Stritar's chronolog

The Web is becoming just another television

Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:06:44 GMT

A few months ago, I managed to bookmark my 20.000th link. I always imagined I would be able to say something really inspiring when it would finally happen, but after years of collecting and tagging content on Delicious like mad, proud of the amount of information I've consumed, I ended up feeling a bit empty. Categorization schemes, mashups, systematic repeating of essays and articles, it seems nothing could help me grow anymore. What else can you expect from a passive observer of a world, overwhelmed with unlimited knowledge?

In February 2011, when I saved my 10.000th link, I felt great, full of power. This means I've made around 10 bookmarks per day on average since then, which translates into a lot of read material. But when I reflect on that, I can't bypass the feeling I haven't actually learned that much. Most online content seems recycled and without added value. The feeds I'm subscribed to are all the same, and I don't know how to break out of them. The amount of information out there is simply astounding, making me read everything diagonally. I feel like everybody is just trying to control my attention.

Then I noticed the (social) Web is becoming like television. We are all just drones, consuming unimportant information we are being fed on a daily basis. Passive readers actively choosing sources that lead us to the facts - but how is that different from choosing which television channels to watch? Not only that, we've become advocates of this situation by passing on "interesting stuff" on our timelines, a part of the infinite loop of content creation, curation and consumption.

----

Almost half a year ago, when I wrote these words, I became so depressed I've decided not to publish them. Luckily, I've had enough time to think about the problem and came up with a plan to turn myself around. I decided I need to do everything I can to become a proactive consumer of information (again). Forget social, I'm returning back to search. Web 1.0 FTW!

Together with more in-depth studies of specific topics that I do these days, I managed to achieve something even more important. I started reading books, I've read about five in the past few months. Fiction and scientific. You won't believe the effect this has had on my concentration and habits. I noticed I don't spend that much time on Facebook, Twitter and Reddit anymore, becoming the master of my information intake. By taking time to read / watch more complex work, everyday news finally started to show itself as trivial as it really is.

What we have here now, is just another television, which we passively consume for amusement, without much mental effort. But to evolve personally and professionally (what the Web was invented for!), we'll need to do more. Read books, listen to podcasts, study specific fields, concentrate on individual subjects. Because it's that focus that is crucial for one's evolution. Nobody wants generalists anymore. And believe me, 20.000 "random" articles don't make you that smart anyways.

Note to self: when writing blog post titles, forget about SEO

Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:23:23 GMT

A few days ago, I wrote a blog post about innovative blog designs and solutions that are emerging everywhere. I think it's a great post, it offers a very detailed overview of new fascinating concepts and features that are driven by new ways we consume content. But right before publishing, I've decided to change the post's title from "Dissecting the innovative blogs..." to "UX analysis of the innovative blogs...". I did this because I wanted to include "user experience" and "analysis" in the blog's title and url for better SEO performance, but this turned out to be a huge mistake.

This article is the first part of a series, focused on new generation blogs, which will (hopefully) form a complete user experience study of modern online media. But I've chosen the wrong title for it, since the core of every UX analysis are the problems and goals each solution is trying to solve and achieve. By thinking about SEO, I've devalued the content of the story by presenting it as something it is not. Even if the the new bible would be written inside the post, user experience experts would probably think "This guy doesn't know shit about UX" because of the title. It's very easy for something to be stained by a corrupt detail and be perceived in a negative way.

Even though I know most of the traffic on my blog doesn't come from search, but rather from referrals, I always subconsciously think about this tradeoff when I'm writing a post - appealing titles vs. SEO optimized titles with high keyword density. Pressured by the amount of time I've invested in this specific post (>10 hours), I went for the latter, also because it's every blogger's dream his / her work will once be self-sustainable. Traffic without active (social media) involvement. I do the writing, Google does its magic, the readers to the rest.

Search engine rankings are influenced mostly by (social media) backlinks. This means you need social activity first, only then the keywords start to matter. Which makes it much more important for your blog's title to capture attention than to be SEO friendly.

By the way, I've changed the title back to the intended original one, but the URL stayed the same. And I'm never thinking about SEO when writing blog titles again.

Dear Facebook, please stop trying to control my attention

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:06:30 GMT

Not that I'm threatening you or anything, I can assure you I won't be leaving you anytime soon. There is still too much inside you, for me to walk away. But the last few attention seeking features you've implemented are really pissing me off! I fully understand you are trying to get me to interact with others even more, but what you are doing will rather have the opposite affect. You have to find another way to get me involved, or the tab that you live in won't stay open for much longer.

The new red notifications next to the groups are very annoying (it seems I'm in a test group of some sort, since not everybody has them). Which UX mastermind sold you this great idea? It's becoming really hard for me to look at my Facebook homepage for the past few days, I've turned off all the notifications from groups and these things are still there, all red and intimidating. What are you trying to do, get me to click on each of them every day, or simply leave 'em all?

And the sound notifications you play each time I get a comment? I'm often listening to music or watching movies, and they're simply too much of an intrusion. Don't want that shit, I don't use chat because of these annoyances. You are making me wish not to receive any comments while I'm doing other things, which is absurd. The web was intended to be silent unless requested otherwise.

I try to keep positive with my blog, not complaining and bitching too much, but every now and then I just can't help myself. Things did change since you went public, the pressure from the investors must be enormous: more users, more friends, more members, more interactions, more everything. The graph is hungry. But you have to understand what's at stake: if we get too annoyed by what you're doing, we simply won't spend enough time with you to see all the banners you want us to see. Which can be a bigger problem than groups without active members or a few unnoticed comments. The service is the most important thing you have, and nothing good can come out of this new aggressiveness. Think about it.

How Facebook and Twitter are messing up Slovenian journalism

Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:56:08 GMT

Before I proceed with this rant, I would like to point out that I strongly believe in social media. I think it can do magical things, hell, we've already seen it has the potential to change the world. But that's just me, a person consuming information, deciding what's real and what not, riding those waves that I like. The media - they should try harder - it's their job to report the truth. In the past few weeks, we've encountered a few slips from the mainstream media here in Slovenia, feeding us with bogus information they've copied from the (social) web. I know it can be hard to track everything that's going on, but still, double-checking a few things and sources wouldn't hurt that much. And since Slovenia is in a quite critical stage at this point, with a fucked up financial situation, austerity measures, protests and everything, this makes it even more important for journalists to do their job properly.

Case 1: the major mayor situation

Those that are acquainted with the current situation in Slovenia, know that we currently have two major protest venues. Maribor, who started it all, and whose protesters have already succeeded in persuading their mayor Franc Kangler to step down (and they aren't stopping there), and Ljubljana, whose activists are protesting more against the Slovenian right-winged government lead by Janez Janša, and no so much against the capital's mayor. You should know that Ljubljana's mayor Zoran Janković is an interesting person, one of those guys that's a bit shady, but since he has done so much for the development of the city, the general public still likes him (but not for much longer it seems).

In a similar fashion as the other protests (who are currently happening on a weekly basis), there was one protest in Ljubljana organized using Facebook and other social media channels, targeted specifically against the mayor. This event had hidden attendees, and their wall was covered with posts such as "10.000 confirmed guests", "15.000 confirmed guests" etc. There were a few of us that laughed at this, but this didn't stop the radio and television from reporting an expected record amount of protesters on that day, based solely on that Facebook event's wall posts! The result: a few hundred people, and some of them had a transparent "Thief, we love you".

The cached version of the event against Zoran Janković - with 15k hidden attendees. The event is no longer available. Spotted by @loudandwicked.

Case 2: the bogus response to the anti-corruption commission report

Today, another interesting thing has happened, and we still need to see how it will turn out. The national Commission for the Prevention of Corruption released a report saying both prime minister Janez Janša and Ljubljana's mayor Zoran Janković have more money that they were supposed to have (in hundred thousand euros). When this happened, Janša's SDS party's parody Twitter account with 30 followers at that time tweeted that this report proved the commission has finally dug into the corrupt communist hole.

The tweet that got mistaken for an official statement.

When I saw this tweet, I instantly checked the profile, since the tweet seemed very unbelievable, concerning the fact their leader is also inside the report. I instantly knew it's a bogus account, but this didn't prevent the Slovenian Press Agency from putting this tweet as a quote inside one of their news (no longer available), and from there on it was instantly picked up by other media as well. We are talking about one of the most important Slovenian news sources!

The citation of the tweet, copied by demokracija.si from STA. Spotted by @miharejc, amplified by @multikultivator, read the the thread.

Time for real journalists to shine

There are probably more cases like this, and it needs to stop! Social media is a wonderful tool for providing additional information about something specific, but as we've seen in the two cases, it often can't be the primary source for the news. Journalism needs to go a step back, and provide credible information from trustworthy sources. Otherwise, there won't be much truth left for our descendants, since too many people will simply have the power to make things up. But everything's not bad - situations like this could provide clear distinction between real journalists with original sources, and those who do nothing else but copy others. Something we critically need in this age of data abundance.

Dear Twitter, please reconsider this madness

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:01:53 GMT

Dear Twitter. You were always one of my favorites. I love it how you managed to create a subculture, something that Facebook will never be able to do. You've allowed people to collectively create information that travels the world in seconds. Your role in many global activist projects is invaluable, and your stance on privacy issues something that inspires the world. You help us find out about things before they actually happen. When the Icelandic volcano was erupting in 2010, I was watching the #ashtag word clouds being broadcasted live on CNN. It was then that it struck me that the media will never be the same again, the power of thousands reporters wins every time. You made it to the mainstream, shaped transmedia into Twitter + television. You were becoming the ultimate foundation for real-time information. You made me realize so many things by being one of the most prominent platforms of the social era. You were the man.

And now you are starting to kill the platform.

Anyone who's read What Would Google Do? would know this is a huge mistake. This book (from 2009!) has a chapter about the value of platforms and distributed systems, and I've been obsessing myself with this revelation ever since. Wrote a blog post about it, which was retweeted by the book's author Jeff Jarvis himself, and it made me even more in love with the idea. Now I'm sure platforms are the future, because they have the ability to outlast services.

The most important things about platforms are the ecosystems around them. Yours was always more appealing to me than Facebook's. Because of the information Twitter has (almost all of it public), because of the culture that's emerged around this information. Twitterers, Developers, even Lurkers and Ninjas, the amount of innovative things that people have managed to build around your core is amazing. Not just silly games and marketing schemes, actually valuable and inspiring things (we've tried it too!). I always believed you were cooler than Facebook, that you have a brighter future, since you weren't trying to keep people inside your services. You seemed to know what made you in the first place.

I understand it's the high level mashups you are interested in, but still, the platform is the most important thing you have. Why not let other people reinvent your user experience, like others are trying to reinvent email? You want that, you want people to make Twitter whatever they want, while creating, consuming and curating the data that's inside you. You need thousand of different clients that feed your infinite hunger, enabling you to build your business model around the tweets that are generated. You want developers to use, abuse and reshape your essence. Because platforms are like networks, there value grows exponentially with the number of nodes they have, and these nodes help platforms evolve even further, in unimaginable ways.

And now you are trying to kill bits of this platform, those bits that help create the most valuable thing you have - hundreds of millions of Tweets every day. They may be just Twitter clients, but they might as well be the most important thing you've ever had. Your fans, your supporters, your ambassadors, your army, your ecosystem. Your future is more important than your monetization, not just to me and to them, to everybody who loves what you are, and to those who don't get you. Your future is important to mankind. That's why you should stay what you were meant to be. You should stay the open platform.

Why I don't believe in these crazy technology company valuations

Mon, 21 May 2012 08:14:15 GMT

The debate about the potential second technology bubble is all over the media. One of the first milestones that will determine the outcome of this story happened on friday, when Facebook went public. As opposed to other (smaller) web IPOs of the past years (LinkedIn, Groupon, Zynga, Yandex), the price on the first day stayed on the same level. This was to be expected, since Facebook received the valuation of 100 billion dollars. To put that in perspective, that's around half of Google's value, and about the same value as Amazon has. But Facebook makes 10 times less revenue than Google does, and its revenue growth is slowing down. Was Facebook valued too high? It seems so, and some analysts are already saying that most of the stocks were bought by institutional investors to keep the share price above 38$.

Facebook is not the real problem

But Facebook is not the biggest problem. It is the leading global social service, and an established company with almost 1 billion registered users, besides making quite a hefty amount of revenue ($3.7 billion in 2011). I'm more worried because of others, who make little or no revenue at all. Today, Rovio is valued around the same as Nokia, with yearly revenues of around $100 million. Instagram, with practically no revenue model, was bought for $1 billion, which is 12.000 times what Kodak is worth. A bit silly.

In technology, specially the web, companies come and go. The lifespan of services is short, and people don't hesitate to switch to a new, better alternative, and they switch fast. Remember Excite? Yahoo? MySpace? They were on top of the world not more than a decade ago. Draw Something, which was bought by Zynga for $200 million, already lost millions of users. How long does will it take for people to get bored with Angry Birds? Foursquare, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, even Facebook?

Still looking for a revenue model? Consider this.

Most of these companies have millions of users, and that is probably what fuels their valuations the most. Even though, quite a few of them are still looking for their revenue model. But what if the market simply isn't big enough for everybody? What if that is the real problem behind not being able to find a revenue model? I did some research, and here's what I found out:

the projected global spending on online advertising will be around 97$ billion in 2013 and $113 billion dollars in 2014 (source, source)
around half of that will be spent on search, around half on display (source)
projected revenues of social media ad spending in the US are around $10 billion in 2016 (source)
global mobile ad spending in 2016 will be around 15% of total online spending, or $22 billion (source)
apps and in-app purchases will generate around $46 billion in 2016 (source)
estimated size of the virtual goods market in 2015 is around $5 billion (source)
Google makes around $40 billion a year (source)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but these facts tell me that all of these companies have a market of around $150-$200 billion in 2015. ALL of them, including all the local players. Not really that much when you think about it. Sure, it's a different industry without production, but for comparison, Apple's yearly revenues are about $100 billion.

Trying to understand the math behind valuations

I went even further, and analyzed the performance of these companies; how much they earn, how much they are worth, and how many users they have. Then I tried to compare the price / sales, sales / users and price / users ratios. Since a few of high-valued companies basically have no revenue (Instagram, Foursquare), it seems that they are worth mostly between $20 and $100 dollars per user.

	Sales ($b)	Price ($b)	Users (m)	Price / Sales	Sales / Users	Price / User	Source
Amazon	50	100	/	2.00	/	/
Apple	110	520	/	4.73	/	/
Draw something	0.05	0.2	10	4.00	5.00	20.00	revenue, value, users
Facebook	4	100	900	25.00	4.44	111.11	revenue, value, users
Foursquare	/	0.7	20	/	/	35.00	revenue, value, users
Google	40	200	1000	5.00	40.00	200.00	users
Groupon	2	8	115	4.00	17.39	69.57	users
Instagram	/	1	50	/	/	20.00	revenue, value, users
Kodak	6	0.07	/	0.01	/	/
Linkedin	0.5	14	130	28.00	3.85	107.69	users
Microsoft	70	260	/	3.71	/	/
Nokia	38	11	/	0.29	/	/
Pinterest	0.05*	1	12	20.00	4.17	83.33	revenue, value, users
Rovio	0.1	9	1000**	90.00	0.10	9.00	revenue, value, users
Tumblr	/	1	30	/	/	33.33	revenue, value, users
Twitter	0.14	10	100	71.43	1.40	100.00	revenue, value, users
Yahoo	5	19	170	3.80	29.41	111.76	users
Zynga	1	7	150	7.00	6.67	46.67	users

Data for publicly traded companies are available on MarketWatch.
* - estimate
** - downloads

Google manages to make the most from its users, around $40 per user per year. How much can the others make in the long-run, put together with the estimated $150b market size? How many can even earn anything before their users leave? The equation somehow doesn't add up.

These companies are great, but still…

I'm a big fan of the internet, I truly admire these companies, and use most if their services. But I still think this is madness. Didn't we learn enough from the first dot-com bubble? Today, we're a part of the social / mobile excitement, what can we expect tomorrow, the semantic excitement? The internet is maturer than this, and nobody will take it seriously, if it will behave so manically depressive. Ups and downs every few years surely don't work that well, and another bubble is definitely something the we don't need in these unstable economic times. So, please guys, take it a bit easier. don't be too greedy and enjoy what we have.

Perhaps the best thing that could happen at this point is for Facebook to lose about 30%-50% of its value. That could put some sense into the frenzy, before it goes to far. The situation surely needs more consideration.

You know what's cooler than $100 billion dollars? $50 billion dollars.

Security questions are the dumbest thing the internet has ever invented

Wed, 02 May 2012 20:05:54 GMT

At one point of the evolution of the World Wide Web, somebody came up with this fantastic idea. This person must have thought that the problem of securing your online identity was just solved in a very elegant form: security questions, which only the person who owns the account is able to answer. But there's a problem. Even if security questions worked at one point in time (which I also doubt), they simply don't work anymore, so you might as well lose them. Luckily, most services already did that, and Facebook tried to innovate this feature with "recognizing friends" alternative, but I somehow still manage to find them. And fail using them.

True story

A few years ago I had to set up the security questions with my online broker because of their new online privacy policy. Since financial services are a bit delicate, they are trying to provide as much security as possible. One of the questions I had to answer was "What is the last name of your favorite athlete". Since I wouldn't take risks, I did something silly with the answer, but forgot what that silly was. I tried to remember on few occasions, but failed miserably every time. In the end, because of the recent Apple and Facebook stock exchange frenzy, I had to make a phone call to the States and reset my security questions. A waste of time and money.

Why u no work?

But why don't security questions work? Firstly, nobody's sure how they work with the specific service. Will somebody be able to reset my password by answering them right? Or will I be required to answer them after I login to the system with my username and password? Or will they be used just in case I need to prove my identity on the telephone? Who knows… (and don't bother explaining)

Than the next problem happens. When I'm asked to answer the security questions such as "Your first girlfriend's name", "Mother's maiden name", "Favorite holiday spot" or "Your pet's name", I can think of plenty of people who might know such things, and don't know what these monsters could do with the answers (see above). Sure, these are mostly people I trust, but lately, quite a few answers to questions like this can be found elsewhere, e.g. on Facebook. How can I be sure my mother has the correct privacy settings? Or that my pet won't appear tagged on someone else's picture? Is that a risk I'm willing to take?

Time to drop

Bottom line: I tend to be creative or lie when I'm answering security questions, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who does it. Lies and creativity are easily forgotten, so I end up not knowing the right answer when the time comes. Face it, you can not make a generic query that only I will be able to answer, and that's where the story ends. So please, stop using security questions, they don't work! Think of something else.

DISCLAIMER: Please note I'm not trying to persuade anybody to lower their security standards, but the fact is, people are emailing passwords to each other.

How movies and television (almost) ruined my experience of traveling to American cities

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 05:08:16 GMT

In my life, I've traveled to two American cities on different occasions: New York and San Francisco. When I got there, a funny thing happened - it was nothing like I expected. Actually, it was a total buzzkill! I was filled with great expectations, but the cities displayed themselves in the plainest way possible. I can't believe how ridiculously common everything looked! When you travel to exotic places like Asia or Africa, you're in for a bit of a culture shock, and that's already fascinating enough. But cities in the United States, well, they're not that different from European cities, we're part of the same civilization anyways. Just cities like any other.

I blame Hollywood! Movies and television (even photographs on blogs and in magazines) have always been trying to present something in an idealistic, almost unreal way. Showing things that aren't there, hiding things that are, highlighting a specific point. And since a lot of films and shows are happening in New York and San Francisco, I was being fed with this idealistic image of great places with amazing detectives ever since I was a child. But these things aren't for real, for me, the experience was totally different than I imagined. What will happen if I manage to go to Miami one day? Will it feel like a tourist resort somewhere in Europe and not like a totally cool place, the way I think of it now?

Probably not. As it turns out in the case of New York and San Francisco, these cities do have something very special to offer. The churches may not be as old as in Europe, and the streets may not be as crooked, but it's the cosmopolitan vibe and fantastic atmosphere that makes them what they are. A few days after you get to know your way, you start to feel it. It's everywhere around you. You slowly go along, and you find yourself thinking: well, this actually wouldn't be such a bad place to live for a while. And you start to enjoy it, meet a few people, go to a few parties, start to love it, everything's great, but then your trip ends and you're back home. Sitting in your living room, watching a movie or a show happening there and all you can think is: man, New York and San Francisco are even more awesome than on TV.

Did Google just admit Apple's Siri is the future of search?

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:21:19 GMT

I don't know if you saw The evolution of Google search video, which they've published a few days ago. You should, it's a cool movie, portraying the history of search and Google's vision of its future. But something went wrong. One of the punchlines of the video was a story from one of the engineers, who said that next-generation search engines will be able to answer complex questions such as the following:

"Hey, what is the best time for me to sow seeds in India given that monsoon was early this year?’"

A very legitimate question.

I don't know if you've tried out iPhone's new personal assistant, Siri. It's awesome in every bit. Not only does it have a state-of-the-art voice recognition, it's also packed with super smart artificial intelligence that supposedly allows you to ask crazy things things such as:

"Can you remind me to call my wife when I leave the office?"

Another very legitimate question.

And there's a strong resemblance there. Both requests are really abstract and probably require quite a bit of computational power to be understood by a program. They have nothing to do with mathematical or social ranking currently used by Google (search), they are all about Artificial Intelligence and semantic interpretation. And while Google currently doesn't provide (or at least market) services that would be able to understand such sentences, Apple does.

I've noticed quite a few articles saying concepts such as Siri are the future of search. It's obvious artificial intelligence will play a big role in this segment. Apple's already in. Even if their technology is not superior to Google's, who is also working on embedding AI into search, it's fully available today, and everybody knows it. Google should really be careful with such statements concerning their core business, Web search. Specially if they are competing against the marketing wizards of Apple, who know how to sell things even if they don't fully work.

Promoting a technology you don't have and your competition does? Stupid consumers such as myself might do something stupid.

UPDATE (5.12.2011): You can join the discussion on HackerNews.

Facebook vs. Twitter, Part 3: The phase of unification

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:22:32 GMT

I started writing about Facebook and Twitter because I saw these two services as the most impressive players of the social age. I received a lot of comments about the two of them not being comparable, which I disagree. They are the biggest global Web 2.0 platforms (LinkedIn successfully went public and has a lot of users, but it's hardly a platform) and two of the ten most visited websites in the world. They are social trend-setters, both super advanced on technical and conceptual levels. They are a lot, but with the latest sets of patches, they are also becoming a lot alike.

Originally, Facebook wanted to be a social network. On the other hand, Twitter wanted to be a news network. But seeing what's happening these days, we can ask ourselves: is it rather the other way around? Indeed, Facebook and Twitter are finally entering the phase of unification. Let's begin.

Two way integration

Twitter now officially supports posting to Facebook, while Facebook now officially supports posting to Twitter (for now, Pages only). Until recently, you had to use other services or install apps to fully connect both accounts, but these days, direct integration it's pretty much trivial. The wall between the two giants is obviously coming down. And they both noticed the need to recognize each other to proceed.

Facebook adds following

The symmetric relationships (friends) on Facebook made it what it is - a social network for keeping in touch with the people you know. The same goes for Twitter, the asymmetric relationships (followers) made it what it is - a news network where you can follow people you are interested in. This fact was one of the biggest differentiator between the two social services.

Facebook soon noticed they will have to somehow go beyond that, for the sake of enabling more accessible information to the masses and enabling unprotected, crawlable real-time data without privacy. They've started with Pages, intended for brands, which users can like and follow. But recently, like I predicted more than a year ago, Facebook introduced subscriptions for personal profiles, where you can follow people without the need for them to confirm you back, and they can post public updates. What an interesting turn of events.

Facebook adds a real-time stream

Facebook put a lot of effort into developing the EdgeRank, which recognizes the level of connection between two people. The previous version of Facebook had Hot and Fresh streams, the first one being based on the amount of activity and EdgeRank vicinity, and the other one on recent activity. Today, the main stream is a mixture of both, while a new feature was introduced. The so-called Ticker in the right sidebar, showing real-time activity from all your friends. Your own little Twitter inside Facebook, which they plan to evolve even further, adding automatic updates.

Twitter starts to close, adds multimedia

Traditionally, the Twitter app ecosystem was built around (outside) Twitter, while Facebook's app ecosystem was built inside Facebook. But Twitter's policy is changing. They've already acquired one of the biggest Twitter clients TweetDeck, and said they will prevent new Twitter clients from being developed. They've also added a multimedia library to each profile (feeding also from external services) and enabled an internal service for sharing photos. Bad news and a stab in the back for Twitpics, Yfrogs and such. Smells like Facebook.

Twitter adds activity streams

Social networks are all about profiles, streams and interaction. Twitter used to be plain, providing only simple profiles, basic tweets stream, replies and retweets. But the newest addition also includes real-time activity streams, where all retweets, replies and favorites are gathered in one place. I haven't gotten it yet, but people are saying Favorites are the new (Facebook) likes. Twitter is becoming very much a social network, trying to boost up it's social graph.

Conclusion

There are even more cases like this, but these are the most significant. I hope this trend won't continue much further. It was the differences between Facebook and Twitter made each one interesting and useful in it's own way, but I guess things like this are inevitable. Like operating systems or browsers, competitors are constantly copying each other's features and solutions, which actually proves mutual recognition. Why would social services be any different? It seems Twitter and Facebook are finally mature enough to enter the phase of unification.

Check out the complete Facebook vs. Twitter series.

Can you believe Watson got the question about Slovenia wrong on Jeopardy?

Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:33:12 GMT

Slovenia made it to the spotlight again, for the first time after the soccer world cup (when Slovenia was trending topic on Twitter and top search on Google). This time, it happened because IBM's supercomputer Watson competed against human champions in the famous TV show Jeopardy. IBM's computers are known to destroy people in various challenges, Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in a chess tournament in 1997. But chess is simple for computers to play, because it is pure logic and mathematics – the capability of a player is determined by the number of operations and actions it can calculate in advance. But a quiz is a totally different story, where the biggest challenge is semantics – understanding the meaning of words.

In 1950, Alan Turing, one of the greatest pioneers of computing introduced the Turing test, a methodology that could separate humans from computers using a set of questions, some of them formed in such a way computer wouldn't be able to understand and answer them. There are many questions which can't be answered with pure logic, the one I remember from high school goes something like this:

"Jack attended Sally's party, bring a doll. What was the present?"

The catch is in the connection between party – (birthday) – present – doll, which can't be noticed without abstract thinking humans are capable of. And today's computers still face the same problem - even though Watson dominated Jeopardy, it failed miserably on the following question about Slovenia:

"As of 2010, Croatia & Macedonia are candidates but this is the only former Yugoslav republic in the EU"

Watson's computing capabilities and knowledge banks are huge, but a question and an answer so obvious to humans presented a huge problem. Watson surely knows which countries are EU members, but it obviously didn't understand the question, thinking it was asked about which country would be next to start negotiating for EU membership, answering Serbia. The right answer was, of course, Slovenia.

The video is also fascinating from the cultural point of view – and extremely creepy. Those who have watched (or read) "2001: A Space Odyssey" may have experienced a slight shiver and carefully waited if Watson would say it: "Hello Dave". Others might have enjoyed this science fiction presentation, but besides Watson's obvious advantage in being the fastest to answer the question, it's clear that computers are still far away from being intelligent. And hopefully they will stay that way.

Windows-branded computers on TV. Entering a new market or product placement fail?

Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:02:11 GMT

Lately I've been noticing a lot of television shows that used computers with a Windows logo on their back. Classic product placement, where advertising blends with an event, movie or a TV show. The master of product placement in the mentioned segment is currently Apple, who also has suitable products for most occasions – beautiful and recognizable laptop and desktop computers. But Microsoft doesn't make computers at all. It does make some hardware (Xbox, Zune), but its focus is mostly on software (and lately on consumer electronics), so why the hell would they want to advertise something that doesn't even exist? Have they lost their mind or are they entering yet another market?

The past years have been hell for Microsoft. Bill Gates left, and current CEO Steve Ballmer sold a huge pile of shares a few weeks ago. Apple even managed to become more valuable than Microsoft, and Microsoft is obviously looking for different opportunities to stay in the game. Because I don't really believe they will start producing computers (tablets perhaps?), I can imagine these product placement efforts were created to gain lost ground on the OS market and targeted against Apple, but I think they could have come up with something more appropriate. In my opinion, Microsoft's greatest opportunity still lies in business environments (Office, SQL, asp.net, …), but while they're trying to focus on other segments, they are loosing that enterprise software market to other players such as Google.

Product placement in general makes sense for Microsoft, with Xbox, Windows 7, Windows Mobile 7, even Kinect and Surface as perfect candidates, because they look cool and Microsoft actually produces (or will produce) them. But advertising Windows computers, that's a bit ridiculous. Perhaps this type of marketing actually works on other target groups, but for more tech-savvy consumers such as myself, it looks desperate and fake, because we all know Microsoft doesn't even make computers. Worse, it looks like Microsoft is trying to position itself close to Apple (even the logo imitates Apple's), but doesn't stand a chance against the design perfection of a Mac. In the end, all this money spent perhaps made Apple look cooler and might have even helped them more than it helped Microsoft.

Microsoft should focus on the fields it masters and does best (or at least try to expose their know-how and advantages), because they have little chance to succeed competing on the markets that are dominated by other players (Apple in design, Google in search). And they should stop marketing fake branded computers, because they simply look silly. Perhaps this October campaign was a short experiment or even some sort of the ultimate innovative marketing strategy made by the greatest advertising agency in the world which I don't understand and appreciate, but I think it's actually quite ineffective and wrong. Or am I wrong?

How I Met Your Mother: Season 6, Episode 4. Aired October 11th, 2010 on CBS.

Lie To Me: Season 3, Episode 2. Aired October 11th, 2010 on FOX.

The Mentalist: Season 3, Episode 5 (also other episodes). Aired October 21st, 2010 on CBS.

UPDATE (26.2.2011): Here are a few more shows doing it. It looks like it's a CBS and FOX thing.

The Good Guys: Season 1, Episode 15 (also other episodes). Aired October 29th, 2010 on FOX.

Bones: Season 6, Episode 14. Aired February 17th, 2011 on FOX.

Google 2.0, take infinity: Google Me

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:17:35 GMT

The past few months have been loaded with expectations and speculations about the new social service from Google that will be introduced soon: Google Me. Facebook is currently dominating the social market, with 500 million registered users and an expected 2 billion dollars of revenue in 2010. It's satellites, mostly in the form of social gaming providers, are also gaining momentum, e.g. Zynga, the most successful of the pack, could generate $500 million in revenue this year. Even though Google's revenue is still much much greater, more than $20 billion a year to be exact, this does not change the fact the future of the World Wide Web lies in social – and Google obviously wants to be a part of that.

SEO is out

We can see for ourselves that the Web has been shifting to a new shape, where you don't look for information anymore, information finds you (push vs. pull). Another interesting fact - The Search Engine Strategies (SES) conference was not about Search Engine Optimization (SEO) this year, it was about possibilities of new social strategies. Modern viral campaigns that use social media, such as the one for Old Spice, make traditional web strategies seem plain, ineffective and a thing of the past. And Google, once the ultimate company and employer, the coolest place to work in, is facing a leakage of its employees towards Facebook, currently valued at 33+ billion. Middle aged Google, slowly loosing its coolness against the new kid on the block.

Facebook is in

A few days ago, Facebook was granted with a patent concerning social search, an algorithm build on the number of clicks made by your social vicinity. A really interesting idea, and potentially a great threat to probably the world's greatest (most valuable) mathematical algorithm – Google PageRank. This is not some service of a new type anymore, this one competes directly with Google's core business and the thing that made the corporation what it is today. And Google desperately needs to strike back.

Google's past attempts with Web 2.0 weren't that successful. From the decline of Orkut, to canceled Wave and useless Buzz, these services didn't quite make it to wider use, leaving aside YouTube. The following infographic beautifully shows all Google's (mostly failed) attempts at social, but they will still give it another go - this time in the form of Google Me.

Google wants in

Aimed to be a Facebook clone, some people say it has great potential, some are reserved, while others think it will be a failure. Besides, an open alternative called Diaspora is set to launch September 15th with huge social buzz, so this game might turn out really interesting. But Google, once the web's innovation leader, is slowly turning into an old school player, finding it hard to cope with new concepts. Something similar is happening to Nokia, who has problems with fully penetrating the smart phone market, and is loosing ground towards new players, such as Apple and the whole Android movement.

But a few strategic takeovers (check out the complete history) and strong partnerships and acquisitions of social gaming providers may just enable Google the brain power it needs to provide a successful Facebook alternative. Facebook is currently loosing some hype and if Google is able to provide a fresh service for what the core functionality of Facebook is – connecting with people you know – this just might work. But this time, it will have to be something smart and creative (but not too creative like Wave), similar, but different (not a total clone like Twitter's clone Buzz), and Google could get a chance to get on top of things again. The only question is if Google still has enough out of the box thinking left to pull it off and finally become a real Web 2.0 player.

I'm really eager to see what they'll do and like many curious people, I will surely give it a try. The only question is if it will be just a try, or will it be interesting enough (for others) to persuade me to stay. For Google's sake, I hope it will, otherwise they may face an even bigger problem on a strategic scale: the lost domination of the World Wide Web.

The Web is going rogue. The Web is going mainstream.

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:16:40 GMT

Times are changing, and the World Wide Web isn't any different. You've probably already noticed your mother on Facebook and it's not too hard to understand that interests of specific generations can be a bit different. The same goes for young people, who are obviously growing up in a world of their own, a confusing world overwhelmed with infinite amounts of information.

In the USA, already 93% of people under 18 are online. A massive group, which is probably the main driving force behind changing how the Web looks, and they are actually doing quite a good job in making it mainstream and pop. The Web used to be a part of the geeky subculture, but lately it's becoming just one of the mass media, another television on steroids.

YouTube

A great example of this pop transformation are top videos on YouTube. Star Wars Kid, David After Dentist and other classic home-made videos are starting to look unimpressive compared to Lady Gaga's and Justin Bieber's music videos. If you check the current list of most viewed videos, you can see that YouTube is really becoming more of a PopTube, where record labels are dominating the chart with high budget music videos. Lady Gaga managed to be the first pop artist with the most viewed YouTube video, but was quickly dethroned by Bieber. A sad fate for the biggest online video sharing tool.

Twitter

When people who actually have something smart to say are getting less followers on Twitter than pop princesses, you know something's gone wrong. Ashton Kutcher, the king of Twitter and the guy who beat CNN to one million followers, was overtaken by Britney Spears in the number of followers just a few moths ago. This is just the beginning - the following list provides information about top Twitter users, where you can see more and more pop stars whose accounts are emerging and taking the lead. Perhaps I'm not the correct target group, but Britney's Twitter account with her 423 tweets pretty much sucks!

Google

Google is kind enough to allow us insight into it's most popular searches of every year, which offers great overview of the culture of a specific era (Google Zeitgeist: 2007, 2008, 2009). This is The spirit of the times, as seen by world's biggest search engine:

In 2007, there were no people or other pop brands on the top 10 list of searches.
In 2008, Sarah Palin became 1st and Obama took 6th place, but that was mostly because of the US presidential elections, which can't really be considered pop. Pop star searches included Heath Ledger on 5th (because of his death) and the band Jonas Brothers on 10th place.
In 2009, the trend of pop searches continued. Michael Jackson became 1st (due to this death), New Moon (Twilight movie) finished 6th and Lady Gaga 7th. Creepy enough, but wait until Justin gets on the list in 2010.

These are some of the cases showing the evolution of the World Wide Web, currently ruled by it's undisputed queen, Lady Gaga. The scary part is that all of this is probably just a virtual portrait of the real world of today, where Pop Stars and Supermodel reality shows are helping to create new values and a wannabe society. And the Web is not just a victim of this trend anymore, it became an active player helping to promote this new and strange culture.

All of this saddens me a bit, and this is my puny effort to change this trend. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

Facebook vs. Twitter - Part 2: Privacy and real-time web

Thu, 13 May 2010 17:11:14 GMT

After my previous post comparing Facebook and Twitter I received a few comments about how Facebook and Twitter are two totally different services which can't really be compared. I admit they are not perfectly analog, but my thoughts originate mainly from the fact that these two players will probably be those who'll define how the social web of tomorrow will look, from the point of user experience as well as an organizational and marketing tool. Where Google dominates Web 1.0, Facebook and Twitter are obviously becoming the leaders of Web 2.0, and the fact is any of them (including Google) has a good chance to define Web 3.0.

What's new

The past few weeks have been pretty intense for Facebook and Twitter. The two Web 2.0 rivals both held conferences about how their companies are doing and revealing plans for the future. Facebook's (f8) main presented functionality was the universal Like button, which was already adopted by more than 50.000 websites in its first week, even though with a bit of problems. Twitter (Chirp) announced its service has more users than expected (105m registered, 180m unique users a month) and their main focus in the future will be Twitter Annotations, used for making Tweets embedded with meta-data used for better indexing and search. These two features imply that one of the main battlefields of the future of web will surely be the semantic web, for which experts say at this point Facebook has the advantage.

Real-time web

Leaving aside speculations about where this whole story is headed and how the semantic web will turn out, and concentrate on another thing hot right now: real-time web. Real-time web has so much potential even Google wanted a part of it. Sadly, Buzz came out a bit of a failure, and most of it's traffic is non-generated. The giant probably doesn't really care because it can display Tweets and other streams in it's search results, finding a symbiosis with real-time web services, similar as it has with Wikipedia. But still, it's "new" Buzz service proves that real-time web is interesting for everybody, even the biggest web company in the world.

The main point of real-time web is already hidden in its name. It's about information when it happens. News portals and blogs are minutes if not hours behind, after all, they usually present professional and lectured articles with sources and photographies. But in this hectic and hyper-speed world we live in, information has the highest value when it happens. In the case of extraordinary and unpredictable events, such as natural and man-made disasters, or just casual popular things, such as the premiere of a new movie, timing means everything. That is why journalists turn to these sources more and more, and CNN occasionally analyzes the twittersphere live on television, taking advantage of these new modern media platforms. They actually deserve to be congratulated for seizing this great opportunity.

Privacy issues

Where does Facebook fit into this picture? Well, to be honest, I think it's still trying to fit in it, and that's what the whole "Privacy and real-time web" in this post title is all about. To understand what I'm getting at, we must go a few years back, back to Facebook's beginnings. Facebook started as a closed network for elite schools, then slowly opening up to general public to become one of the biggest websites ever. The service and concept was originally based around privacy – where everything you did you had a full control over who will see it, what probably made it big in the first place. Today, this privacy is almost gone, and even Mark Zuckerberg admitted it doesn't interest them any more.

This decline of Facebook's privacy is concerning many people right now, and you can check out this interesting evolution for yourself (also visualized). Activism and search for alternatives have already made it to the mainstream and it looks like I'm becoming a part of this movement too. Don't get me wrong, I still think Facebook is a great service both for personal and professional life, but sometimes you just have to not want it all (sounds familiar?). It's a bit ironic actually, the thing which made Facebook could also become its end.

In the case of content providing, real-time web and search, for which Facebook perhaps also has ambitions, privacy is a giant barrier. Facebook has content, not only that, it has the most content of them all (including multimedia), but this valuable content is entangled inside Facebook's huge web of (dissolving) privacy, making most of the streams unreachable for general public. Even Facebook Pages, designed to have their information fully open to public, were not helping a lot, because it's the the millions of microbloggers, from the most influential, to the most insignificant, who are empowering the real-time web, and not brands and corporations. Real-time web is a giant crowdsourced news network with reporters scattered all around the world, and that is something Facebook so desperatly wants to be a part of, using all means necessary.

Twitter is the king

We will see if Facebook went too far or will it be able to become a real player in real-time web too. For now, Twitter seems to be the dominant platform and the fact that it's entire timeline will be archived in the Library of Congress is an amazing achievement proving this theory. Facebook's only option to make it on this market is to continue getting rid of privacy, making it's content available for everybody, both human and machine. Of course, there will be other players too and uncle Google will sit right on top of it, trying to use all the platforms and services to its own benefit.

Number of users is the crucial component of real-time web, so Facebook could probably have a greater potential in this field in the long run too. But the truth is Facebook users are becoming annoyed, and it's still a question how they'll accept its new strategic policy and how intimidated they will become by its frequent debacles. But the attachment to Facebook can sometimes be too heavy, so it will be interesting to see if users will actually leave Facebook or simply adapt to its new privacy, continuing to feed it with accessible real-time content.

If the future is semantic web, reality is real-time web, and at this point Twitter is very much in the lead. In the end, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference for a casual user if he gets the information late, but still, the whole concept of real-time web is quite amazing and holds great potential for many people and businesses. An interesting thing, the World Wide Web is, and everything that came with it. Welcome to 2010.

Check out the complete Facebook vs. Twitter series.

Why are all browser logos and icons round (and blue)?

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:23:31 GMT

I'm not a professional graphic designer, but I've been doing web development for years and got to know a few things about it, both intentionally and accidentally. I hope my designer friends won't get mad with me simplifying design in this post, but the way I see it, there are mostly two main purposes design serves. One is to support function (present both in industrial and graphic design) and the other is to enable effective representation and communication (specific for graphic design).

Logos are probably one of the most praised elements of graphic design. They make an effective characterization of a company, product or service, besides being aesthetic and memorable to enable high user recollection. It's also good to have an original logo, something that stands out from the rest and helps a brand not to get mistaken with other brands. But there is always a trade-off between creativity and standard, and in our case of browser logos and icons, it looks like this desired representation was a bit more important than originality. Most of the browser logo designers went for a safe and predictable solution, producing one of the greatest graphic design cliches of our time.

When you think about the Internet and the World Wide Web, there are probably not so many geometrical shapes and colors you can associate it with. The net is huge, endless and fluid, so the proper shape is definitely not a triangle, a square or something else with edges. The net is global and it's everywhere, so the color representing it has to be something resembling our planet.

If you compare six of the most popular internet browser icons, you can see this concept in action. Most browser logos and icons are round and contain blue, except Opera, who went for red. But it's not just about the shape and the color, the bottom line is they generally look alike, using similar elements such as Earth, light beams and reflections. Opera logo stands out, but upon second observation, it kinda looks like an uncreative red Internet Explorer clone, so perhaps it's even worse than the others.

Are the designers behind these solutions to blame? Probably not. The internet browser is arguably the most widely used piece of software there is, so it's important that your mother also finds it's icon representable and appealing. The truth is we probably won't reinvent the World Wide Web or colonize the galaxy any time soon, so there is a good chance we also won't see any original and creative browser logos any time soon too. Therefore we just have to accept that round and blue it is.

Trademarks and logos are the property of their respective owners.

Slovenian grocers going for Web 2.0 design

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:12:48 GMT

It’s obvious that Slovenian grocers are using TV as their main advertising medium, the same as many others. Nothing wrong with that. Their commercials are typical for their industry, emphasizing actual promotions and discounts and going for direct sales mostly. Nothing wrong with that too. They finish off with their logo on the screen, so they do a bit of branding too. Reasonable, you have to use all marketing approaches. But wait a minute, why do their logos look Web 2.0?

Using a reflection under a logo, picture or icon was started by the king of design, Apple, and was later on embraced by the Web 2.0 architects and designers. Here is an overview of history of Web 2.0 design, from the times we didn't even know what Web 2.0 was. Today, this stylish feature can be seen anywhere and is already becoming a cliché, but who am I to tell...

After I started being more observant, I noticed that half of the commercials on Slovenian television are using some sorts of reflections, for which we don’t know if they supposedly communicate modern and web (2.0) approaches or are they used just for aesthetic reasons. So much for their creativity anyways. But there is something important they forgot – Web 2.0 is not design, Web 2.0 is a concept.

In our case, the two grocers mentioned are Mercator and Tuš who, interesting enough, don't use the same Web 2.0 logos on their websites. Mercator is ahead though, they have a Facebook page and an active Twitter account, while Tuš failed to recognize new types of media and new Web 2.0 approaches for marketing (and their web site looks like it's from 1995).

I wasn't able to find these advertisements online, so I had to do it old school - photographing the television. The quality is miserable, but enough to prove my point. Looks like Web 2.0 design is so in that it's already out.

Trademarks and logos are the property of their respective owners.

What's hot on the web - Part 4: Performances gone wrong

Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:03:09 GMT

A lot of time has passed since our last What's hot on the web broadcast, so I bet you are already eager to see more. The series is doing quite well, but the time has come to do a bit of specialization. This part will be focused on weird (and therefore funny) performances from around the globe, turning into epic fail. Looks like some people think they are ready for the spotlight, but they aren’t. Youtube, you can make our day.

Model takes a tumble twice

I don’t know what's funnier about this one, the commentators who can't stop laughing or the model who does the boogie woogie. We all know fashion has it's price, but the price for this one is a new type of dance nobody can reproduce.

Staying on stage fail

If you have a public performance and you actually do choose to play on playback, make sure you stay on the stage. Otherwise, everybody will know what you're doing...

Ken Lee

This one already became a legend. A girl, performing at a Talents competition in Bulgaria wanted to sing Mariah Carey's Ken Lee, a song which nobody heard of. It turns out she got the lyrics of Without you a bit wrong, which is amusing the jury. Later on she tried to repeat the performance and do it again with the right lyrics, but the original version took the most applause. The extensions of this meme went so far that even Mariah herself made a comment about it.

Is Europe a country?

Stereotypes have it that Americans suck at geography and that blonds are a bit, well, you know... This one proves them right. In a show where people compete against fifth graders, this girl fails miserably when she thinks Europe is a country.

American educational system

On beauty contests, answers of the competitors are always a bit interesting. In this case, it looks like Miss South Carolina didn't quite understand what the question on American education was and she answers a totally different thing. Besides, even if she answered something, nobody knows what that was. A sad irony.

Exclusive nightclub fail

There are a lot of interesting moments on TV shows and quizes, so we won't even try to go through all of them. We’ve all seen The wheel of fortune, where people have to guess the right letters and words. The following competitor almost had it, but not quite. Check your spelling capabilities before you go playing a game like that.

Wrong price is right winner

Another cool quiz that produces a lot of awkward moments is Price is right. This one is twice funny. First, this woman makes a really stupid bet, putting her in a situation where she has almost no chance of winning. Besides, when the price is told, she thinks she actually won. Twice. Triple fail for that one.

Coconut breaking

People do all sorts of crazy shit to get noticed. Like this guy, who sets out to break a few coconuts with his hand. Hm, even before you see the footage you can tell this was a bad idea...

I hope these perfomances make you think before going public. Once it’s online, you’ll be marked forever.

Check out the complete What's hot on the web series.

Slovenia vs. Slovakia - a (football) match made in heaven

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:57:58 GMT

Slovenia and Slovakia share a common problem. They are both victims of identity theft, because they, well, they look the same. They have a similar name, they have a similar national flag, they even have a similar post socialistic "my previous country is now ten countries" story. Luckily, they also share a similar newly appointed capitalistic EU success. Slovenia and Slovakia are the first two transitional countries to enter the European monetary union. We did it two years before. And we won the football match yesterday.

As a part of qualifications for the world cup 2010, a football match happened in Bratislava, Slovakia, between Slovenia and Slovakia. Some foreigners who were watching it, probably thought "what's wrong with these guys, why is a country competing against itself?". Because it's two countries, you idiot. Slovenia, Slovakia, don't you see the difference between an "n" and a "k"? Well, no. The truth is, that's understandable, Slovenia and Slovakia look the same. Or is it Slovekia and Slovania?

George W. Bush confused Slovenia and Slovakia once. Other great performances include playing the wrong anthem on political and sport events. Awkward and embarassing indeed.

The story of a country, trying not to be another country, is a bit sad. It influences people, identity and patriotism. Almost everybody I know feels this itch in the back of our country's recognition and branding in the global society. But it's too late (and not acceptable) to change the name or at least the national flag after so many years. Therefore we have nothing left but to make the most out of it. I wonder how Slovaks feel about it.

This unique situation could actually become a competitive advantage for both countries. Hey, we are the only two countries in the world that look the same. Who cares about the other 200 countries, they actually resemble each other even more - none of them have another country that's the same as theirs. Perhaps we are even some lost cousins that went separate ways sometime in history and will be reunited one day as the first same double country in Europe. Infinite possibilities.

After these thoughts I feel better and a bit proud to be a part of this funny situation. Go Slovakia (as long as it's not football)!

Price elasticity of demand - operating systems and Snow Leopard

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:25:49 GMT

A lot of my colleagues from the Faculty of Economics think their study was mostly a waste of time. Too much focus on old, out of date concepts and approaches, too little focus on real life. I can't argue with that, it is a bit old school and theoretical, so it's up to the student to make the most out of the abstract things he learned. But you can't do that before you see the real world. And you also have to put a bit of thinking into the whole picture. Then you are able to see that basic concepts, such as supply and demand are everywhere (not only in economics and business) and can fully explain why the sweets of the most scarce flavor in the box taste the best.

Another interesting concept in economics is price elasticity. To put it in simple words, it explains how people react to different prices of the same commodity. Elementary goods, such as food, are not elastic; if a loaf of bread costs 50 cents or 2 €, the bakers will sell about the same amount, because people need it for living and they will buy it anyway. On the other hand, luxury goods are very elastic. If a basic car would costs 5.000 € or 20.000 €, the people would react strongly to it, and only a few people would buy cars because they would be too expensive.

There's a whole theory behind it on how to find the optimal price for goods. Record labels don't want to see it and the whole record industry is in a crisis, while music piracy is in bloom. In my opinion, I would buy a lot of records, if they would cost 5 € each. In real world, I won't buy many because they cost 20 € each. So, the big question at hand is: would the global record industry sell more than 4 times the number of records they do if the price was 4 times cheaper? I think they would - and if I am right, this would mean that music records are price elastic.

These days we are witnessing a very good example on price elasticity of software and it looks like Apple has done it again. They're offering their newest operating system Snow Leopard for 29 € to users of the previous version (Leopard). Rumors have it you can put it also on the prior version (Tiger), which I hope is true, because I already bought it (it is possible according to AppleInsider). So, at the same time Windows users are struggling not to let go of Windows XP and are sticking to the past, Apple is giving away their new operating system for a price of a good meal and everybody wants it. Pretty smart for market penetration and building customer loyalty.

I wouldn't pay 150 € to go for a new version of an operating system, which is about the regular price of Windows Vista or Mac OS, specially if the current one works. But 30 € completely changes the story. The result is interesting; it caused a demand overflow and here in Slovenia you had to make a reservation and wait for a week to get it. When I went to the store, everybody was buying Snow Leopards. I understand the cult of Mac, but this was amazing and a good example of market supremacy.

Looks like the strategists at Apple know their economics as well as they now their marketing.

How Nokia lost its mobile interface domination and how Apple took it

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:17:31 GMT

When first cell phones came around, almost everybody I know had a Nokia. They were working for years and they had a nice interface. You could do everything with excactly four function buttons: Menu (also Yes, Receive and Hang up call), Cancel, Up and Down. Simple and smart, as less is more.

Nokia is still cool in Europe, but they are having difficulties penetrating the US and were forced to leave the Japanese market. And there is another star rising, and it's called the iPhone. Apple was able to take 1% of global mobile market share with just one high end model. The first generation did not make it to Japan, but they were able to do that too with the second 3G model.

Apple made quite an interesting strategy, as they gave the iPhone the thing they do best - awesome software. Ok, first generations did miss a few basic features, but the usability was and still is superior. All other phones's software feels the same, but iPhone OS feels better. And it uses only one button.

If you look at an ordinary Nokia phone today, it has about ten function buttons: Menu, Function one, Function two, Receive, Hang up, Left, Right, Up, Down, OK. That can be confusing and a lot of people end up not using all of them. Luckily Nokia was able to understand this and started going back to basics.

After their acquisition of Symbian, it looks like things will turn out for the better. The N series looks good and the N97 looks amazing. Other companies were finally able to notice that mobile phones should be fun to use.

There are other players, like Samsung, RIM and Google, who are following the little revolution the iPhone made. iPhone may not be perfect and the best, but one thing is certain. Apple showed us that software and user experience do matter, and they matter a lot.

I want it all - the curious case of Microsoft

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:18:12 GMT

There's Microsoft, probably the biggest software company in the world. And there are others. In the past years Microsoft has been trying to expand it's business to pretty much all the markets, faintly connected with it's core business - developing software. Marketing experts could say this is not a good strategy, because it is better for companies to retain their focus and stay specialized in things they do best. But if Samsung can build bridges in South Korea and at the same time make smart phones, why shouldn't Microsoft make iPods?

There are a few interesting new markets Microsoft entered into. But are they profitable enough to let the Windows family suffer because of this expansion? Here are the most significant:

Gaming consoles market: the Xbox 360 is supposed to be one of the best gaming consoles according to independent tests, because of it's high performance and good online support. They even offer some exclusive Grand theft auto content, which was probably the most anticipated game of this year.
Portable media devices: we are supposed to see the new Zune HD in autumn, designed to kill the iPod dominance of portable mp3 and video devices. But is it cool enough to be able to take this burden upon itself?
Search: a few years ago Microsoft introduced Live search, which was the successor of MSN search. A few months ago Bing was launched, and it is actually successfully taking search engine usage and share from Google and Yahoo, at least for now. But is it just curiosity, or is it actually good enough to replace The mighty one?

In the mean time, Windows Vista was quite a debacle and left most of the users longing and keeping Windows XP. We will see how Windows 7 does, but they surely lost a good position against Mac and Linux in the past years. I still think that Microsoft's business suite is the best there is (Office, asp.net, SQL server), but negative attitude can easily travel from operating systems towards enterprise environment and fun gadgets. People want the iPod and the iPhone because it is easy and fun to use, will they think the same about Zune after using Windows Vista?

It is always fun and interesting to check what the stock market says. The following diagram compares Microsoft (MSFT) to it's competitors from different markets mentioned above, Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOG) and Nintendo (NTDOY), from the beginning of 2005 until now.

It doesn't look that good, does it (even though the dates and players in the diagram were carefully chosen to support the hypothesis)?

Billion = Trillion: who is the one that can't count?

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:53:07 GMT

There are a lot of cultural differences around the world and between individual countries of the western civilization. On which side of the road should I drive, how hot the weather is or perhaps most importantly - how big this beer is. The reaches of different measurement and interpretation are immense, so why should counting be any different.

How big is a billion? There are two different ways of naming big numbers, and they are called the Short scale and the Long scale. The long scale numerical system was used first, but in the 17th century, when traditional six-digit groups were split up into three-digit groups, short scale slowly came to use. Today, short scale numerical system is in use mainly in English speaking countries, while long scale is used in central Europe and around the world.

I personally prefer using the long scale, as it is mathematically more correct. Actually, I have no other choice, but it seems easy to represent something you were born into.

So what is the main difference? Long scale numerical system uses a word Billion to represent million millions or million square (1.000.000² = 1.000.000.000.000), and a Trillion is a million to the power of three or million billions (1.000.000³). On the the other hand, short scale uses "one more" for every new term greater than million. In this case, Billion represents thousand millions (1.000.000.000), Trilion is a million millions (1.000.000.000.000) etc., so yup, billion equals trillion.

It's an interesting world we live in. And different date formats are a pain in the ass for software developers.