Of course, the article didn’t age that well (which seems to be quite common at Wired), but the middle part with Nokia’s Vanjoki is worth a second read, especially now that Nokia is busy with Ovi.

PS. I’m a low-profit customer for my mobile operator, I have a simple SonyEricsson K610i with Opera Mini that I use web with like three times a year. I tried to use mobile internet while “outside the grid” (e.g. WLAN or DSL), but because I happened to be outside a major city (and 3G connectivity), the experience sucked a lot. We wanted to see a YouTube movie but were unable to. And this was 2008.

Hello again, Vincent here. Excuse me, I seem to be in a cranky mood lately, as far as technology goes, probably explaining my public rants towards the Facebooks and Scobles of this world. But I can’t let that stop me, here’s another one, aimed at Google’s Android.

Yesterday, Rich Miner, group manager for mobile platforms for Google, announced that he believed the distribution of Android to surpass that of the iPhone-OS. Maybe so, but I have little doubt that it will be equally, if not more crippled than the iPhone has been so far.

Three reasons:

1. hardware,
2. carriers,
3. and the business-model.

On the hardware-side, Google will have to design an OS for a number of mobile-technologies, ranging from Samsung to Motorola. The kind of legacy-support kind of reminds me of a number of other software-projects: Microsoft’s Windows, which is historically (maybe not currently) known for its software-vulnerabilities due to its legacy-support; and cross-platform web-ware like Adobe’s Air and Flash, and Sun’s Java, both not exactly top-of-the-line in terms of performance and elegance. But, cross-platform alone has never stopped developers from creating (mostly free) applications. So, my worries here are security and user-interface, and I expect the latter to especially suck.

The other side is the carriers, who have shown no qualms about enforcing their rules on both hardware- and software-manufacturers. Fact is that while iPhone 2.0 may become more open, it will be limited by Apple to not disrupt their business-arrangement with carriers. This is implemented in two ways: in the restricted range of applications that can be developed for the iPhone (e.g. very likely no Skype) and the distribution of said applications (centralised and approved by Apple or NO GO).

Finally, the business-model. When the iPhone SDK was released, it was reportedly downloaded more than 100,000 times. Very likely this happened for several reasons:

1. the market for Apple-products is notably less price-sensitive (k-ching, baby!);
2. iTunes as a store (easy $$$);
3. VCs like Kleiner Perkins are holding out carrots (omg, I’m gonna be rich);
4. and it has strong relationships with carriers (a big barrier for mobile software-publishing so far).

Will the same thing happen for Google’s Android? Let’s see.

• It’s Google, and we all know that the company does not have a history for charging for things.
• While Google has created ecosystems of “apps” with its iGoogle and Google desktop-service, I don’t think any of these are premium. Also, their video-store, its one commercial platform, has failed.
• Similarly, it’s releasing the OS for free under an Apache Software License, and we all know how easy it is to make money on open-source platforms.
• There is a fund, but it comes from Google, not exactly a signal that the market believes in Android’s commercial success
• It does have confirmed partnerships with carriers like China Mobile, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile, but how restrictive will these partnerships be?

And probably some other things I forgot.

I may be cranky, but believe me that I want software like Android to succeed. Just like I want a self-sufficient Linux OS (no, it doesn’t exist!). But Google’s strategy appears too fragmented, too focussed on the technology, and too little on the business of it. Maybe, maybe, Google is planning to become a carrier themselves. There have been plenty of rumours about that since the 700 Mhz auction. Instead, I expect that their main goal is to extend their advertising-platform as efficiently as possible to the mobile sphere, and that that would be incompatible with a large technology-push towards building physical networks.

What do you think? Thumbs up or down for Android and why???