Entries by Alan Patrick

So, the Location Wars have begun in earnest - Facebook and Twitter have joined Google in launching location based services.

NYT on Facebook:

Starting next month, the more than 400 million Facebook users could begin seeing a new kind of status update flow through their news feed: the current locations of their friends.

Facebook plans to take the wraps off a new location-based feature in late April at f8, the company’s yearly developer conference, according to several people briefed on the project, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss unannounced services.

In preparation for the introduction, Facebook updated its privacy policy last November. The new policy states: “When you share your location with others or add a location to something you post, we treat that like any other content you post.”

At that time, the company also offered some foreshadowing of the new feature: “If we offer a service that supports this type of location sharing we will present you with an opt-in choice of whether you want to participate.”

The temptation to do opt-out is going to be very strong though.....on past performance it wouldn't be surprising is that "opt-in2 promise is very liberally interpreted,

Twitter too is gearing up - TechCrunch:

The service has just turned on geolocation on its website today for the first time.

While Twitter’s geolocation feature has been live through its API since last November, there was no sign of integration into the main twitter.com site until now. As you can see in the screenshot above, for tweets tagged with location, right next to the source of the tweet there is a location placemarker. When you hover over it, it turns blue, and clicking on it brings up a little Google map showing the location that tweet was sent from.

You can see these maps as overlays both on individual tweet pages, and on tweets in your main stream. In some cases, depending on how Twitter geolocation API is being used, it looks like place names are even passed through to Twitter.

Timing is of course to coincide with SXSWi, where Location startups Gowalla, Foursquae and who knows how many others are trying to get that lifegiving buzz going (Buzz - now there is another location ploy) in the biggest geekfest on the planet. SXSW lends itself to this sort of thing as thousands of hungry and thirsty (for knowledge, natch) geeks seek their networked friends for meals over the 12 or so blocks of Austin Olde Town.

What can we say that we haven't said already (just search for "location" on the blog) except be careful - Location based services play faster and looser with privacy than anything that has gone before.

Talking about Sexy New Media Startups being as poor as churchmice, here 's an example - the iconic LOLCat site is that most poverty-attracting thing, being a sexy and new media site. And it would appear its using Slave labour (or something like that) - Gawker:

Cheezburger Network might be the internet's largest "meme aggregator," according to Wired, with upwards of $4 million per year gleaned from other people's pet pictures, supplied to the company for free. But that doesn't mean the 30 or so employees share fairly in the bounty; as we reported last week, Huh has blogged about proudly offering jobs at Seattle's minimum wage of $8.55 or slightly higher, at $10.

Those low wages permeate the company, insiders and their associates tell us, with some former workers also describing worker misclassification unpaid overtime.

On the bright side, it sounds like people have fun with their co-workers, as even some detractors tell us, and one employee wrote in to say his experience at Cheezburger Network beat the pants off her/his (other?) minimum wage jobs — not exactly a high bar, but, given the state of the economy, a practical one.

Seemed like it was only right to put up an appropriate LOLCat picture then (hat tip Patrick Hadfield for the caption)

While we're on the subject, Techmeme's Mahendra Palsule pointed me towards this C:Net article arguing that the media focus on what is sexy, not a decent business (he was noting it as a part-answer to this article I wrote awhile ago). The gist of it is:

A new report by ITDatabase that examines tech coverage over the last six months from eight top business news publications raises some questions, in particular: Does the business press factor companies' revenue and profits into their tech editorial agenda?

The report shows that Apple and Google dominate, while Twitter and Facebook are far more discussed in the business press than Intel, Dell, IBM, or even HP (the largest tech company in the world).

The eight publications surveyed are: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Forbes, Fortune, BusinessWeek, The Economist, Financial Times, and USA Today. Over a period of six months, ITDatabase measured coverage by the number of times a tech company was mentioned in print and online in these publications, including blogs such as All Things Digital, which is affiliated with the Journal. (Disclosure: I am an adviser to ITDatabase.)

There is a chart in the post that shows Apple and Google getting the lions share of the publicity - its a power law graph by the looks of things - and it reminded me of a graph I saw many years ago, drawn in semi jest by a McKinsey colleague at the time, Ralph Lewinski. This curve explains the Hype Hyperbola (see the diagram above), ie the truism that sexy industries tend not to be profitable. This is typically due to one of 2 reasons:

- They are new industries, which usually tend to be unprofitable because they are giving away value to get market share (and/or have yet to find a business model)

- They are established and still sexy, in which case people will enter the market, and even work for them, for much less money than for less enjoyable industries

Which is of course why New Meedja startups are the poorest churchmice (its not a LOLcondition) of all as they fit both conditions Social Media profits (if you exclude the purchases of sites by the Dumb Money) drive the current "biggest $0 billion industry" going.

Google and Apple are exceptions in that they are both sexy and profitable and so really get the press attention. Typically they are profitable because (like old fashioned TV, which was once sexy) they have built strong barriers to entry. They are also both very powerful, especially in the Valley - the difference in coverage tone on Google Buzz between the independent bloggers and the Tech Media (including the big blogs) was quite remarkable.

Techmeme has launched a new vertical, the fascinatingly recursive* Mediagazer:

Today we're launching our first new news vertical in almost four years: Mediagazer, which will focus on the content production and distribution business, organizing topics as wide as journalism, blogging, video production, e-books, and digital distribution technologies.

Meedja types given a mirror to look at themselves with...hmm, I recall a Greek Myth on the subject - ended in tears of course . Anyway, the venture will still have the Human Editing function:

Mediagazer incoporates all these lessons. We've taken great care in its construction, have outfitted the site with the latest iteration of our automation engine, and have launched it from the outset with a dedicated human editor.

That editor will be Megan McCarthy. While Megan's career in media has focused more on the technology space (both at Gawker and at Techmeme), she's long developed an interest in media industry buzz and should feel very much at home at Mediagazer.

It was perhaps inevitable that such a thing aimed at The Meedja would happen, its is an interesting gambit, and I wonder if it will need more human editing than Tech. The sheer number of Media news magazines suggests it will work (I've always seen Techmeme etc as the equivalent of magazines rather than newspapers per se), with this most self-absorbed of sectors. What fascinates me is which other verticals will be launched - and survive.

*look it up

Paul Carr is mellowing! Yes, dear readers - he has written a well thought out post on the UK's new Digital Economy Bill. Not only that, he actually read the Bill! I haven't in detail*, so I'm just going to cut and paste Paul's stuff. As he points out, some of the huffing and puffing about Draconian Crackdowns on Free Spirits is somewhat overstated:

For a start, the first point of contention – the compilation of a persistent offenders list, and the potential banning of them from accessing the Internet – isn’t quite as unfair as it sounds. Despite Doctorow’s claim that “your entire family [can] be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial”, there are actually multiple points at which evidence comes into play, and the accused file-swapper is given a chance to defend themselves. The bill requires the creation of an independent tribunal body to hear claims of unfairness arising from the new laws, and alleged infringers have not one but two rights of appeal to the tribunal. With each alleged breach, the new law demands that the ISP send a letter to the subscriber putting the allegations and the evidence to them.

Only once a significant number of breaches have been alledged (the drafters of the bill suggest 50) will the subscriber be added to the persistent offenders list. Again, they will be notified. Only at this point can the copyright owner appeal to the court – using a law that has been around for 36 years – to get the name and address of the offender. Even then, though, they won’t be taken to court. Instead, the copyright owner has to send the subscriber yet another letter (this will be their 52nd) warning them that legal action is imminent if they don’t stop. It’s only then that legal action will be taken, leading to a possible fine and – only at the extreme end of the scale – their Internet access being disconnected.

And, as he points out, much of it is just confirming what already exists:

Yes, the courts will have the power to require ISPs to block sites that egregiously host copyrighted files. But they can only do so if the site involved has refused to remove the copyrighted files – a last resort against foreign file lockers who ignore British court injunctions. More importantly it’s also a power that the British courts have had since the 2002 E-Commerce Directive Regulations (with ISP’s being similarly liable for inaction): the new legislation simply creates a DMCA-style process for making take-down requests easier to issue.

As Paul points out, a lot of the opposition to the Bill is coming from people without any intention of actually reading it (the "numpties" who so frustrated me last year when there were public debates about the Digital Britain report). this does not help debate, nor do the inflamed headlines from those who oppose it on ideological grounds (The Grauniad has been pretty poor in its articles on all this in my opinion).

But the thing I still don't get is why Her Majesty's Government is so desperate to get this through in the dog days of the administration. As Paul says, this is the sort of thing we must get right, so surely we can wait until after the May elections?.

* Haven't read the latest British one but had to get our heads around the DMCA, WIPO and various bits of EU legislation a few years back. Exciting reading it is not

There is a rather useful article in the NYT about how New York is starting to pop up as a startup hub again, after Silicon Alley shut down in 2002. But what really struck me is how much of it could equally be said about London. The following are to my mind the key arguments:

Firstly, a thriving scene of mutual assistance:

THE two dozen or so people arranged around wooden tables, warming their hands and bellies with steaming mugs of coffee and plates of homemade biscuits, looked like just another Sunday brunch set in New York. But members of this group had braved knee-deep snow to gab about cutting-edge ideas and as they introduced themselves the roll call sounded like a Who’s Who of digital start-ups: Foursquare, Hot Potato, Six Apart, Flickr, Flavorpill, Trust Art, Vimeo.

The New York Tech Meet-Up is held monthly, and as many as 700 people attend, a sign of the revival of tech businesses in the city.

“There’s a lot happening right here in our ZIP code,” said Dorothy McGivney, a former Google employee who is a co-coordinator of this group, the North Brooklyn Breakfast Club, and runs Jauntsetter, a travel site for women. Like the others, she had come to the brunch to help foster the growth of her little local community of entrepreneurs.

The group had its inaugural meeting in January and is among a growing cluster of informal meet-and-greets for the local technology and media industries. A recent installment of another monthly event, called the New York Tech Meet-Up and held in Chelsea, drew 700 tech enthusiasts.

The London scene has been quite vibrant for about 3 years now, but I think what is missing is the emergence of some real category killer companies. New York has already given birth to a few, such as Etsy and DoubleClick. London doesn't really have this - yet.

As to where the London category killers may come from, London is more like New York than Silicon Valley - it's a hotbed of the more traditional Media industries which are helping drive New York startups:

Of course, services can be developed anywhere. But because so many industries now grappling with the Internet are based in New York, the city is finding surer footing among its peers as a thriving tech hub.

“Book publishing, advertising, media and even the fashion industry are all located in New York. These are the main industries that are being reshaped and redefined by technology and the Internet,” says AnnaLee Saxenian, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies regional economics and technology entrepreneurship.

And somewhere to work is key - there is a rise of incubators and workspaces again:

Some of the more interesting breeding grounds in the city are technology incubators that nurture and mentor young companies. One example is the new Manhattan arm of Dogpatch Labs, which is backed by Polaris Venture Partners, an investment firm in the Boston area.

Dogpatch, which opened in January, offers start-ups a place to work, rent-free, for several months, along with the possibility of securing an investment down the line.

Another critical factor is the input of the Universities in the area:

Colleges and universities have long helped fuel the dreams of entrepreneurs. An early pillar of Silicon Valley innovation was Stanford’s dean of engineering, Frederick Terman, who viewed the university as an incubator for the electronics industry. More recently, Facebook was born in a Harvard student’s dorm room and Google first percolated in the heads of two Stanford graduate students.

Hoping to replicate those kinds of successes, schools in New York are increasingly collaborating with local start-ups. Chris Wiggins, a professor of applied mathematics at Columbia University, regularly brings start-up founders to campus to speak to students about careers in technology and is establishing an internship program at the school.

NYC Seed works closely with the Polytechnic Institute of New York University to help students there translate promising ideas into profit-making ventures.

London has some of the best universities on the planet, so no excuses there - but more co-ordination and collaboration is required, for Cambridge to still be ahead of London is extraordinary given the assets at London's disposal. The reason for this is the main London scene-killer - funding. There is still a bigger (or at least more active) VC scene in Cambridge. New York is getting that right again, and the meltdown in teh financial sector (another thing it shares with London) is helping:

New York’s flashier industries, including big media and Wall Street, have long dwarfed the tech sector here. And the dot-com implosion only reinforced that reality. The fledgling tech scene that was just beginning to hum in the late 1990s flatlined as dozens of Internet companies folded, pink slips replaced party invitations and venture capital firms took their investments elsewhere.

During the dot-com boom, “venture capitalists were just throwing dollars at every Internet idea on every street corner,” says Owen Davis, a serial entrepreneur and managing director of NYC Seed, an early-stage technology investment fund. “There was little critical judgment about business models and ideas.”

Since then, Mr. Davis says, the New York technology industry has been steadily coming back on line and has managed to accelerate despite the economic turmoil besieging other industries.

To my mind this is still London's main weakness. All the other areas coild be done better, but are not on the critical path. But nearly every London startup I know of in the new mesia/web 2.0 space that has found funding has had to go Stateside to get it, or fairly soon after an initial round. That (and I know some of my London VC friends will disagree) to my mind is the main thing holding London back. Its not that there isn't any money here, its just that there is not enough of it, and I am concerned its not going to the right places. I think there is still too much of a tendency to give money to the "right" sort of people, rather than the sort of people who are right.

Quite an interesting article in Harvard Business Review about some research from the University of warwick on "Open Learning" circles in the business world. (I read teh hard copy, there is a summary behind a partial paywall over here). It really struck a chord to juxtapose it with the "Social Media Reality Check" event at POLIS last night. Joanne Jacobs liveblogged that over here, wasn't there but my impression was that the thing checked in last night was social media reality - at the entrance door

Anyway, the researchers show start would be recognised by any Social media adherent:

United by a common professional passion, participants would huddle around conference tables and compare data, trade insights, and argue over which designs would work best with local water systems. And the community achieved results: Participants found ways to significantly cut the time and cost involved in system design by increasing the pool of experience that they could draw upon, tapping insights from different disciplines, and recycling design ideas from other projects.

"Let them run free" was the original thinking, but these networks started to hit limits:

Too much attention from management, went the thinking, would crush the group’s collaborative nature. But the very informality of this community eventually rendered it obsolete. What happened to it was typical: The members gained access to more sophisticated design tools and to vast amounts of data via the internet. Increased global connectivity drew more people into the community and into individual projects. Soon the engineers were spending more time at their desks, gathering and organizing data, sorting through multiple versions of designs, and managing remote contacts. The community started to feel less intimate, and its members, less obligated to their peers. Swamped, the engineers found it difficult to justify time for voluntary meetings. Today the community in effect has dissolved—along with the hopes that it would continue generating high-impact ideas.

Again, anyone familiar with Social Media over a number of cycles (ie the Kool Aid has been drunk, digested and d****ated) will recognise this. What works seems to be to give them some form of top down management structure!

Our research has shown that many other communities failed for similar reasons. Nevertheless, communities of practice aren’t dead. Many are thriving—you’ll find them developing global processes, resolving troubled implementation, and guiding operational efforts. But they differ from their forebears in some important respects. Today they’re an actively managed part of the organization, with specific goals, explicit accountability, and clear executive oversight. To get experts to dedicate time to them, companies have to make sure that communities contribute meaningfully to the organization and operate efficiently.

Heresy! I hear you cry. Nonetheless, thats the emerging evidence. Its also my experience - if you want a Social Net group to achieve something, someone actually has to take charge.

Useful map of smartphone adoption by type and country (larger original is here). iPhone is triumphant, except for China which is mainly Nokia.

Useful interactive chart from Forrester Research on where your data is most compromised. Caveat USA!

Today we read with some amusement that Google is stating that the desktop is dead (again):

Google believes that in three or so years desktops will give way to mobile as the primary screen from which most people will consume information and entertainment. That’s according to Google Europe boss John Herlihy who said that smart phones enhance Google’s mission to make information universal.

Speaking at the Digital Landscapes conference at UCD, Herlihy said that the cloud-computing opportunity will make sure that every mobile device will be capable of doing rapid-scale applications.

“In three years time, desktops will be irrelevant. In Japan, most research is done today on smart phones, not PCs,” Herlihy told a baffled audience, echoing comments by Google CEO Eric Schmidt at the recent GSM Association Mobile World Congress 2010 that everything the company will do going forward will be via a mobile lens, centring on the cloud, computing and connectivity.

This of course was predictable, as the above chart shows. The "Network is the PC" meme comes around regularly every 10 years. Its one of the best examples of a perpetually reccurring hype cycle that we know of. To recap:

The IBM Network PC wave

In 1988 or so and to regain its position (and play to its overall strengths) IBM brought out the Network PC, essentially a dumbed down device that would serve its client faithfully on these new fangled Client-Server Local Area Networks. It failed of course, as (i) The network wasn't reliable enough, (ii) the users liked the standalone capability and control and (iii) the kit wasn't good enough to replace the desktop at that point

The Sun "Network is the Computer" Wave

Cometh the Internet, and Sun has a problem - its tins are in the server farms but not on the desktops. Clearly, the world needs to move towards this new fangled Internet thingy, and put all its data in the (I forget, I think it was called The Cloud at that time too). It failed of course, as (i) The network wasn't reliable enough, (ii) the users liked the standalone capability and control and (iii) the kit wasn't good enough to replace the desktop at that point

The Google "It will be in the Cloud" Cycle

Cometh Big Broadband, and Google has a problem - too many customers are irresponsibly sticking to their desktops rather than sticking all their data into the big GoogleMine. Hence the call for The Cloud rings out clarion like across the Valley. It will fail of course, as......

Why Ten Years? Our hypothesis is that that is the time it takes the Corporate Memory to wane to a level where the Bright New Things can haul the Network PC punt out again without some grizzled and wise old hand reminding them of the phenomenal waste of time and money the last cycle had been. Its also interesting that Eric Schmidt's company (Sun, now Google) has been the major proponent of these last two cycles.

What's interesting about the Googleshot is that this is almost a double top, in that they've tried the "netbook data in the cloud" gambit - which hasn't crossed the chasm - and now its a smartphone gambit. A sign of desperation surely, as if the netbook didn't work its a lot less clear that todays' (even less capable) smartphones will - which is why we think its a sign that this cycle is already on the wane.

Here, as they say, endeth the lesson.

Update - well, not quite endeth - as my learned commentators have pointed out:

(i) There has always been a (shifting) balance between client side and server side, its juts that companies (and bloggers) always push the edges for their own ends

(ii) Each wave does result in a new layer of cloud service usage - networked data, web services etc.

But we suspect static services will be around for a long, long time as (i) people are largely static and (ii) they too improve over time. Th high power workstation with 2 large screens has attractions all of its own.