I blogged a while back about a concept called "Pop-Up Organizations," where dynamic, virtual organizations would organize using the Internet in order to deliver a product or service, or otherwise meet a need, and then disband. It was a concept that was predicted in one of the many forecasts that are published each year. Related to that concept is the concept of "cloud labor," where virtual workers come together to address a specific problem or deliver a service via the Internet.
The cloud labor concept was written about in the article, "Innovation: The relentless rise of the digital worker," by Justin Mullins and published January 15, 2010 on the New Scientist Web site. You can read more about it at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18395-innovation-the-relentless-rise-of-the-digital-worker.html
Needless to say, the pop-up organization is taking form in realtime.
Showing posts with label paradigm change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paradigm change. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2010
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
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?
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?
Friday, February 27, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
