Cellular Phones are Dead; Long Live the Cellular Device

Today (or last night, actually) marks a sea-change in wireless communications: the iPhone Skype application debuted. It is also coming to the Blackberry. Why is this such a disruptive change? Because it represents the final move to data convergence. With the implementation of Skype on cell phones, the voice officially becomes "data." Actually, it has been data since the implementation of digital wireless voice transmission over a decade ago, but Skype represents a transition to cellular communication via Voice-over-Interntet-Protocol (VoIP). With VoIP, a voice call becomes just another Internet connection.

For the short-term, Apple and AT&T are throttling the availablility of Skype to Wi-Fi connections only (not available on EDGE or 3G), but this is only temporary. AT&T may disagree about how temporary it is, but it is temporary. This is because the battle lines have been drawn. AT&T (and by extension, all the other wireless carriers) want to protect their tariffs for charging for voice calls by the minute. The reason is simple; it makes them lots of money. But Skype makes the voice call just another data stream, no different than a song playing on Pandora or a video playing on YouTube. Voice communication becomes bundled with the phone's data plan.

Why this is an issue with the phone company is simple. For the iPhone, the lowest phone plan is $39.99. However, an unlimited data plan is $20.00. Of course, at present AT&T forces you to have both a phone and data plan. Now this is going to change. It is only a matter of time for a company such as Metro PCS to start offering unlimited data/phone plans for a set rate. In the short-term this means that phone plans will decrease in price while data plans increase. In the long-term, there will only be one type of plan--data.

The reason this is a major issue is that carriers make their money off of voice services since they are billed at a higher rate than data. For one thing, they are on a per minute charge (or the user is forced to purchase a group of minutes for a set rate). The carriers like individual rates for voice, SMS, and similar services. For example, of a per minute basis, SMS is the highest cost service on a cellular phone.

With the Skype service, this is going to change--and change disruptively. Already, Skype is the largest carrier of international phone calls. This is not a big deal because AT&T's old Long Lines service has been a decreasing revenue stream for years. Now they are faced with the same thing happening on their wireless phone services. Within the next five years, the wireless companies will be all data services. With this context, it is easy to see why they are looking at metering wireless data. It is their solution to decreasing voice phone revenues.

What do you think?

Netscape Revisited

I wrote a review of Google Chrome--Google's browser entry--back in September, 2008. In it, I described the philosophy behind the browser, and the features provided in the Windows version. With several month's experience and looking at Google Chrome in context with Google's other applications and services, it occurred to me that I was having a deja vu moment. The Google environment reminded me of something similar I had seen or heard about years ago. Then I remembered: Netscape!

Many users today probably don't remember the Netscape browser. However, until a full frontal attack by Microsoft with the introduction and bundling of their Internet Explorer (IE)browser with their Windows operating system, Netscape was the preferred browser for both personal and business use. Indeed, Netscape and their development of HTML seemed to be rapidly making the operating system an afterthought--Netscape would run on a wide variety of operating systems, providing the same user interface and the same functionality. The Internet became primary and the local operating system became secondary. With Netscape incubating this view, it is clear in hindsight why Microsoft took such an aggressive approach to them by developing their own competing browser.

Fast-forwarding a little more than a decade, it can be seen how much has changed and how much things have stayed the same. First, Microsoft won the first battle of the browsers. Indeed, I found an old Web site from 1998 that showed Netscape had 65% of the market while IE had 32%. By January 2002, those statistics had changed to IE 85.8% and ALL other browsers 14.2%. By that time, Netscape was part of AOL and no longer a major force in the market. However, AOL did an interesting thing: They placed the source code for most of Netscape into the open source movement by giving the code to the Mozilla organization. Since it was open source, anyone could use it, work on it, and improve it. With the thousands contributing time, money, and intellectual property to Mozilla, by August, 2008 just before Google Chrome was introduced, IE had 50.5%, Firefox (Mozilla's official browser product) 43.7% and all others 5.8%.
Today, with Google Chrome having been introduced last September, IE has 43.6%, Firefox has 46.4%, Google Chrome has 4%, and all others have 6%. What is astounding about these numbers is that Chrome has gained 4% of the market in just seven months and their browser only runs on Windows. With the release of Chrome to Linux and Mac OS-X later this year, it can be expected that Chrome will grow at an even faster rate.

More importantly, Google Chrome has revived many of the design philosophies of the original Netscape browser. Chrome is the first browser to partition each instance of the browser, whether tab or window. This makes the browser much more stable because instances are independent. It also makes Chrome look more like a user interface tied to an operating environment, one of the original design goals of Netscape. Second, unlike Netscape, Google has developed a broad array of user applications that run in the network cloud and require nothing more than a browser to use. With Chrome, each of these applications can have their own instance of a browser window (or tab) and operate independently. The result is a very sophisticated office system can run in the browser while being operating system independent. Unlike Netscape which had an information portal as its main user application, Google Chrome can support Google Mail, Google Sites, Google Chat, Google Talk, Google Calendar, Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Sketchup, and Google Apps (Word processor, Spreadsheet, and Slide presentations). The result is Google has created an environment that can provide a consistent interface across virtually any operating system and virtually any device. (While mobile devices are still somewhat problematic, they still have similar access. With the introduction of Android devices and continuing developmental support for Apple's iPhone, the interface will only become more similar.)

What this all means is that while Netscape failed in their original vision, they may have the last laugh on Microsoft. It would appear that Google Chrome is in the right place, with the right product (and a multitude of supporting products and partners developing compatible applications and features), and at the right time. The operating system is becoming secondary to the user interface and the applications accessible through that user interface. With an increasing number of technology companies embracing cloud computing (Google, Amazon, eBay, Salesforce just to name a few), Google Chrome only stands to gain.

What are your thoughts? Your comments and questions are invited.

Death of the Newspaper

I was saddened to see the demise of the Rocky Mountain News which published their last edition today after 150 years in business. This got me thinking and in discussion with friends of mine about the future of the newspaper and news organizations in general.

What happened? First, news organizations lost their way. Somewhere over the past couple of decades, news organizations stopped reporting just the news and started reporting opinion. News was and continues to be who, what, where, how, when. Once the reporter begins to provide opinion, it is no longer news. The problem over the last several decades is just about everything in a paper now has opinion. If I want opinion, I can walk down the street and get it for free. Indeed, if I have the right Twitter friends, I get opinion unsolicited.

Once news organizations moved from providing the simple who, what, where, how, and when, their value decreased. (Understand, opinion is important, but it should be labeled as such and should be segregated from "pure" news.) Second, news occurs real time. Newspapers occur periodically. Therefore, news is not longer news by the time a paper is published. The result is that the newspaper was forced to provide something a breaking news source could not provide--context and opinion. The problem with opinion is you can get it anywhere. The result has been decreasing revenue, particularly when alternative news sources have grown.

Second, social media have taken the place of both news reporting and opinion and editorial. With the advent of blogs, everyone can have an opinion. With newspapers, not everyone has their opinion published. Not so with blogs. It is your blog and you always get your opinion published (even if no one reads it). Blogs also allow individuals (in many cases experts in the field) to write about what interests them. The problem with opinion? First, everyone has them, second an opinion can't be wrong--only agreed or disagreed with, and third, opinions and fact are very different things.

The result is that newspapers (and to a lesser extent, radio and TV news organizations) have found a troubling truth--news can't be owned. News is available to the first individual or organization to find it. This was evidenced by the USAir emergency landing in the Hudson River. The first photo from the scene was a TwitPic posting through the social media micro-blogging site Twitter from an individual with an iPhone. Increasingly, this is seen in a variety of news venues--photos of storms on local TV weather reports, crash photos published across the Web, and Twitter and SMS messages from terrorist attacks. This type of news cannot be duplicated by the print media. In many cases, if the immediate resources are not available, it cannot be duplicated by radio and TV media.

This type of news is an immediate unfolding of the who, what, when, where, and why. Newspapers abdicated this news venue decades ago. What remains to be seen is the development of technologies for evaluating "factness" of news. the Digg Web site doesn't do it. The Snopes Web site lags the event by too much for evaluation breaking news. I predict that this area is the next big development in information management of news.

What is your opinion? We'd love to hear from you.

The Power of the Social Net: Debrief

I'm on my way back from the Dallas Twestival and thought I'd capture my thoughts on the experience. First, I'm getting too old for turning out at happenings. Second, it is good to know that the hippie (son or grandson of) movement is alive and well. Third, there are a lot of people out there that, even though they are in close proximity to each other (meaning within conversation distance), they seem to prefer Twitter. I'm going to have to think on this last one as it may be a future trend.

With that said, the Twestival has to be called a success. The Dallas Twestival alone raised enough money to dig a well, so the donated money was well-spent. Add to that the fact that it was fun, we had good music, and we had a little stand-up comedy, I think it was time well-spent.

Dallas Twestival organized this in less than a month. They pulled off a great thing with a lot of great volunteers and some big hearts. They are to be congratulated on being part of a
Future tread in online organization and mobilization for a good cause.

Anyone else have thoughts on the event?

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

The Power of the Social Net: Twestival

There is a lot of discussion these days about social networking sites rapidly gaining in popularity and displacing traditional "post and view" sites that have been around for almost a decade. This "social net"--as I refer to the collective social networks, applications, and tools--could be just the next fade or it could be the next revolution of the Internet. Statistics show Facebook growing faster than MySpace and in the process, gaining a significant user base among adults. That counts because adults buy stuff and generally have more disposable income than the typical teen (disposable is a relative term in these down economic times, but I digress). Social sites such as LinkedIn are seeing an explosion of growth because 1) people are unemployed and are looking to network for that next job; 2) people are employed but don't know for how long; or 3) Boy Scout/Girl Scout-types have no idea where the economy is going and want to be prepared.

On the surface, these sites provide an easy method for people to connect; exchange messages, photos, and interests; and generally stay in touch. In this sense, social networks are displacing the telephone, snailmail, and increasingly, email. However, there is a deeper level to social networks.

Humans are social animals. We like to socialize, to talk, and to do things together. Without it, we are isolated and alone. Social networks address this problem--not as well as in-person activities, but better than alternatives such as the phone or email. And this is where the second level of social networks come in--they are attempting to substitute for some in-person activities. For example, many social networks allow the user to identify connections who are online and to initiate an interactive chat with them. They aren't to the level of Skype, but it's only a matter of time.

Second, social networks are starting to integrate collaboration tools that also enable interactive communication in a number of ways beyond simple chatting. For example, LinkedIn has integrated huddle.com's collaboration tools. As such, it acts an an ad hoc collaboration/discussion board. Both LinkedIn and Facebook have their groups a user can join and become associated with people with a similar interest. Taking a slightly different approach, Google Docs allows interactive viewing and editing of documents. It's as if a group were in a room, simultaneously writing on a whiteboard. While Google's more interactive capabilities have not been integrated into more traditional social network sites, it is only a matter of time.

For a population that has migrated far from their home, these social sites provide the next best thing to being there. With the addition of Skype type capabilities and Google Doc capabilities in the near future, it will almost BE the same as being there.

Finally, there's Twitter, a microblogging service that allows a user to publicly post anything on their mind--as long as it's done in 140 characters or less. Twitter is one of the fastest-growing social networks. While it is technically a micro-blogging service, it is considered a social networks because individuals can subscribe or "follow" people of interest. As a result, the follower groups of an individual tend to form social message interchanges. The network grows because anyone can see the "tweets" or message sent and anyone can follow anyone else. (There are exceptions, but generally this is the way it works.) Twitter has been used to simply let people know what they are doing and to move people to action. For example, a couple of months back an individual was arrested in Egypt and he tweeted for help. The protest was overwhelming and helped to gain the individual's release.

Three recent examples demonstrate the power of Twitter. First, a couple of weeks ago, a passenger plane made an emergency landing in the Hudson River in New York City. A Twitterer on a passenger ferry which immediately diverted to pick up survivors took a picture of the plane and passengers in the water and tweeted it. It was the first on-the-scene photograph from where the plane went down. Over the next several hours, that photo was re-tweeted around the world and picked up by news stations. Even the individual who sent the original tweet photo was interviewed!

Second, Twitter has become so popular that it has its own awards ceremony--The Shorty Awards. Every year, Twitter members vote on who they think are the best tweeters in a variety of categories. The awards ceremony, held this week, played to an overflow crowd and news of the even was again picked up in the popular press.

Third, Twitterers have formed together to raise funds for a worthy cause, clean water worldwide. The gain notice, the cause has taken on a life of its own, now known as Twestival. What started out as a simple fundraising and fun Twitter meetup has grown to organized Twitter meetups in some 175 cities worldwide. Their goal: Raise $1 million for clean water projects in underserved areas of the world. All indications are the Twestival will be a huge success. Even for those not able to attend, people will be tweeting live from the various sites. For the new folks, think of it as a worldwide Rave. For the oldtimers, it's a worldwide happening. Either way, it demonstrates how a social network can mobilize the masses. With that said, I am off to the Dallas Twestival.

What are your thoughts?

Millions of Books, but No Card Catalog

The title of this post is from a tweet (Twitter message) from a source that I follow. However, it succinctly summarizes some of the evolving trends in information management in general, and library sciences in particular. In this case, the title is referring to an article in The New York Times titled, "Some Fear Google’s Power in Digital Books," which describes Google's activities related to digitizing the world's written record. While issues of copyright, fair use, and author protection remain issues, it demonstrates the amount of effort going into the subject and some of the proposed solutions. That the written record will be digitized is not in doubt. The only questions are when it will occur, the technology that will be used, and what it will cost the consumer.

For more on this subject, read the original article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?_r=1

What do you think about this subject?

Tipping Point 2009: Part 1

Predictions and prognostications are a stable at the beginning of every year. This post is a little different. The developments proposed here are all currently available and represent viable, proven technologies. The subject here is when the technology will reach a critical mass in the mainstream market, thus representing a tipping point for mass acceptance and adoption. I propose the following will have a tipping point in 2009.

A convergrnce of a poor economy; rising cable television costs; redundant pricing for bundled cable TV and Internet; improved Internet bandwidth; improved video compression; and expanded TV content available on the Internet may mean the tipping point for Internet over cable TV (and satellite TV). Add to these developments the expanded use of boxes such as the Apple TV; TVs with direct Internet connectivity, home network appliances that can stream audio and video and the tipping point appears imminant. These are no longer technologies seen at CES. Rather, the increased viewership of Hulu, iTunes downloads, and the ever increasing popularity of YouTube video content all point to a massive shift in media preference. Indeed, the proliferation of mainstream YouTube "channels" by organizations such as the Vatican only underscore the occurring shift.

You will know the tipping point has occurred when content creators begin to sue content aggregators for a piece of the action in much the same way the RIAA has gone after various music aggregators. The impact will be massive. Many local TV stations will be disintermediated. This change may actually be a saving grace for newspapers on their last legs. If the newspaper has developed an Internet presence, it might become the local source.

Another indicator of this tipping point is when local broadcasters begin (or increase) their lobby efforts to place restrictions on content origination outside a geographic area. Local broadcasters have previously been successful in these efforts resulting in limitations on satellite TV providers from providing direct east and west coast network feeds. Presently, satellite providers may only do so if the location is not serviced by a local broadcast station. Otherwise, the provider must offer the local broadcast feed. Expect this fight to move to the Internet.

What is your opinion on this subject?

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

Oil Storm

With the price of gas back at levels seen five years ago, the world seems in stasis again--except possibly for the sucking economy. However, the pressure of high gas prices has lifted and everyone seems to be breathing a sigh of relief. If only that were the case.

We are cursed with poor long-term memory. Just nine months ago, the US (indeed, the whole world) was in crisis precipitated by rapidly rising oil prices. Granted that much of that price fluctuation was the result of financial speculation. However, the fact remains that 1) oil consumption is growing faster than oil discovery; 2) what oil is newly discovered is more costly to produce than previous fields; and 3) oil is a finite resource--we are going to run out at some point.

I am reminded of a movie that was broadcast on the FX cable channel back in 2005 called "Oil Storm." [Link to a YouTube trailer for the movie: http://tinyurl.com/87jlh8] Before many similar actual events occurred, it depicted the impact of a large hurricane hitting the critical oil region of the Louisiana coast. Except for the riots and general breakdown in civil law, it was a very good prediction of the events that resulted from Katrina.

While the similarities end with Hurricane Katrina, the movie also points to several additional weaknesses in the US dependency on oil:

1. Both China and India are rapidly increasing their consumption of oil. As a result, they are now cash-rich competitors for our oil dollars. This will place additional pressure on oil prices over the long-term. These countries can outbid the US for oil on the open market. Oil prices will go back up.
2. While most of our oil is imported from "friendly" countries such as Canada and Mexico, over time, we will become more dependent on other emerging countries such as Venezuela, Russia, and the "Stans." To say the least, these countries do not particularly love the US. At worst, they can hold the US for oil ransom. This doesn't address the fact that many of these emerging oil nations are unstable and therefore their oil production is questionable at any given time. A perfect case in point is that as this post is written, Russia has cut natural gas supplies to the Ukraine. Since the major pipelines that supply natural gas to Europe pass through the Ukraine, Russia's actions are already causing short natural gas supplies in Germany. The same could happen with oil supplies.
3. While oil speculation has been tamped-down on the US-based commodities markets, there is nothing to prevent the same thing from happening again on other international markets that are closely-coupled to US markets. Therefore, volatility in oil prices should be expected over the next several decades, with the general trend being upward prices.

The problem is, we are in an "oil storm" now. We just don't realize it or we are in denial. While T. Boone Pickens has some personality aspects that I rather detest, he is one of a few that have stood up to state that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil and has mapped a strategy to achieve that goal. [Link to Pickens Plan here: http://tinyurl.com/94z22d] Former Vice President Al Gore has done the same thing although his approach will be harder to achieve because it is more aggressive. [Link to Al Gore Site: http://tinyurl.com/24w6sq] Of course, Gore is attempting to halt global warming in addition to reducing our dependence on one of the causes, fossil fuels.

All this is nice, but cannot have an impact unless the actions can be converted to legislation. President-elect Obama has demonstrated strong support through the environment and energy leaders he has designated. Whether his agenda can be pushed through Congress remains to be seen. The fact is reducing our dependence on oil will require sacrifices in the short-term. Whether we feel enough pain to do that remains to be seen. One thing is for certain, like the old Fram Oil Filter advertisement, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later," the price will only go up over time. Therefore, it is in our mutual best interest to act now rather than later.