Tomorrow, Google will hold its third annual I/O Developer's Conference in San Fransisco. Traditionally, the company has used the platform to announce big product development and news; the question on everyone's mind is, what will they display this year?
My guess? Nothing special.
Maybe preview the next edition of Android or discuss the Chrome operating system. Aside from that, though? Probably not much.
Google desperately needs momentum. +1 was an incredibly mediocre product launch. They are watching many engineers walk out the door to work at other startups, and have had to cough up millions of dollars to keep others from joining them. Google hasn't premiered a truly innovative, industry-defining product in years.
Google has been playing catch-up to other mobile and social players for a long, long time. They've been letting the market, not their own innovation, dictate their strategy. If they had a truly unique product to bring out, they would have paraded it around already.
Apple overtook Google today as the #1 brand in the world. If Apple kills it at their developer's conference in June and Google doesn't prove me wrong and bring something great out, they could stand to lose a lot more ground.
i felt such love for you i thought my heart was gonna pop
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Lesson Learned
Had I known that I would be featured on a social media website and have a post garner as many pageviews in an hour as this blog has gathered over its entire lifetime, I probably would have spent more time proofreading it.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Facebook's Spam Problem
It was only a matter of time before hackers, 'sploiters, and evil-doers figured out how to use Facebook to take advantage of the rest of us through Facebook-spread malware.
As Facebook begins to steal market share away from email as a primary mode of online communication--links that used to be emailed are now shared on walls--malicious programmers have updated their tactics to reflect the shift. Particularly abusive in the past few days have been links offering users the chance to see pictures or videos of bin Laden's death. Unwary Facebookers click on the link, are invited to allow an app access to their information, and boom: the phony link is rebroadcast out to all their friends.
This chain of events should not be unfamiliar. Email experienced the same problems in its early years. While I admittedly was a bit too young in the early-to-mid 90s to fully understand the concept of email spams and viruses at the time, the parallels seem obvious. One of two things must happen for the tide of spam and viruses to stop:
The more and more I think about it, the more I become convinced that social networking, at some point, might replace personal email. The more popular Facebook gets, the more incentive there will be for hackers to program malicious viruses to steal information and compromise security. Unless Facebook can stay one step ahead of them and begin protecting users' news feeds from these sorts of attacks, they may one day find themselves in the same category as AOL: forgotten tech giant.
As Facebook begins to steal market share away from email as a primary mode of online communication--links that used to be emailed are now shared on walls--malicious programmers have updated their tactics to reflect the shift. Particularly abusive in the past few days have been links offering users the chance to see pictures or videos of bin Laden's death. Unwary Facebookers click on the link, are invited to allow an app access to their information, and boom: the phony link is rebroadcast out to all their friends.
This chain of events should not be unfamiliar. Email experienced the same problems in its early years. While I admittedly was a bit too young in the early-to-mid 90s to fully understand the concept of email spams and viruses at the time, the parallels seem obvious. One of two things must happen for the tide of spam and viruses to stop:
- Facebook users have to get smarter and stop clicking the links.
- Facebook must put filters into place capable of stopping these messages before they get to users walls.
The more and more I think about it, the more I become convinced that social networking, at some point, might replace personal email. The more popular Facebook gets, the more incentive there will be for hackers to program malicious viruses to steal information and compromise security. Unless Facebook can stay one step ahead of them and begin protecting users' news feeds from these sorts of attacks, they may one day find themselves in the same category as AOL: forgotten tech giant.
and when you said i couldn't save you enough, i started giving you up, i started giving you up
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Osama bin Laden Dies First on Twitter and Social Networks, Mainstream News Plays Catch-Up
This article originally appeared on the Three Ships Media blog.
Just over twenty years ago, CNN was a very small fish amongst the Big Three American television networks of CBS, ABC, and NBC. The concept of a twenty-four hour news cycle was still foreign, and most continued to get their news from nightly programs such as 60 Minutes, 20/20, and the local news. However, in 1991, a funny thing happened; when the United States invaded Iraq in the dawn of the Gulf War, CNN was the only news network able to communicate with viewers back home and provide footage of the conflict unfolding half a world away. It was a historic scoop, and for the first time ever, CNN was being played in millions of restaurants, businesses, and homes as Americans turned to the only news source capable of delivering to-the-minute updates on the war’s progression.
Last night, another Middle Eastern development might have marked a coming-of-age for a different news channel. As Business Insider notes, Twitter provided hints that Osama Bin Laden had been killed and that the President would address the nation nearly half an hour before most mainstream news sources could officially confirm the information. Much of the information that powerhouse news stations such as MSNBC, Fox News, and, yes, even CNN, were conveying was derived purely from gossip and rumors received via social networks.
The snowball started rolling when Keith Urbahn, chief of staff to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, tweeted at 10:24 EST that he had learned that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. Eight minutes later, a CBS producer tweeted that a House Intelligence aide had confirmed the report (interestingly enough, this tweet was made from a personal account and not from the official CBS News feed). Fox News was the first mainstream news outlet to tweet the information from an official account at 10:41 EST. You can view the entire timeline here, but what is interesting is that individuals, not branded news sources, informed many of what is potentially one of the biggest news stories of 2011.
The rabbit hole goes deeper. According to a Mashable poll (whose readership is, admittedly, probably more likely to use social media than the average U.S. citizen), 34% of respondents first heard about Osama’s death through Twitter, compared with 15% through television. Interestingly enough, television was not even second; the runner-up title belongs to Facebook, with 19% of respondents saying they heard of the news through the world’s most popular social network.
Additionally, in retrospect, it seems that one user actually liveblogged the event as it was happening without knowing it. Traditional news sources need cameras and microphones in order to report; Twitter is capable of receiving information from anyone, at any time.
While time will tell whether Osama’s death is the type of watershed moment for Twitter that the Gulf invasion was for CNN, Twitter has been showing signs of acting like a legitimate media source for a while, most notably during the uprisings in Iran. Twitter is even in the process of rebranding itself as a media and news content aggregator as opposed to a social networking tool. As audiences tire of the punditry and redundancy of traditional news channels, Twitter is quickly emerging as a “faster, more accurate, and more entertaining” news source.
This example does, however, speak to a pressing need for businesses to become involved in social channels such as Twitter By its very nature, news is quick-moving and conversational. As these conversations continue to shift from traditional media to online sources, it is imperative that businesses participate and join the discussion in order to engage both current and potential customers and create news rather than just react to it. Additionally, businesses must develop the skills necessary to target, filter, and create valuable content in order to break through the noise of social media.
How did you hear about Osama’s death? How often do you get your news from channels like Twitter or Facebook? How is your business benefiting from the modern word-of-mouth?
Just over twenty years ago, CNN was a very small fish amongst the Big Three American television networks of CBS, ABC, and NBC. The concept of a twenty-four hour news cycle was still foreign, and most continued to get their news from nightly programs such as 60 Minutes, 20/20, and the local news. However, in 1991, a funny thing happened; when the United States invaded Iraq in the dawn of the Gulf War, CNN was the only news network able to communicate with viewers back home and provide footage of the conflict unfolding half a world away. It was a historic scoop, and for the first time ever, CNN was being played in millions of restaurants, businesses, and homes as Americans turned to the only news source capable of delivering to-the-minute updates on the war’s progression.Last night, another Middle Eastern development might have marked a coming-of-age for a different news channel. As Business Insider notes, Twitter provided hints that Osama Bin Laden had been killed and that the President would address the nation nearly half an hour before most mainstream news sources could officially confirm the information. Much of the information that powerhouse news stations such as MSNBC, Fox News, and, yes, even CNN, were conveying was derived purely from gossip and rumors received via social networks.
The snowball started rolling when Keith Urbahn, chief of staff to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, tweeted at 10:24 EST that he had learned that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. Eight minutes later, a CBS producer tweeted that a House Intelligence aide had confirmed the report (interestingly enough, this tweet was made from a personal account and not from the official CBS News feed). Fox News was the first mainstream news outlet to tweet the information from an official account at 10:41 EST. You can view the entire timeline here, but what is interesting is that individuals, not branded news sources, informed many of what is potentially one of the biggest news stories of 2011.
The rabbit hole goes deeper. According to a Mashable poll (whose readership is, admittedly, probably more likely to use social media than the average U.S. citizen), 34% of respondents first heard about Osama’s death through Twitter, compared with 15% through television. Interestingly enough, television was not even second; the runner-up title belongs to Facebook, with 19% of respondents saying they heard of the news through the world’s most popular social network.
Additionally, in retrospect, it seems that one user actually liveblogged the event as it was happening without knowing it. Traditional news sources need cameras and microphones in order to report; Twitter is capable of receiving information from anyone, at any time.
While time will tell whether Osama’s death is the type of watershed moment for Twitter that the Gulf invasion was for CNN, Twitter has been showing signs of acting like a legitimate media source for a while, most notably during the uprisings in Iran. Twitter is even in the process of rebranding itself as a media and news content aggregator as opposed to a social networking tool. As audiences tire of the punditry and redundancy of traditional news channels, Twitter is quickly emerging as a “faster, more accurate, and more entertaining” news source.
This example does, however, speak to a pressing need for businesses to become involved in social channels such as Twitter By its very nature, news is quick-moving and conversational. As these conversations continue to shift from traditional media to online sources, it is imperative that businesses participate and join the discussion in order to engage both current and potential customers and create news rather than just react to it. Additionally, businesses must develop the skills necessary to target, filter, and create valuable content in order to break through the noise of social media.
How did you hear about Osama’s death? How often do you get your news from channels like Twitter or Facebook? How is your business benefiting from the modern word-of-mouth?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Facebook Send: Fresh Idea or Old News?
This article first appeared on the Three Ships Media blog.
In an attempt to declutter their ecosystem and vocabulary as well as disrupt email as the preferred method of sharing links, Facebook has rolled out a new feature they are calling “Send”. Send will allow users to send news articles or other types of information directly to a Facebook Group or to a specific friend’s inbox. The button has the same look and feel as the Like button, and Facebook is hoping that it will become a similarly ubiquitous way to share information.
If this all sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Facebook formerly had the option to “share” a website, and it maintains the option to “recommend” a website on one’s own wall. From a cynic’s perspective, there is reason to be pessimistic about this new feature. Will its usage merely mirror preexisting clicks on things such as “share” and “email to a friend”, or will it actually promote sharing and conversation that otherwise would not have happened? There is significant room for doubt.
However, cynics doubted the Like button, and that feature has turned out to be one of Facebook’s biggest triumphs, providing an easy-to-understand lingua franca for designating relevant content in an ever-expanding Internet. Additionally, it has been an enormous boon to Facebook, providing them with an unparalleled database of consumer information–all provided voluntarily.
Should Send take off, it will provide a similar treasure trove of demographics. Want to target a user base who are between the ages of eighteen and twenty five and “Liked” a specific movie page on Facebook and “Sent” the New York Times review of that movie to their friends? In Facebook’s world, it’s completely possible.
By integrating a Send feature that looks and feels like the popular Like button, Facebook is positioning itself to steal some of email’s thunder–and collect a vast amount of information while doing so.
What do you think? Is Facebook Send a groundbreaking idea, or is it merely a fresh coat of paint on an old tool?
In an attempt to declutter their ecosystem and vocabulary as well as disrupt email as the preferred method of sharing links, Facebook has rolled out a new feature they are calling “Send”. Send will allow users to send news articles or other types of information directly to a Facebook Group or to a specific friend’s inbox. The button has the same look and feel as the Like button, and Facebook is hoping that it will become a similarly ubiquitous way to share information.
If this all sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Facebook formerly had the option to “share” a website, and it maintains the option to “recommend” a website on one’s own wall. From a cynic’s perspective, there is reason to be pessimistic about this new feature. Will its usage merely mirror preexisting clicks on things such as “share” and “email to a friend”, or will it actually promote sharing and conversation that otherwise would not have happened? There is significant room for doubt.
However, cynics doubted the Like button, and that feature has turned out to be one of Facebook’s biggest triumphs, providing an easy-to-understand lingua franca for designating relevant content in an ever-expanding Internet. Additionally, it has been an enormous boon to Facebook, providing them with an unparalleled database of consumer information–all provided voluntarily.
Should Send take off, it will provide a similar treasure trove of demographics. Want to target a user base who are between the ages of eighteen and twenty five and “Liked” a specific movie page on Facebook and “Sent” the New York Times review of that movie to their friends? In Facebook’s world, it’s completely possible.
By integrating a Send feature that looks and feels like the popular Like button, Facebook is positioning itself to steal some of email’s thunder–and collect a vast amount of information while doing so.
What do you think? Is Facebook Send a groundbreaking idea, or is it merely a fresh coat of paint on an old tool?
Monday, April 25, 2011
Twitter missed a HUGE opportunity by not purchasing IntoNow
Twitter keeps billing itself as the "savior of live television," as its constantly-updating stream allows viewers to talk to one another in real time, encouraging live viewing instead of hours-later DVR (and commercial-skipping) playback.
If that's true, it just missed an enormous opportunity to build on this position.
Earlier today, Yahoo bought tech startup IntoNow for $20 million. IntoNow is a neat little mobile app that allows users to "check in" to TV shows the same way one would check in to a location via FourSquare. Watchers can then broadcast this information to their social graph, allowing them to easily figure out which of their friends are watching the same stuff they are.
Yahoo has made no secret about their desire to enter the television market, and companies such as Netflix are starting to get into content production instead of content curation and distribution. IntoNow provides Yahoo the capability to add a social layer on top of live TV as well as streaming video via its channels.
Perhaps more interestingly, IntoNow can recognize the soundtracks to television shows, allowing the company to send information to you before you even know that you want to use the app. While sending users a barrage of apps the minute the opening chords to "The Office" are played might be a big obnoxious, users might enjoy receiving game updates via their mobile device whenever the phone hears the Monday Night Football opening.
Twitter was also in the running to buy IntoNow, and it missed a huge opportunity by not doing so. It just lost a huge piece of its making-live-TV-relevant strategy. Imagine if you could check into a television show via Twitter and automatically be taken to a hashtag set up for the discussion of that show with other viewers, or if news anchors could more easily read viewer responses in real-time? It would certainly make Nielsen ratings a snap. It could be a huge boon to the service.
My guess is that Twitter failed to buy IntoNow simply because it does not have enough liquidity. It has been valued highly, but it does not have a great (optimistically, a more realistic description might be non-existent) revenue model yet and thus does not have a lot of spare cash to throw around. Yahoo, on the other hand, is fighting to stay on the brink of relevance to the Internet community at large and is willing to make some gambles in order to right its course.
Perhaps it's time for Twitter to sell to a company with large stores of cash (cough, Google, cough, Netflix) that can help it grow and expand into something that isn't easily replaceable; make no mistake about it, Twitter is currently a fad that could be swept over by a better idea any day now. This would give it sudden boost of capital that it could use to buy services to augment the platform, like it should have done today.
Twitter missed an opportunity today to make a buy that would help transform it into the holistic media source that its management claims it one day will be. It can't afford to miss too many more.
If that's true, it just missed an enormous opportunity to build on this position.
Earlier today, Yahoo bought tech startup IntoNow for $20 million. IntoNow is a neat little mobile app that allows users to "check in" to TV shows the same way one would check in to a location via FourSquare. Watchers can then broadcast this information to their social graph, allowing them to easily figure out which of their friends are watching the same stuff they are.
Yahoo has made no secret about their desire to enter the television market, and companies such as Netflix are starting to get into content production instead of content curation and distribution. IntoNow provides Yahoo the capability to add a social layer on top of live TV as well as streaming video via its channels.
Perhaps more interestingly, IntoNow can recognize the soundtracks to television shows, allowing the company to send information to you before you even know that you want to use the app. While sending users a barrage of apps the minute the opening chords to "The Office" are played might be a big obnoxious, users might enjoy receiving game updates via their mobile device whenever the phone hears the Monday Night Football opening.
Twitter was also in the running to buy IntoNow, and it missed a huge opportunity by not doing so. It just lost a huge piece of its making-live-TV-relevant strategy. Imagine if you could check into a television show via Twitter and automatically be taken to a hashtag set up for the discussion of that show with other viewers, or if news anchors could more easily read viewer responses in real-time? It would certainly make Nielsen ratings a snap. It could be a huge boon to the service.
My guess is that Twitter failed to buy IntoNow simply because it does not have enough liquidity. It has been valued highly, but it does not have a great (optimistically, a more realistic description might be non-existent) revenue model yet and thus does not have a lot of spare cash to throw around. Yahoo, on the other hand, is fighting to stay on the brink of relevance to the Internet community at large and is willing to make some gambles in order to right its course.
Perhaps it's time for Twitter to sell to a company with large stores of cash (cough, Google, cough, Netflix) that can help it grow and expand into something that isn't easily replaceable; make no mistake about it, Twitter is currently a fad that could be swept over by a better idea any day now. This would give it sudden boost of capital that it could use to buy services to augment the platform, like it should have done today.
Twitter missed an opportunity today to make a buy that would help transform it into the holistic media source that its management claims it one day will be. It can't afford to miss too many more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)