Stritar's chronolog

Sempl 14 key takeaways: top trends in (digital) marketing

Tue, 04 Dec 2012 07:35:00 GMT

The 14th media trends seminar Sempl took place last week in Portorož. This year, I had an opportunity to attend the conference, since Neolab provided the official Twitter wall. And I was glad I could, because Sempl proved itself as an event worth visiting, packed with high profile speakers and marketers not only from Slovenia, but from the entire region. Most lectures were very interesting, and the fascinating fact is that they all went into the same direction. It seems mobile, social and local are so mainstream, they are not even put into the spotlight anymore. But here are the things that were.

Content

Forget classic marketing, it doesn't work (online) anymore. Ads don't work with social, and they don't work with mobile. Advertisers now have to go beyond "YeDiLi" (Yell Disrupt Lie) concept and deliver better, more complete experiences wrapper around their brands. Content marketing within the right context is the what keeps the consumers engaged and loyal, and some brands are already removing their products from their web pages, replacing them with editorial and social content.

Storytelling

Content is crucial, but so is the experience for consumers, which can be delivered using storytelling. People want to be seduced, they need to have the feeling they are a part of a bigger picture, specially if they have the chance join the conversation and the ability to co-create the experience. Storytelling is what helps to keep them engaged with a brand and share their loyalty with their peers.

Futurist Gerd Leonhard delivering his lecture "The total reset of marketing, branding and media"

Second screen

While television still rules the media budgets, more and more people stick to their phones while watch it. Enter the age of the second screen, provided by tablets and smartphones. This is probably one of the biggest opportunities for marketers to deliver all of the above, since these little capable devices support so many things. The ads of the future will be multi-channel interactive experiences, watched on many screens at once. Transmedia FTW.

bonus: the new Shazam is awesome

The platform that fully embraces all of the mentioned concepts has to be the new Shazam. You know that app that recognizes the song you are listening to? Now it can also understand which TV show you are watching, and delivers additional content that comes with it. Cast, trivia, products on screen, etc. One of the best cases that were presented was by Red Bull, which enables watching a snowboard movie with multiple cameras. Crazy shit!

These are the most significant digital marketing trends presented on the conference. Are you already thinking about your next move? Here are the slides from the conference to help you on your way.

Do you think we are slowly reaching the end (of science)?

Sat, 07 Jul 2012 09:59:15 GMT

This was great week for science. The scientists from CERN Large Hadron Collider finally proved with great probability that the Higgs boson particle exists. Not that any of us mortals truly understand what it means for the future of mankind, but it's supposed to be quite significant, so I won't argue with that. Science has come a long way, and while we take into account a few other interesting and revolutionary fields, such as Artificial Intelligence, Biotechnolooy, Nuclear Fission, Stem Cells, Genetics, etc., we must also consider the timeframe in which these discoveries did or will take place, in relation to the history of our planet and humanity.

Imagine this: if history of Earth would be represented by one standard year, first cells would appear by the end of February, life would move to dry land around December 1st, dinosaurs would appear on December 13th, modern mammals on December 27th. On the evening on December 31st, first hominids would evolve in Africa, and 10 minutes before midnight, Neanderthals would spread throughout Europe. Around minute to midnight, agriculture would be invented, the Roman Empire would collapse 10 seconds before new year's, and the last 2 seconds would be marked by the industrial era. (source)

Makes you think about our insignificance in the history of Earth (not even the whole universe). But we've come a long way in these few minutes. The steam engine was invented 250 years ago, and look at us now. All in two seconds of Earth's history!

I think it was Isaac Asimov who said modern computerization represents the fourth big revolution in communication, after speech, writing and printing. Speech was invented tens of thousands of years ago, writing thousands of years ago, printing hundreds of years ago, and information technologies decades ago. Yes, it goes exponentially faster with each iteration, because every new generation of communication allows information to travel faster and reach more people, besides the fact that each time, global population is a few times greater than before. This enables science and knowledge to evolve even on a faster pace. Thousands of universities and scientist are already taking into account what CERN had discovered and announced, developing theories even further, making experiments of their own.

If all goes well, I think there is only one possible scenario: we will soon come to the end. Find that particle, understand that impulse, define that force. And by soon I don't mean tomorrow, or even in our generation, but in no time compared to History. Hundred, even thousand years? Why not. Ten, hundred thousand years? Sure, we have time, what are a few "minutes" more. Imagine everything we'll discover if we don't fuck it up on a major scale and our society evolves in a similar fashion as it did before.

But what is waiting for us at the end? Well, I think we are all pretty much aware of that. "Why are we here?", "What do we have to do?", "Is this real life?" and that sort of shit that brought us here in the first place. I think science has a good chance of clearing these things up one day, and then we will find the ultimate answer (or question). And Science will become one with Religion and the whole situation will be quite ironic, concerning the traditionally opposed stance they have. The only question that remains is, will we live happily ever after then, or will we just find another, greater and even more complex system, where we will have to help our Gods find their Gods?

The final destination, part 1: technologies and concepts enterprise IT will have to adopt

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:38:09 GMT

In the past years, we've witnessed a very important transformation: the consumerization of information technologies. Billions of connected users living their life online, overwhelmed by millions of information systems that have been tailored to suit their every need and desire. Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon came a long way with their products and infrastructure, but the enterprise isn't losing any time. Learning from the new paradigms and adopting new funky technologies, that have traditionally been developed in corporate laboratories. Can the Fab 4 also predict where enterprise IT is headed? And what will it become?

A few weeks ago I participated in a panel for PI-PL on Ljubljana's Faculty of Economics, where I was asked this exact question: where do I see corporate IT in 10 years. A very hard question indeed, but the more I thought about the it, the clearer it became. Enterprise data, software and technology will sooner or later integrate everything. Simple as that. But to fully understand how this will happen, we must first try to identify the most important trends that have shaped information technologies as we know them today. Yes, most of them don't have that much to do with the enterprise. But things are changing.

Cloud technologies

While cloud computing may have been present in the enterprise for quite some time, it's still pretty much dominated by web players like Google (mail, docs, etc.) and Amazon (hardware), who are also flirting with the enterprise. Who wouldn't? There are massive benefits for businesses to move their stuff to the cloud, from scalable physical Infrastructure to higher level Platform or Software as a service information systems.

Perhaps the most important thing the Cloud achieved was to render technology infrastructure irrelevant. It doesn't matter any more, what kind of environment you use. What type of security, infrastructure, servers and network you have installed. You can outsource these things to others, and it will be much easier and cheaper, while all your migrating-to-a-bigger-thing problems will be solved with a swipe of a credit card. I was fascinated that Microsoft now offers Linux based servers on their Azure cloud services, which can be changed to Windows with a click of a button. Architecture doesn't matter anymore, and this fact helps IT departments to focus on more important things than system administration.

APIs, mashups, platforms and ecosystems

Heavily connected with the whole Cloud concept, data and information never had it easier to travel from one place to another. System migrations (moving data from one information system to another) and system integrations (connecting multiple information systems into one) have always been one of the biggest challenges of IT. But the web didn't have as much resources as the enterprise, so it had to simplify things. By offering APIs (Application Programming Interface), web applications allowed others applications to work with their data in an easy way. Mashups, hybrid information systems built on top of others, were born.

Pretty much every noteworthy web service has its own API. This helped a lot of them to become a platform. You know, like Facebook and Twitter, who have created an ecosystem, where thousands of other applications live around them? Soon, similar concepts will dominate the enterprise too. There are already players like Salesforce, who not only offer business-oriented Software as a service solutions, but the also a Platform for other developers to build services on top of their services. And since everything is so open, all this data can easily be integrated with other information systems or transferred to a different environment. Modern information systems don't have problems with understanding each other, but IT departments have problems with understanding information systems, since different, more business oriented skills are needed to support these integrations.

Mobile devices and new distribution channels

More than ten years ago, when I was an Information Sciences student, there was still a debate going on about the benefits of web based enterprise information systems over traditional Client - Server architecture. In the end, the Web won, mostly because distribution was so easy, you make the update on the server, and every user gets it instantly. Employees need nothing but a browser. They are acquainted with the environment ever since they started using Hotmail, and took it for their own ever since they started using Facebook.

But today, it seems the Web is losing its ground as the leading infrastructure, since a new technology came into town. Capable mobile devices, like smartphones and tablets, now enable access to information systems from anywhere, anytime in real-time. Besides, they arrived with their own app markets, which enabled a whole potential for software distribution, and perhaps more importantly, for software billing. You give a fair share to the store owner, who also promotes your solution, and you can freely focus on developing and marketing the product. It's true that mobile apps may not be as flexible as web applications, since the users need to install the updates (even though this can also be achieved by combining native mobile and hosted HTML 5), but the trend is clear. Apple already has its Mac store, Microsoft Windows will follow soon. Distribution of mobile and Software as a service information systems is becoming trivial.

Big data and The internet of things

Traditionally, banks, retailers and financial institutions have been the organizations that operated with the most data in the world. Well, things are changing, and we can only wonder who owns the most bytes today: is it Google, Facebook or someone else? Since there are less transactions than there are interactions, we can estimate consumer oriented information systems with billions of users are the biggest in existence. While this data is accessible to the enterprise to some extent, there are also hundreds of other systems the enterprise or its employees use, and they all create massive amounts of data and information, which needs to be integrated into a wider picture.

Not only that. Today, there are already are more connected devices that we have initially anticipated. These devices (cameras, sensors, tools, etc.) create even more data, which the enterprise needs to process. This trend of wired gadgets is called The internet of things, and together with the large amount of interconnectable information systems businesses use, points to one important trend: the typical enterprise was never faced with so much data and information, which somehow needs to be integrated and understood in an interdisciplinary way.

New ways of doing things, on a higher level

In the mean time, these consumer oriented (B2C) web corporation not only became a few of the biggest technology companies in existence, they've also invented new ways of how to get things done. From Google's 20%, to flat organizations without management, more and more companies (not only startups) set out to revolutionize how business is done. In the service oriented society, creativity is important, but so is productivity and the ability to ship fast. Done is better than perfect.

With new types of management concepts, such as lean and agile, modern organizations are becoming more and more flexible. Not only in doing things, but also in switching from one technology to another. These companies have developed their own way of thinking about which software to use. And it probably has a lot to do its price, how fast can you start using it, how scalable and connectable it is, and how fast can you dump if for another. IT requirements are moving to a higher level, and information systems have become just pieces of a puzzle that needs to be completed.

Design and user experience

Design and user experience probably still don't have that much to do with enterprise IT, but they are very much worth mentioning nevertheless. Face it, users are becoming more and more demanding, and software developers need to make better and better software. Even though the above mentioned facts are probably the dominating factor for the choice of which information systems the enterprise will use, design and user experience matter more and more.

Businesses have always had problems with implementing new software, educating the users, going through the whole status quo change. But beautiful and useful software penetrates faster. People perceive beautiful things to be more useful, and it's the whole intuitiveness and usability of software that helps them adopt something without too much resistance and problems. Some software vendors already found out user experience is the new competitive advantage, and in the end it may be the thing that tips the scale. But the whole point behind it is that I can see better, more clever and detailed, information systems force out older ones on an even faster pace. The whole world of information systems need reinvention, and user experience design will be the science behind these upgrades. Benefits are becoming more important than features.

Social, crowdsourcing and gamification

More than 3 years ago, I was very excited to present a concept we have been developing in Neolab on Days of Slovenian IT. I called it IT 2.0, since it meant integrating social services into enterprise software (at that time, Enterprise 2.0 was more widely used for stand-alone social software such as wikis or corporate blogs). The truth is, I didn't get the chance to sell it well, and in the mean time, disruptive social services managed to fully find their way into the enterprise. But business won't stop here; there are many other fascinating things the internet has invented that can fully be applied to corporate environments.

Gamification, the art of using gaming mechanics in non gaming environments, is getting more and more claim beyond the web. Both for motivating employees, as for motivating clients. We all like to play, so why should work be any different? And we all like to participate in something bigger, that is why crowdsourcing, where people coproduce something, can bring such exciting results. Can you see where I'm headed?

We are all human, and in the end, behaving on a very basic level. Sometimes we perform better, sometimes worse, and we all hold hidden potential even ourselves aren't aware of. That is what software in the workplace can sometimes help us discover, and it's something more and more businesses are aware of. Social, gamification and crowdsourcing are only a few approaches that can make us feel better and more motivated, and they are all concepts that enterprise IT will adopt sooner or later. Behind every company, there are only people.

The final destination of enterprise IT

These are the concepts and technologies that will shape enterprise IT of tomorrow. And with it, new challenges will emerge, together with new profiles of people, who will understand and use all of the above. These profiles, such as data scientists and business analysts, will help enterprise IT do what it was destined to do: Integrate life, the universe and everything.

But that's another story. Coming up soon.

Check out the complete The final destination series.

The future (of software) is in platforms

Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:26:11 GMT

I don't know if you've had the chance to read What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis. You should, it's a very powerful book, even though it's been written a few years ago. Things have changed a bit since then, when Google was on top of it's game, but that doesn't mean the ideas presented in the book aren't more actual than ever. One of the chapters that made the biggest impact on me was the one about platforms and distributed systems. Google managed to conquer the world of Web 1.0 by being decentralized, allowing others to embed YouTube videos, Google Maps and Ads anywhere on the Web. This orientation provided the fuel for Google's further development and growth. Today, this way of thinking is not a competitive advantage anymore, it's becoming a necessity. As you will see, current online market leaders of various industries are not those who provide the service, they're the ones who provide the platform.

Platforms rule because mashups rule

Platforms, as opposed to products and services, allow others to build on top of them. Not thinking about control and centralization, they provide the basic building blocks other can use to develop even more products and services. In the world of Web 1.0, this meant using an embedded YouTube video instead of having your own video player, but Web 2.0 has been heavily defined by ecosystems of services built around other services. With APIs these platforms provide, developing high-level mashups has never been easier from the technical point of view, and this type of architecture benefits everybody. The platform vendor gets additional developers that extend and market it's service, while the satellite mashup gets the distribution channels, users and data they need to get somewhere faster. A modern synergy packed symbiosis.

Oren Michels, CEO of Mashery, which provides API as a service, talking for Silicon Gardens in Kiberpipa

The technology platforms

Today, pretty much all of the technology market leaders are platforms. Google allows various levels of use of it's services, from embedding things to using different APIs. Facebook's games and other apps ecosystem is huge, with providers such as Zynga already gone public. Twitter and it's massive amounts of tweets generated in real-time produced the Twitterverse - an array of fascinating high-level services. Foursquare, a geo-location network allowed other interesting concepts, such as augmented reality and games, on top of its service. Amazon offers you to build your own store, and Apple's and Android's mobile app stores are hosting hundreds of thousands of apps developers can build, deploy and distribute in short amounts of time. Salesforce offers a platform for enterprise IT, WordPress for writing and blogging tools. I could go on, but you get the picture. Platforms are the future, because they evolve collaboratively, with thousands, if not millions of people co-creating them.

A massive Salesforce conference in San Francisco, which I've visited on my Silicon Valley trip (thanks Davorin!)

The real-life platforms

Not only in software and technology, platforms in real-life are also becoming more widespread. The whole Apple iPad/iPhone gadgets ecosystem is one of the most obvious cases, where various providers offer sound systems, dongles, add-ons and other accessories that upgrade and make the original item even more appealing. Nespresso and Dolce Gusto are another interesting products. Nestlé provides the platform - the small coffee pads, which they are pushing to the market, while different manufacturers make coffee machines and other complementary products. The platform becomes more useful because of its satellites, which make the platform even more successful, turning this relationship into a virtuous circle.

Coffee machines by various vendors for Nestlé Dolce Gusto

So what should I do?

Firstly, you should embrace this way of thinking and understand what's happening. Platforms have been around since the beginning of software, even though you maybe haven't thought about them in such a way. Computer architectures, Operating systems, Programming languages and Development environments are all platforms, on a more basic level - but they provide the foundation which others can build on top of. Other platforms are build atop of these and others atop of those. Platforms are everywhere, and with every new level, they are less technically, and more conceptually oriented. Think about where you fit in.

Next, find a platform that suits what you are trying to do. Personally, against many odds, I believe more in Twitter than I do in Facebook, since Facebook is trying to keep as much as possible inside its service, while Twitter acts distributed. One of our projects is Twenity, a game we've developed around Twitter influence measuring.

If you're feeling lucky, you might want to become a platform on your own. While this may be almost impossible to do, it's something I wish I will have the chance to do someday. Neolab already has its own development framework, and if we do manage to make enough surplus or find an investor that will take us down this road, I'll be the first one in line. That is, if we don't decide to join an established platform and rather build on top of that.

Things have changed. The future (of software) is in platforms. Are you already a part of the show?

The Silicon Valley tour, part 7: A few exciting new business models that actually work

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:28:22 GMT

Visiting Silicon Valley enabled me too peek into the future a bit. Finding out about new technology trends, meeting disruptive new software startups and seeing fascinating new business models that are proven to work. There are even more futuristic products / services than the ones mentioned in this post, but these are the ones that made the biggest impression on me. And they all share similar competitive advantages: using smartphones and other mobile devices, canceling middlemen and supporting cashless commerce.

Mobile payments and Square

While Square may already be mainstream in the States, something like it is far away from being used in Europe, not to mention Slovenia. Square is focused on mobile payments, and is currently offering three different services:

a credit card reader that you can plug into your mobile device
an iPad register app for merchants, supporting invoices, payments and inventory
an app for paying with your smartphone

Square is on fire, and there are tons of places in San Francisco where you can use it. Electronic payment industry leaders such as PayPal are already looking for ways to conquer the same market.

A place that accepts all major credit cards and Square

Personal chauffeur and Uber

Uber can only be described as taxi on steroids, bypassing the dispatcher. Ok, it's actually a chauffeur. Using a mobile app, you make a request, and one of the drivers answers it. After that, you can see where the driver is, when he will pick you up, how your driver looks like, and get a direct link to call them. A guy in a suit driving a Lincoln picks you up, takes you wherever you want, and after it, you just exit, without paying. You get an invoice on your email, together with the map of the route, and the fare gets deducted from your credit card. It's a bit more expensive than a cab, but still, a pretty awesome service, that will be expanding to other countries soon.

With Uber, you get picked up by a Lincoln like this

Carsharing and Zipcar

The next generation of rent-a-car is called carsharing, and it's offered by Zipcar. No agents, just your card that you use to unlock the car you've rented. Everything happens online, where you make a request for a car, get directed to a designated pick-up area, and the car is already waiting for you there. Petrol is included in the price, and if the fuel tank drops below 1/4, you just use their credit card to top it up. Results: rent-a-car has never been easier, cheaper and less stressful.

One of the Zipcar pick-up places. They are everywhere.

bonus: Co-working and NextSpace

Co-working represents shared offices that people from different startups and companies can use. Besides being cheaper than renting your own office, you also get a chance to spend time with other people, share knowledge and ideas, which is something I found out to be invaluable. NextSpace is an established co-working space in San Francisco, with more than 175 members and packages ranging from a few hundred dollars monthly for a desk to around a thousand for a complete office. Something similar is already happening in Slovenia, so if you are interested, please visit coworking.si.

Tables, offices, conference rooms. All available with NextSpace.

Conclusion

Some of these business models might not work as well outside the curious and tech-savvy culture of Silicon Valley, but they can still help as a demonstrator of things that can be done and an announcer of things to come. Let's face it, in technology, Silicon Valley is still miles ahead, so if you're looking for trends, the smartest thing to do is just to go along with it.

Trademarks and logos are the property of their respective owners.

Check out the complete The Silicon Valley tour series.

Apple should offer the opportunity to merge two iPads (with mockups)

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:14:42 GMT

The iPad 3 is coming out in March, and like its predecessors, it will surely be a huge success. But every time a new generation of an Apple gadget comes out, the previous ones flood the secondary markets, usually followed by massive price drops. Like iPads 1 today, iPads 2 will probably be quite inexpensive in the following weeks, when we'll have a new item on our with list. This may not be a really a big problem for Apple, since their business model of ultra-fast product cycles obviously works, but still, the idea of being able to sell more than one product of the same line to a single person could hold quite a few benefits. Let's take a look.

Why bother

I remember a really cool anecdote about an intern, who was bragging to the management of a pharmaceutical corporation he would be able to double the sales of their shampoo without any costs. Of course, no one believed him (or her), but the idea was very simple and effective. He said the company should simply put a "Wash twice" instruction to the back of the bottle, making people consume twice as much of it. The sales probably didn't double, but it's still a brilliant idea.

What about Apple? It's obvious that the low priced iPads 2 will be eating into the sales of the new iPad 3, since a lot of people will go for a second hand, cheaper version of the still capable-enough iPad 2. But by offering the possibility to merge two iPads into a single unit, Apple could prevent some of that effect, lowering the supply of the old iPads. Not only that, they could identify a totally new group of potential consumers who would buy the new iPad 3:

current: the people who don't own a tablet
current: the people who already own an iPad or a different tablet and will switch because of the iPad 3
new: people who already own an iPad, but don't feel the need to update to iPad 3 (like me)

This third group of people is who we are after, by offering them another added value to buy the new iPad without making them sell the old one. Owning two iPads at once? Why not.

Benefits: real multitasking

While the iPad and most other mobile devices support software multitasking, having more applications opened and one on the screen isn't real multitasking for the user. Split screen apps could solve this issue, but the screen size isn't that big. What would be better than having two apps on two iPads, with copy-paste and other cross-functional support? Like combining books and notes?

Real multitasking on two integrated iPads, using the iBooks and Notes.

Benefits: the book mode

We've already seen quite a few promising prototypes of book-shaped tablets, but I'm not sure if any of them made it to production. As shown on the second mockup, which displays different mailboxes in a TweetDeck type-of form on the first, and the emails on the second screen, this kind of use could prove itself very much useful.

Mailing like a pro: mailboxes on one screen, emails on the other.

Benefits: the laptop mode

At this point, the iPad is still not a full replacement for a personal computer, because of its hardware and software limitations. But it does support remote desktop connections to a computer, behaving as a terminal. Very cool, but not that useful, since it's hard to control a computer using a touch screen. By integrating two iPads into a laptop, we suddenly receive a keyboard and a trackpad, making such tasks much easier. Add a few more features to the iOS, and you could have a full replacement for a laptop. Something similar to the Asus Eee Pad Transformer or the Acer Iconia laptop concept?

Combining two iPads into a fully working laptop.

Requirements

Hardware: Easy. Something similar to the current magnetic sleeve which would hold the two iPads together. A cable wouldn't be needed, since connectivity could be done by wifi or bluetooth.

Software: Hard. Enabling one iPad to become a server and another one to become a client, being able to access and control the apps of the other.

Conclusion

Merging two iPads wouldn't be easy and probably not as useful as imagined in the mockups, since the user experience and controlling would have to be completely reinvented to support dual screen mode. Besides, if you would combine the iPad 1 (around 700 grams) and the iPad 2 (around 600 grams), you would get a 1,3 kg beast. Not very promising, but still not perfectly useless (the current 13' MacBook Air weighs 1,35 kg).

But the idea surely does hold potential. There could be even more interesting uses of such an installation, I've only outlined a few of them. So ~~Steve~~ Tim, if you like the idea, feel free to make it work. I would be more than happy to test out the MacBook Pad concept with the complementary iPad 4.

Special thanks to betmenka for lending me her iPad 2 despite being in a real hurry.

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.

Is Dexter and its social game Slice of Life the future of TV shows (but no one noticed)?

Sun, 06 Nov 2011 15:46:35 GMT

I don't know if you've noticed, but a few months ago the hit television show Dexter got it's own social game you can play on Facebook, named Slice of Life. Similar kinds of branded social games have been done before, but it's something else that's interesting this time. This game changes according to the plot of the television series each week. That's right, the show and the game are coexisting and evolving together to bring users a totally new type of experience. And while most technology blogs, obsessed with social, said Slice of Life is a revolutionary new type of a social game, I asked myself: is it rather a new revolutionary type of consuming television?

Television is static - not interactive the way the Web is. You can't do much. More or less, liking and commenting shows, besides tele voting, are the most interactive things you can do. But Slice of Life changes everything. A television show that you can watch, consume and play on multiple mediums, multiple channels, multiple platforms, online and offline. You're actually playing a game inside the show. Or watching a show inside the game. Pretty awesome stuff that didn't get as nearly much attention as it should, attention for bringing a new type of interactivity to television shows.

If the future of television as a medium will be defined by new types of business models (Netflix), physical architecture (Google?) and user experience (Apple?), the future of television content will definitely be defined by the level of interactivity it offers, imitating the Web. And until now, interactivity hasn't been solved in such a smart way than our favorite serial killer's social game. You must watch, you must play, you must do everything to be the biggest of the 10 million+ fans Dexter has on Facebook.

It looks like television is becoming more than just a medium. It's rather evolving into a cross-platform interactive content serving entertainment system. Some have already managed to successfully understand that fact, more will follow soon. I don't know about you, but I can't wait to see more.

You know what Google should include in Google+? A social Gmail client.

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:05:05 GMT

Social is a funny thing. Some get it, some don't, it's been around since ever (remember forums?) and it keeps evolving with a maddening pace. While there used to be a giant barrier between social and not social, this barrier is slowly disappearing, and the last of the old boys finally admitted it's competing against Facebook and not Microsoft. Google has had problems with providing a social service. But wasn't social potential always there to conquer, only not really noticed? Not inside their failed social projects like Buzz and Wave (and Google Me?), but there, in the core of their services?

Social?

What's "social"? In my opinion, it's not really a thing, it's more of a something that you put on top of things. Facebook put social on top of photos and education. Twitter did it on publishing. Foursquare on moving, Groupon on buying. Can you see where I'm headed? It's hard to make social out of nothing, you have to have something, and then you can make that something (even more) social. And Google will have to do the same thing (and Neolab too). Don't make social, make things social instead.

Introducing Google+

Since Larry Page became CEO of Google, things have been moving ahead. The +1 button is one thing. Showing activity of your social vicinity inside Google search is another. Both upgrading Google's core service with social. It's also smart they've (finally) made a Google "dashboard", the social Google+, where you can socialize with your Google account. It looks promising, even though it resembles Facebook. But it's the services that count.

Circles (grouping people) seem cool, since Facebook's relationship model is flat and they will have problems to persuade people to make groups / lists. I would arrange my Gmail contacts and put them into groups in needed, since I would be doing it as I go along, and it's easy to do. Sparks seem nice, providing content based on your preferences. Again, (probably) powered by search and complex mathematical algorithms, where Google dominates. I won't comment on photos and chat for now, but this time, Google's social attempt went from improvisation to consolidation of their existing services (search and accounts). Use what you got, especially if that works.

What about email?

I said I would consider arranging my contacts. Yes, we finally come to Gmail. Once I was writing about how I would love a "social" smartphone, since smartphone is a social device in its essence. But isn't email also social in its essence? The first online social service to be exact? Forgotten somewhere, forever not classified as social?

It is very much social, and it might as well be what Google's desperately looking for. I would love to have a social inbox. Not by including profile pictures from Facebook, but really social, in a new innovative way. Grouping emails by Circles, reading email correspondence on someone's profile, suggesting Circles on email recipients. Commenting, liking emails. Not having separate email contacts and social friends, but just people. Enterprise 2.0 shit included even. (And fully integrated with Android, of course.)

A mobile social inbox

That would really be neat. Google, you obviously understand that future lies in platforms, and you should stop trying to put useless things like Buzz and business cards inside Gmail. Gmail is fine. Now it's time you use it somewhere else, use it as a platform. With all your Gmail users, they just might provide the critical mass you need to pull this off, while differentiating yourself from Facebook at the same time. That's it. Search and Mail. Make that fully social inside Google+, these are the segments you're a market leader in! And mobile! And you'll win the next round. But you probably already know that?

Is Delicious aiming to become the next Twitter?

Thu, 26 May 2011 17:03:41 GMT

The bookmarking service Delicious has had an interesting life. It was one of the first social services available, later bought by Yahoo and almost canceled, then being sold to Avos about a month ago. Avos was founded by the same people who've created YouTube (Chad Hurley and Steve Chen), and these guys obviously know what they're doing. A few days after acquiring Delicious, Avos also bought a social media analytics startup Tap11, and here's what they had to say about it:

"Our vision is to create the world's best platform for users to save, share, and discover new content. With the acquisition of Tap11, we will be able to provide consumer and enterprise users with powerful tools to publish and analyze their links’ impact in real-time."

While some bloggers think Avos will start competing against Google and Salesforce.com by analyzing social data, I can imagine a different strategy may be plotting. Let me explain.

Delicious was always ahead of its time, but did not really make it to broad mainstream. It allows online bookmarks, which you can tag, bundle and keep in a library for later use. It knows asymmetric relationships, so you can check out bookmarks by the people you follow. The bookmarking engine is really powerful, but something was missing. Delicious' biggest problem is its social layer - too weak and of secondary importance. In the mean time, other services such as Digg, Reddit and StumbleUpon took their place on the web and added communities and different types of recommendation to link sharing. And of course, there's Twitter, the current ruler of content and real-time.

Actually, Twitter is slowly becoming a content sharing platform rather than a microblogging platform (I guess microblogging should involve content creation, not sharing). But while your links may bring you audience, they are not categorized and useful to you. Still, most people use Twitter that way, and even authority-measuring services such as PeerIndex and Klout encourage you to share links, because that's what Twitter is all about and that's what will make you influential.

I'm not saying Twitter is not useful, it is very much useful. But imagine having a solid bookmarking platform, very useful for the person who uses it (save). Add a generic social layer of friends and followers, a few comments, perhaps something similar to what YouTube has (share). Now add a hard core mathematical layer which is able to calculate what you'll like based on what you already liked (discover). What you get is something that could be very special, something that could compete even with Twitter. And it could be happening right now in Avos' laboratories.

One guy said that the age social sharing is coming to an end. I think not, there's loads of information thirsty people surfing the web. What's really missing is a new innovative and powerful platform, something useful in many different ways, for keeping, dispatching and receiving new, personalized content. Delicious 2.0?

Trademarks and logos are the property of their respective owners.

Why an actual Facebook phone could kick ass (with mockups)

Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:28:34 GMT

The question if Facebook will start producing it's own mobile OS on top of Android made a huge buzz a few months ago. Technology authorities such as TechCrunch and Mashable gave us diametrical coverage about it, the first claiming the rumor is true, and the second denying it. Needless to say the mobile market is one of the fastest evolving. Since 2007, when Apple supposedly revolutionized the mobile telephone by introducing the first popular tablet smartphone without a keyboard with an app market, things didn't change much, but in 2011, Facebook has a great chance to reinvent the phone again.

Today, the world is "going social". The transition to 2.0 has touched most aspects of our lives and heavily influenced software development, some companies are introducing social browsers, and others such as Neolab are trying to put social into enterprise IT. But the most social device of them all, the mobile telephone, despite high competition and increasing hardware and software capabilities, was left behind. Sure, the social potential in mobile contacts was noticed, but we haven't seen it happen yet. So, if Facebook actually gives this thing a try, could we finally see a real social phone?

One of the biggest problems with today's mobile operating systems and their user experience is that they are still built around services rather than around people (contacts). You have your app for calling, your app for messages, your app for mails, apps for different social networks. Different channels with enclosed streams rather than one giant stream that would display all the communication and interactions with a specific person. Android and Windows 7 Phone did enable Facebook contacts syncing with direct links to profiles and some integration, and there are third-party apps that are trying to achieve this (SocialPhone, Phonebook 2.0). Nevertheless, I still made some mockups of my own about how I envision the social phone OS of the future (since I'm more aquainted with the iOS, I worked on that), something that is destined to happen one way or another.

User stream

The most important feature I miss about the current generation of smartphone operating systems is the complete stream of activity and interactions from a single person. All classic mobile services (call, message, mail, calendar, ...), combined with social services (Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, ...) in a single feed. Here's a mockup of how this could look, the icon represents the service, the arrow represents the direction (in case of public posts, which are not between two people, there is no arrow, since it's an action without target instead of a reaction). All services are intended for communication, so why are they kept separated and treated differently?

Single user stream, displaying information from different sources and services. Similar features already exist in some apps.

The contacts

Now that we have an integrated repository of all our social interactions with a single user, we could reinvent the address book. Each action could have it's weight (e.g. a Call would be much stronger than a Twitter reply), and the occurrence of social interactions with a user in recent time period could determine the probability of needing that specific contact (an upgrade to "recently contacted", available today). To make things even more useful, users could set the preferred time period using a slider. Those who have seen how sexy iPhone icons behave while being rearranged, can probably imagine the fancy shuffle of profile pictures upon this activity.

Contact grid, where people are recommended based on the number of social interactions in a specific time period.

The activity log

To top it off, I've made a mockup of the complete activity log, which could combine all owner's social activities together with the interactions on a mobile device and other services. Again, the icons represent the public actions (shown with a service logo) and the interactions (shown with a profile picture), together with the direction of the reaction. This blog does something similar, combining different social activities into an unified stream, but it's still mostly one way - my posts on different social services. But combining one way posts with two way actions/reactions/interactions could provide the component that could actually make the phone capable of portraying the most perfect social stream of its owner. Specially since regular phone activities, such as calls and messages are as social as you can go, but they exists only on the device and the carrier.

Log of all user's activities on the phone and on different Web 2.0 networks.

These are just a few ideas, I've been thinking about trying to pack them in an app, but I really don't have the time to go for it, and similar ones are already available. I also think that this concept of a social phone should be built into the core of the OS, because the phone would need to be completely integrated with and authenticated into different Web 2.0 services (not only single apps). This would make these features available inside other apps, and setup and synchronization would require less hassle.

Facebook, the king of social, is currently the most perfect candidate (and perhaps the only one capable) to make something like this work, so I would really love to see it come alive. It's questionable if they would allow competition like Twitter or Foursquare inside it, but other software giants would surely need to follow the concept and in the end, make it right. I want a social phone!

Apple's strategy of becoming a content provider might simply be ingenious

Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:38:22 GMT

Apple is an interesting corporation. Some love it, some hate it, but the fact is, Apple has become the biggest technology company in the world. An interesting turn of events, from a company that nearly went bankrupt a few decades ago, to a player that we know today. Looks like Steve Jobs really is one of the greatest visionaries of our time, as his comeback in 1996 together with the introduction of the iMac and the iPod managed to turn things around for Apple. Looking at these facts in 2010, the iPod may turn out to be even more important than it seems, creating a digital music revolution and providing the foundation for Apple's strategy of becoming the world's dominant commercial content provider.

Apple was always known as the great innovator, and all of its products and services(!) strive towards perfection. This vision of making things people want and need (or don't need but still want anyways) has moved beyond hardware and software, towards a new direction – providing both free and payable content in any form. And because of the loyalty and fanaticism of their customers, they are one of the few that are actually able to make this work on a global scale. And be aware content is more than just actual news, it's multimedia (music, videos), it's software, it's books, it's just about everything, and Apple was the first to notice this potential and put it into action.

It all started with the iPod (2001) and its biggest sister, the iTunes. Today, iTunes is the largest music retailer in the US, with over 10 billion songs purchased. With the introduction of the iPhone (2007), its biggest sister, the App Store became one of the largest software marketplaces in the world, selling more that 6 billion applications in two years. The next gadget, the iPad (2010), was launched with a bigger sister too, the iBooks, which is currently messing up Amazon's Kindle operation, even though the success of this story is still hard to estimate. A few weeks ago, Apple also introduced the new cloud powered Apple TV (2010), which will enable selling (actually renting) fresh HD movies and TV shows using the iTunes platform. And to complete the circle, there are rumors Apple will also provide a subscription service for newspapers, supposedly the iNewsstand, which could actually become the biggest of them all.

So, how did a "personal computer" company come to this position? If you ask me, the answer is simple – Steve Jobs. This visionary was able to predict where the future will go and if you look at the situation today, when this business model is proven to work, it's really trivial. When personal computers were on the rise, it was obvious business and sales will be in hardware and software. But in the present information era, where billions have access to the web, overloaded with information, it's almost obvious that business and sales will be in providing content: data and information in all forms.

Besides Apple TV, Ping, a social network on top of iTunes, was also introduced on Apple's last "mass". I won't speculate on how cool it is, because I haven't tried it and am not sure if I will. But the fact is that iTunes has 160 million users and generates a lot of revenue. Ping actually represents a first integrated wide scale social market place, which probably is the future of social electronic commerce, so it will be interesting to see what will happen. No matter how cool, adding a Facebook Like button on Amazon simply isn't real social commerce.

That's Apple, once a computer manufacturer, today a diversified technology and media corporation with great know-how in electronic commerce and providing content, while pioneering (again) in social commerce. Besides owning a complete set of platforms for providing and selling different types of content, many of them market leaders, they also offer beautiful hardware and software infrastructure for their implementation. Something we will be seeing in most living rooms of the future?