Apple's Safe Society

Apple has received a lot of criticism for making the iPhone application universe a closed system. Every single application must be vetted by Apple's mysterious approval process before it makes it to the iTunes app store. This system is quite different from how Internet-enabled and PC-based applications function - where free-for-all rules rules govern how applications are created and distributed.

Although I agree that a closed system is highly flawed in many ways, it is also an extremely comforting mechanism. In a world where any web pop-up, email attachment, or even Twitter/Facebook link could lead to virus hell, it's very pleasant to not worry about whether an application will disrupt my iPhone.

No matter how controlling, limiting, and ultimately closed the iPhone ecosystem remains, it sure is very user-friendly - down to the inherent peace-of-mind concerning every single application download.

The Twitter Decline?

I've found myself not utilizing Twitter's services very frequently over the past few weeks. Although my schedule has been disrupted by travel and odd work-hours, the most telling sign for Twitter's potential decline is my lack of caring. No longer do I feel the urgency to view the constant glow of the Twitter stream - stemming either directly from Twitter.com or from any of the Twitter-enabled applications.

Although I am just one person - whose personal habits probably have nothing to do with larger trends - it has been documented that Twitter's traffic over the past few months is stagnating. I have encountered a good deal of anecdotal evidence of similar usage trends amongst friends and family.

It would be a revolutionary leap in Internet-enabled trend cycles if Twitter has indeed already crested. Only a few months after culturally peaking as the darling of Oprah, Twitter now faces a potential ceiling. Although this slowdown may be quite temporary - as was the case for other hits such as Facebook - it may also signal a deeper and more fundamental lacking of the Twitter value-proposition.

The Facebook Birthday

Since an ever-increasing portion of the wired world is on Facebook, we are quickly getting closer to having a truly universal directory of mainly real people. This directory stores quite a bit of data - in particular, nearly every member's birthday.

With this broad knowledge of birthdays comes a broad stream of birthday reminders. Never will anyone forget a friend's birthday - as long as that friend is a friend via Facebook. This comes quite in handy as positive reinforcement for celebration and recognition. But it also poses some interesting conundrums. What if a good real-life/Facebook friend doesn't send even the smallest acknowledgment on your birthday? Facebook diminishes the forgetfulness excuse. So what we end up with is an even more complicated social norm with an even greater number of potentially real or illusory implications. So much for making life simpler...

Click Here for Fame

A lot of time has been spent on the topic of fame recently. Fame is the new currency of success. Tiger Woods' life has been turned into a shamble due to fame. The White House security infrastructure was overcome by one couple's obsessive urge for fame. Two parents faked the disappearance of their son - via a seemingly dangerous balloon ride - for the sake of obtaining fame.

For some, it seems that fame is now really worth more than dignity, kindness, honesty, or even sanity. Because fame has become more accessible and ubiquitous, it is no longer untouchable or unreachable. Ironically, because of cable, reality television, YouTube sensations, etc. fame is now just one (potentially absurd) step away - where some are willing to do anything to touch it, to reach it, to capture it.

This increased value of fame makes digital social-media even more valuable. Beyond allowing us to connect with friends and family, platforms such as Facebook and Twitter allow us to simulate fame. These channels give everyone the ability to innocently, easily, and quickly gain a following. Facebook puts a face to this simulation. Twitter puts a number to it. When combined, we all now have the tools required to feel famous.

Risky Real-Time

The real-time web refers a broad set of Internet-based services that enable instant digital communication. Some elements of the real time web have existed for a while now - e.g. real-time one-to-one and few-to-few forms of communication such as Instant Messaging and Chat. But over the past couple of years the Internet has experienced the quick proliferation of one-to-many real-time communication - i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Along with digital communication, digital goods have also enabled real-time transactions. iTunes is the prime example of a real-time commerce application where a quick transaction brings upon instant gratification. Anyone can purchase a song, movie, or software within seconds.

The real-time web has significantly improved the Internet - it has fostered many new forms of communication and transaction. But the real-time web also introduces new risks that the old, more static web didn't suffer. Since data can spread instantly, misinformation can reach many people before it is proven to be false. Rumors are thus experiencing a Renaissance within this new reality. In the financial realm, the real-time web gives bad guys the ability to quickly perform hit-and-run scams. Money laundering and other transnational schemes can flourish before anyone realizes what's going on.

So what we have is typical to most human innovation and evolution - the new technology that is quickly misused. But this time things may be different. The real-time web is quickly becoming the foundation of the new Internet. It is here to stay and so are those who attempt to misuse it. We must realize that real-time is both a gift and a huge challenge. The real-time web is the battlefield of the future.

Don't Unfriend Me

"Unfriend" was declared to be the word of the year by the New Oxford American Dictionary. The word means to disconnect a link to someone within a social networking setting.

Most discussion on this matter has focused on the merit of the word - i.e. if it is valuable enough to be added to a serious dictionary and thus near-permanently inserted into the English language. But I take this debate to be moot. The word exists and it is widely used. It's hard to predict the future, but for now it is an important concept.

What intrigues me is the underlying reality that unfriend establishes. It depicts a world where friendship can seemingly be turned on and off with the click of a button. Although this might just be the digital method of a symbolic process which humans have utilized for decades, it connects a chillingly simple word to the deconstruction of a relationship.

The Facebook Generation

I have an awesome one-year-old cousin. He is a very cool child that already knows how to hold a mobile phone, look into a web cam, and speak into a microphone. He is also part of a generation that will never know a world without Internet-enabled social networking - e.g. Facebook, Skype, Twitter, etc.

What does this mean for the little guy?

• He will have every important moment of his life permanently documented
• He will have the concepts of networking and social portfolios ingrained in his psyche from his earliest points of consciousness
• He will expect a high level of openness and sharing from most
• Geographic distance will no longer be a barrier
• Diversity will be based more on personality than ethnicity
• Reading and writing will be his primary means of communication.

Those are just a few potential repercussions for The Facebook Generation. I'm not sure what this will mean for the world in twenty years - but I am sure that it will be different from today's reality.

The Second Résumé

We've officially reached a point where most new job applicants have two general types of résumés. The first is the typical one-to-two page template-based résumé that's been popular for decades. The other is a more fragmented, digital, cubist-like résumé.

This second résumé stems from the many different personal fingerprints we leave on the Internet. Some are explicit and easily managed - e.g. LinkedIn and Facebook profiles. Others are semi-relevant and mainly controllable - e.g. Tweets. Finally, the least predictable and least manageable forms on Internet-based expression could potentially live on without our knowledge and control - e.g. old Instant Messenger conversations, etc.

I believe that we are seeing a rapid growth in Web-based communication that fits within the second and third categories of the second résumé - i.e. Twitter usage is steadily growing more relevant, location-based services that come with more advanced mobile technology are becoming widespread, etc. This means that it's becoming increasingly difficult to manage the second résumé. It also means that employers are increasingly relying on the second résumé as the main, true behavioral indicator.

Because of these trends, identity management will become a much bigger industry than most can foresee. Since millions of jobs will soon depend on one's Web activity, billions of dollars are at stake from controlling the second résumé.

Twitter is to Email as Radio is to Telephone

A very interesting, but flawed article by a young and wise blogger, Cody Brown, has been getting a good deal of deserved attention lately. He argues that because Twitter lacks a clear focus and an explicit mission, that it will suffer the same fate recently experienced by the similarly unfocused MySpace – i.e. a steady loss of users to more targeted and better defined services. His recommended remedy would have Twitter place all its chips on a core market, like MySpace has now begun to do by centering its offering on music.

Although I believe there is some validity to this overall argument, it is greatly hindered by the assumption that Twitter is a comparable species to MySpace – i.e. that the same evolutionary rules apply to both companies. I believe that Twitter is a fundamentally different beast from either MySpace or Facebook.

While progressive at the time, MySpace and Facebook were designed based on essentially static principles: profiles, virtual bulletin boards (walls), clearly defined networks and connections, groups, and photographs. These principles have been present in static media for decades – in yearbooks, in newsletters, on real walls and bulletin boards, in albums, etc. MySpace and Facebook initially represented the digitization of a pretty old paradigm for socialization. This paradigm is very reliant on the quantity and quality of content and is thus much more vulnerable to fragmentation – whoever offers the most of the best content usually wins more users. Cody’s analysis fits in very nicely within this framework because it clearly depicts how Facebook was able to offer more of better content – primarily driven by both an initial focus on colleges and by the transparency of actual identity verification. Both Facebook and MySpace have changed over time, but their initial principles shaped the trajectory of their relative success.

Twitter is based on different principles and thus relies on a different set of rules, a different group of prerequisites for success. Twitter was initially designed based on essentially dynamic principles: on mobile technology known as SMS (texting). This mobile technology is driven by real-time interaction. It is directly affected by the users’ unique geographical location and the unique perspective that stems from the location. This means that the paradigm is primarily reliant on the quantity of content – and the diversity that inherently stems from large quantities. For Twitter to succeed, it doesn't need to ensure the quality of its content. It only needs to continue to grow the amount of raw information that flows through its system – to become the go-to platform for this form of 140-character communication.

In many ways, Twitter represents a similar evolutionary leap from email that the radio was from the telephone. The radio added a new sense of mobility to distant communication. It opened the door to a more dynamic, democratic, and broader network of communication – eventually allowing the rise of mobile telephony. It also allowed for a much simpler process of rudimentary one-to-many communication. Like radio technology, Twitter represents a platform on top of which different networks are built. Companies will not build around Twitter, they will build on top of it. Because Twitter is a fundamental channel for communication that has opened up its infrastructure to others, its success does not depend on the quality of content that flows through its veins. By encouraging all forms of interaction, Twitter grows the required quantity of information that is transmitted across the system.

What this means is that Twitter is not a social network, it is a tool that social networks use to communicate. It also means that Twitter doesn't need to focus its content on a core target market in order to survive. Just like radio communication is used by billions of different stakeholders, Twitter’s aim should be similar in its broadness. It should serve as the most basic infrastructure for a new form of communication, where the greater the diversity of users and usage-categories, the greater the success of the core platform.

Although promising, Twitter still has numerous important challenges to consider and overcome - many of which I will explore in the near future.

The Fragile Internet

The events of this week continue to highlight the fragility of the new Internet. The new Internet is based on a few simple principles and emerging trends: real-time communication, person-to-person sharing of content (especially links, the real currency of the Web), one-to-many dialogue, and the proliferation of mobile as an added channel.

What all of these trends have in common is that they depend on one or more bottlenecks to exist - e.g. social networks such as Facebook, communication platforms such as Twitter, URL shorteners such as bit.ly, etc. Gone are the days where email was the primary means of communication - i.e. where a technical collapse can be easily isolated to a company or a region. Today, the collapse of Facebook would instantaneously disrupt a global web of communication.

What's particularly frightening is the fact that these bottlenecks have become so important that they are global targets for scammers, nefarious hackers, and other bad guys. Even seemingly benign changes can affect how bottlenecks function and thus how the whole Internet communicates. Three examples from the past week clearly illustrate the delicate nature of the new Web:

• Out of business. This week tr.im announced that it was shutting down its operations. Although this second-tier URL shortener is relatively small, it still facilitates thousands of active shared links. Its demise would mean that those links would cease to function, thus instantly creating thousands of dead ends. The potential ramifications of such a meltdown have led to a variety of plans to either save the company or the links themselves.
• Absorbed. A few days ago, Facebook announced that it has purchased FriendFeed - a more robust Twitter-type sharing platform. FriendFeed is still a nascent platform with a small yet growing following and an interesting portfolio of technology and talent. Although the move makes sense, it depicts two troubling facts - 1. Logical consolidation will only lead to bigger and more valuable bottlenecks; 2. The users of these technologies are fickle - as seen by a revolt of old-time FriendFeed users.
• Too big for its own good. Finally, the ongoing saga of the DDOS attacks on Twitter illustrates that bottlenecks are perfect targets for disrupting global communication. The bigger and the more important these new Internet platforms become, the greater the media coverage they will receive, and the larger the probability of more persistent attacks.

In the past, the collapse of AOL's or Yahoo's website would be disruptive but still localized. In the present, we have the growing consolidation of a relatively few global communication platforms. The platforms increasingly sustain a diverse set of economic, artistic, and social activities that provide significant value to our society. These platforms are bottlenecks that are susceptible to a wide variety of disruptions. The emerging Internet is quite fragile for now.

Hide Your Face or Get Fired

It's been said that Facebook conquered social networking and the Internet in part because it eliminated anonymity - real pictures connected to real email addresses instead of made up screen names and wacky cartoon images. The theory is that real personas add a sense of credibility, safety, and a much greater opportunity for advertisers/content developers to understand their audience.

But it seems that this openness might have also created a Big Brother-like side effect. Today I read that 8% of U.S. companies have fired social media miscreants. This is probably just the beginning. I'm not sure if this is good or bad. Anonymity used to be the main counter-force to the expanded monitoring power enabled by the Internet. Are we now coming to a place where parts of the digital identity have become a liability?

Get Ready for the Tangible Backlash - Part I

The commercially available and massively usable Internet now touches nearly every facet of life. In less than twenty years of rapid expansion, widespread digital communication has completely redefined what constitutes as real - in terms of relationships, content, and value. Today we are faced with the prospect of the massive digitization of products, services, and basic human norms that seemed untouchable only a decade ago - e.g. the newspaper, the doctor, the marriage.

The Internet has forced a fundamental societal change. As with any radical cultural revolution, a backlash is inevitable. I believe that we are on the precipice of such a backlash. It will be manifested by the extreme emotional need for the tangible - either through real items or through face-to-face human interaction. The sales of vinyl records will continue to rise. The proliferation non-Twitter gatherings will continue to gain popularity.

This backlash is caused by a nostalgic need for the familiar reality of the past, by the evolutionary human connection to tangible tools, and by the beneficial nature of scarcity.

Real things evoke emotions of "simpler times," of childhood, and of control. This control stems from the physical constraints of real things - these real items and interactions can't be shared on Facebook or retweeted a hundred times. The touch and feel of human interaction cannot be quickly forgotten or digitally reconstructed.

For thousands of years, human beings have utilized physical tools to maintain our existence and improve our environment. The basic paradigms and supporting mechanisms are genetically encoded in our being. It will take a long time for human beings to anatomically embrace the reality of potentially ubiquitous digitization.

Finally, scarcity is much more easily created, maintained, and excused through the existence of tangible products. This is why gold or silver decorations are infinitely more expensive than digital decorations. Scarcity drives many basic economic principles. But scarcity can't be easily replicated in the digital domain - those who benefit from scarcity will continue to foster its existence.

The Game of Life for the Digital Gaming Generation

I am part of a generation that was born to a world of video games - I am a member of the Digital Gaming Generation. We are a group that hasn't lived without the option to score digital points, explore virtual worlds, or "compete" for hours-upon-hours against pixilated adversaries.

It is within this context that we view the world. My generation functions within a completely different paradigm from all previous age-groups - where reality can and should be augmented at all times by computers large and small, where measuring success, i.e. seeing the score, should be explicit and constant.

It is within this reality that a new crop of mobile and Internet-based offerings begins to bridge reality and the digital domain. For example, the newly launched Booyah links real world accomplishments (such as travel) to a virtual self in a virtual community - fully linked to Facebook and Twitter. Foursquare takes a similar but more localized approach - rewarding real world socialization with virtual badges and titles.

These games are made possible in part due to the proliferation of location-based technology in mobile phones. They also represent the obvious tip of a major game-life iceberg that is yet to come. These early examples link real world fun with virtual world fun - an easy connection to establish. The really interesting innovations will come when games are linked to more serious matters such as personal health, political involvement, financial decisions, on-the-job effectiveness, etc. Mine is the generation that incorporates the principles of gaming into all parts of life.

The Internet Isn't Radio

When I first began to consciously listen to FM radio in the New York area (in the late 1980s and early 1990s), the breakdown of music stations was similar to what it is today. There were a bunch of "current hits" stations, some modern rock/alternative, hip-hop/rap, and a few other random but current music genres. There was one major difference: the oldies. At that time, the oldies were considered to include popular music from the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s. Today the oldies on FM radio primarily include classic rock from the late 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s.

This transition probably occurred somewhere in the mid-1990s due to the major generational shifts at the time - i.e. the Baby Boomers beginning to dominate the nostalgia/oldies market following the near-complete retirement (and decreased oldies consumption) of the Greatest and the Silent generations. There wasn't enough FM radio spectrum to cover all music from the 1930s through the early 1980s under the oldies umbrella, so station owners focused on the consumers that mattered most at the time.

When a similar consumer-driven generational power shift occurred with the most prominent modern form of content delivery, the Internet, old content didn't disappear but only took a back seat. When Generation Y came to dominate Generation X in Internet content-consumption, the Internet just became bigger, richer, and better.

This relatively innocuous comparison reinforces an important lesson about today's main platform for communication, the Internet. Terrestrial FM radio is limited by the radio spectrum used to broadcast its tunes. The Internet is reaching a point where such delivery-limitations are quickly becoming nonexistent. This is why most new Internet content is stacked on top of old content - i.e. why Yahoo and AOL still exist alongside Google and Facebook.

This means that the Internet can't be really compared to any previous form of content-delivery platforms such as letters, pamphlets, newspapers, books, radio, television, or even cable television. The Internet faces nearly no scarcity problems for either supply or demand. The greatest limitation becomes time - time for creation and time for consumption.

This creates a whole new context for evaluating and discussing the economics of Internet content and content-delivery - a massive topic that I will analyze more in the near-future.

The Home of the Brave Entrepreneurs

With July 4th approaching, I've been motivated to think about a few quintessential traits of the American business and innovation culture. The latest issue of one of my favorite e-zines further inspired me to think about this from an entrepreneurial perspective. Here are three fundamentally American quirks:

• Failure is a badge of honor. This of course doesn't apply to all forms of failure, but it does apply to the entrepreneurial type of demise. The United States fosters an incredibly supportive environment for new ventures, and a key component of this support comes from the general acceptance of new-business busts. Entrepreneurs are heralded for offering new products and services and are respected for imagining new business models. Failure is just the occasional side-effect of innovation. This is further excused by the fact that second chances are an ingrained component of our culture.
• Risky behavior is surprisingly supported. Even though the U.S. comes from conservatively puritanical roots, risk within the business context is generally encouraged. Although it is often publicly decried, high-levels of risk are actively pursued. Although new forms of minimizing risk are constantly invented, it is risk that brings great success stories such as Microsoft and Apple, but also great catastrophes such as the recent credit crisis.
• Technology is both a friend and an enemy. Silicon Valley is still seen as the global hotbed of innovation. But Americans are often initially skeptical of new technology - which is usually masked through the concerns of "security" or "privacy." Adoption of new products usually differs from adoption in Japan or other Asian countries. Familiarity and acceptance of new technology takes longer to permeate our culture - this is why fast-followers are often more successful in reaching a massive audience - e.g. IBM with the personal computer, Microsoft with Windows, Apple with the iPod, Facebook with social networking, etc.

Although these quirks can make entrepreneurship in the United States tricky, they also create a unique environment that has nurtured and continues to nurture many of the most innovative companies in the world.

Facebook's Privacy Obstacle

As Facebook and Twitter both continue to evolve into similar offerings with similar services, one major philosophical difference between the two social networking behemoths seems to have no chance of disappearing any time soon: a focus or lack thereof on privacy.

Facebook seems to be obsessed with perfecting its privacy policies. Numerous iterations of their privacy functions have been rolled out since Facebook launched. The most fundamental and controversial change involved opening the website to non-college/high school students - to everyone. Today Facebook has again announced new modifications - slowly starting to open up its website. This issue isn't going away for Facebook; it's only becoming more muddied.

On the other hand, Twitter has reached massive scale with very little regard for privacy. Any user can follow any other user. Although the "block" function exists, I suspect that it's mainly used to block spammers and other evil-doers. Very low expectations have been set.

What does this philosophical difference mean? I think it's clear that Facebook has to play catch-up with Twitter on this issue. As more and more people become comfortable with the Internet and the free communication that it allows, privacy is quickly losing its value. Facebook should stop wasting time and other resources on this matter. Facebook needs to realize that privacy is not a requirement but instead an obstacle.

Maslow's Internet - The Internet Evolved to Meet Our Needs

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is one of the first concepts taught in most early management and psychology classes. Although there is debate around the framework (especially around the belief that human needs are actually ranked), Maslow's hierarchy is still generally regarded as an important and valuable lens for evaluating human needs.

The gist of the theory is that humans have different levels of needs (starting at the bottom of the pyramid) and that we work to meet the bottom needs first before moving to fulfill the next set of needs. Sleep is more important than friendship, water is more important than security, etc.

When I take a non-scientific look at how the mainstream Internet has evolved - following the initial few years of the "getting to know you" period - it seems to follow the hierarchy pretty well:

1. Initial communication over the Internet was relatively basic and mimicked the patterns of earlier forms of communication - facilitating basic needs. In addition, the pornography industry was one of the earliest widespread adopters of the Internet - as is usually the case with new technology.
2. We soon realized that more sophisticated communication was possible over the Internet. The government began to develop simple ways of communicating with the wider population. Websites for health (WebMD), employment (Monster), financial services, and all forms of factual reference quickly multiplied.
3. Real-time communication including instant messengers, chat, webcams, and now VOIP-services has further augmented our ability to communicate intimately. In addition, the mainstream acceptance of Internet dating has come to fulfill our need for Love.
4. The proliferation of social networking worked to meet our esteem needs. From personal expression (MySpace) to friendly networks (Facebook) to professional networks (LinkedIn), social networking has allowed us to build a digital persona where virtual respect is coveted.
5. Finally, the services that will fulfill the top needs are still in a state of fluid development. Crowdsourcing offerings like Wikipedia and Innocentive seem to be a natural way to fulfill our need for self-actualization. But there is still plenty of room and probably the greatest level of opportunity for new offerings.

I'm sure there are numerous exceptions to the path that I've outlined, but I believe that the overall trend is definitely present.

The Hoard Mentality

My friend Sam and I often discuss, argue, and validate various random concepts. I find that talking to someone different from me often inspires more interesting and valuable conclusions.

Recently we discussed the often prevalent and usually innate human need to hoard possessions. This emotional drive probably comes from various evolutionary influences - i.e. those humans who collected and saved their food or their tools managed to survive longer. This need manifests itself through many different ways in our society. Sometimes we accumulate truly valuable things like gold, jewelry, real estate, etc. Often we hoard questionably-valuable items like stocks, baseball cards, Beanie Babies, etc.

The hoarding reflex can get us in trouble. It leads to emotional bursts of overvaluation and unrealistic expectations. The hoarding need is quite possibly a contributing reason for stock bubbles, real estate bubbles, and just absurd materialistic trends - such as Beanie Babies selling for thousands of dollars.

I believe that the hoarding reflex is also a major contributor to the profound success of social networking. Websites like LinkedIn, MySpace, and Facebook allow us to easily hoard co-workers, sales leads, acquaintances, and friends. These websites let us neatly and visually quantify all the people we've collected in life. These modern tools make us feel close to a wide network of individuals and allow us to constantly grow our social stockpiles.

Are we creating unrealistic expectations of the human hoards we've accumulated and the tools that enable this collection process?

There's Something About Cool

I've been lucky to grow up with The Simpsons. The show has not only thoroughly entertained me but has also taught me quite a bit. The Simpsons helped me learn to speak English, to realize the brilliance of Phil Hartman, and to identify the value of vague cultural references. The show also taught me that "cool" is often a necessary ingredient for success. The Simpsons represented the cutting edge of cool and manifested all the usual symptoms - a subversive undertone, occasional controversy, rapid word-of-mouth expansion, and eventual mass success.

Cool is what made my friends and I decide to sign up for Facebook instead of MySpace. Cool is what made me go to Google.com for the first time. Cool helped me sign up for Twitter and cool inspired me to write this blog. Cool is both powerful and precious.

Unfortunately, cool is often difficult to identify, define, and manufacture. The Simpsons tackled this problem in a brilliant car-ride conversation between the main family members:

Homer: So, I realized that being with my family is more important than being cool.
Bart: Dad, what you just said was powerfully uncool.
Homer: You know what the song says: "It's hip to be square".
Lisa: That song is so lame.
Homer: So lame that it's... cool?
Bart+Lisa: No.
Marge: Am I cool, kids?
Bart+Lisa: No.
Marge: Good. I'm glad. And that's what makes me cool, not caring, right?
Bart+Lisa: No.
Marge: Well, how the hell do you be cool? I feel like we've tried everything here.
Homer: Wait, Marge. Maybe if you're truly cool, you don't need to be told you're cool.
Bart: Well, sure you do.
Lisa: How else would you know?