I watched A Conversation On The Future Of Music.
Guests were Chris DeWolfe (myspace) and Edgar Bronfman (from Warner Music). Instead of the future of music industry, they spent lots of time for future strategies for both companies. They both said all the money from the business need to go to artists, users and music companies, and that’s what their companies want.
Chris said Myspace is different from iTunes or Rhapsody because Myspace’s streaming service is a great market than others, and having the online music community is very special, 2.0!!!
Edgar said Apple is doing a remarkable job, but the online music market between itunes and myspace is not even competitive. He siad if audiences care about the community or want to share with their friends, the choice will be myspace, not itunes. Itunes is “Sexy device” music stores.
20% of revenues for Warner music is from digital sources (I think it is still very low percentages), and it was only 5-6 percents a few years ago.
Also watched Launch Pad Fourth Edition :Web Meets World.
Mok Oh from EveryScape, Inc plans by 2010, his company like to build on-line views of every single cities in the world. It looks like the google street view system, but it actually lets you go to see INSIDE of a restaurant or a store, even how the interior of the restaurant looks like. They launched a beta version of a few U.S. cities, but the company plans to have the online views of everywhere in the world by next a couple years. Privacy? Hmm.. I don’t know.
Here is how Austin looks like! AMAZING!
http://www.everyscape.com/austin-tx.us.aspx
Monday, December 1, 2008
Web 2.0 Summit: Media and technology behind it
Picking from the Web 2.0 Summit videos was a difficult task, but only because I thought everything was very interesting. These people are helping lead the way in how we communicate on the web and building the technology that will be used to do it.
The Media Business: New Approaches
With that thought in mind, the first video I watched was the panel discussion between Joel Hyatt of Current TV and Evan Williams of Twitter that was moderated by Ken Auletta of The New Yorker. They were figures I was familiar with being that I'm a Twitterholic and I had been looking at Current as a way to get some video news pieces I planned to work on in the future.
Anywho, the panelists provide some background on their respective companies and models they were working on to create a profitable business, which is when my favorite word came in: monetize. (FYI: note my sarcasm). Williams discussed how Twitter was considering charging commercial enterprises to tweet as a way to generate revenue. He described it as an alternative model to the ad-revenue system that has been the only real model used in old media. So with the proposed Twitter model, instead of having advertising placed among your tweets, you follow the tweets of a company voluntarily.
One issue we discussed in class was what criteria would be followed to designate a Twitter account as a commercial one. Would newspaper or network news accounts be considered commercial accounts that require payment? Once Twitter explores this business model some more, perhaps we will learn how they plan to implement it and differentiate commercial and non-commercial accounts.
Auletta referred to Twitter's plan as innovation seeking the business model versus the business model seeking innovation since business are already tweeting. I think that's a very apt description that old media finds a very scary because the possibility of failure is fairly possible versus the tried and true old ad model.
One thing is for sure, though. Twitter is becoming a mainstream player in the world of interactive web communication and the disbursement of news. While Williams contends Twitter is not on the level of Facebook or Myspace, I think they are on the verge of getting there. The adoption of Twitter by some news media outlets is proof of that. Current is one example.
Hyatt discussed their collaboration with Twitter on the presidential debates this year, which was called Hack the Debate. The digital cable news channel and Twitter joined forces on Election Day again - along with Digg - to provide viewer responses and user-generated content. Hyatt touted the fact that 40% of the content on Current is user generated and it was a way to "unleash the creativity of young people." However, he also said they were experimenting with new ways to generate revenue as well, which includes their user-generated ads.
Here's my issue with Current. In order to submit pods, which are the mini-news stories that Current airs, you have to submit release forms for legal purposes. So basically, anyone who appears in your video has to sign a release in order for it to appear on Current TV. Also, if you film on private property, you have to get a location release for that too. Speaking from experience, because I had to do this with my Choose or Lose gig, it's a giant pain in the behind because it is not something the typical journalist has to do. I understand why Current and other media corporations do it. They have to protect themselves legally, obviously. However, I don't know of ANY news stations or journalists in general that have to do this.
I love Current. They have great content. However, if they want to keep that "news network" mentality, the releases have got to go. It's one thing that hinders it from growing, I believe. Granted I couldn't get paid by posting my video on YouTube (Current pays content creators $ if their stuff makes it on air), but I don't have to get a release for the protester that was just beaten at some rally.
Paul Otellini
So enough of my rant on monetizing and release forms. The next video I watched was a talk with Paul Otellini of Intel. I had never heard of the guy, but I'm glad I know about him now.
He discussed the need for professional networking and the need for a customized web experience, which he said was close to fruition. The big point he was trying to drive home was the advances in chip technology Intel has been able to create and how they would help propel Web 2.0 to new heights. I particularly enjoyed how they used camera-like gadget to translate Chinese characters to English (in this case, the name of a restaurant) and provide a variety of links and videos to items related to the restaurant.
Otellini claims this is the future of interactivity, but when I saw this demonstration, I couldn't help but think of an iPhone app that Cindy said I should download (I did) called SnapTell. The app has image recognition technology for CDs, DVDs and book covers. When it figures out what book, CD or DVD it is, the app provides link to the Wikipedia page, amazon page and any other web pages it finds relevant.
I think the technology that Otellini described is there, but making it even more powerful and accessible from compact devices is oh so close to coming.
Bringing the two together
Each video discussed very different, but very related topics involving Web. 2.0. Some assessments:
The Media Business: New Approaches
With that thought in mind, the first video I watched was the panel discussion between Joel Hyatt of Current TV and Evan Williams of Twitter that was moderated by Ken Auletta of The New Yorker. They were figures I was familiar with being that I'm a Twitterholic and I had been looking at Current as a way to get some video news pieces I planned to work on in the future.
Anywho, the panelists provide some background on their respective companies and models they were working on to create a profitable business, which is when my favorite word came in: monetize. (FYI: note my sarcasm). Williams discussed how Twitter was considering charging commercial enterprises to tweet as a way to generate revenue. He described it as an alternative model to the ad-revenue system that has been the only real model used in old media. So with the proposed Twitter model, instead of having advertising placed among your tweets, you follow the tweets of a company voluntarily.
One issue we discussed in class was what criteria would be followed to designate a Twitter account as a commercial one. Would newspaper or network news accounts be considered commercial accounts that require payment? Once Twitter explores this business model some more, perhaps we will learn how they plan to implement it and differentiate commercial and non-commercial accounts.
Auletta referred to Twitter's plan as innovation seeking the business model versus the business model seeking innovation since business are already tweeting. I think that's a very apt description that old media finds a very scary because the possibility of failure is fairly possible versus the tried and true old ad model.
One thing is for sure, though. Twitter is becoming a mainstream player in the world of interactive web communication and the disbursement of news. While Williams contends Twitter is not on the level of Facebook or Myspace, I think they are on the verge of getting there. The adoption of Twitter by some news media outlets is proof of that. Current is one example.
Hyatt discussed their collaboration with Twitter on the presidential debates this year, which was called Hack the Debate. The digital cable news channel and Twitter joined forces on Election Day again - along with Digg - to provide viewer responses and user-generated content. Hyatt touted the fact that 40% of the content on Current is user generated and it was a way to "unleash the creativity of young people." However, he also said they were experimenting with new ways to generate revenue as well, which includes their user-generated ads.
Here's my issue with Current. In order to submit pods, which are the mini-news stories that Current airs, you have to submit release forms for legal purposes. So basically, anyone who appears in your video has to sign a release in order for it to appear on Current TV. Also, if you film on private property, you have to get a location release for that too. Speaking from experience, because I had to do this with my Choose or Lose gig, it's a giant pain in the behind because it is not something the typical journalist has to do. I understand why Current and other media corporations do it. They have to protect themselves legally, obviously. However, I don't know of ANY news stations or journalists in general that have to do this.
I love Current. They have great content. However, if they want to keep that "news network" mentality, the releases have got to go. It's one thing that hinders it from growing, I believe. Granted I couldn't get paid by posting my video on YouTube (Current pays content creators $ if their stuff makes it on air), but I don't have to get a release for the protester that was just beaten at some rally.
Paul Otellini
So enough of my rant on monetizing and release forms. The next video I watched was a talk with Paul Otellini of Intel. I had never heard of the guy, but I'm glad I know about him now.
He discussed the need for professional networking and the need for a customized web experience, which he said was close to fruition. The big point he was trying to drive home was the advances in chip technology Intel has been able to create and how they would help propel Web 2.0 to new heights. I particularly enjoyed how they used camera-like gadget to translate Chinese characters to English (in this case, the name of a restaurant) and provide a variety of links and videos to items related to the restaurant.
Otellini claims this is the future of interactivity, but when I saw this demonstration, I couldn't help but think of an iPhone app that Cindy said I should download (I did) called SnapTell. The app has image recognition technology for CDs, DVDs and book covers. When it figures out what book, CD or DVD it is, the app provides link to the Wikipedia page, amazon page and any other web pages it finds relevant.
I think the technology that Otellini described is there, but making it even more powerful and accessible from compact devices is oh so close to coming.
Bringing the two together
Each video discussed very different, but very related topics involving Web. 2.0. Some assessments:
- In order for news media to survive, it must evolve by adapting to new technology.
- However, news media must first learn about the technology, which is where the real problem lies. When someone from Intel is talking about the processors that are continuously getting smaller and faster, someone needs to break down the information for those that don't understand it. I think reality has begun to sink in for those news organizations that haven't jumped onto technology bandwagon. Simplifying the information may help get these media organization over the fear of the new.
- The tech community should continue seize this opportunity. Granted there will always be some entities resistant to change, but that's why they will die out and innovators won't. They might fail at one thing (Twitter could with their proposed revenue model), but eventually find a formula for success.
Facebook and Politics 2.0
The Web and Politics Panel
The 2008 Presidential election is like the election of 1960 in that a new medium has become the dominant medium in which we communicated through during the election. In the sixties it was television. Today it's the web. In this pannel Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post, Mayor of San Fransisco Gavin Newsom, and Joe Trippi of Trippi and associates dicuss politics shortly after the presidential elecition with moderator John Heilemann of New York Magazine. This panel is one of the longer ones. It is actually 51 minutes long, but the information is relevant so it is worth watching. The web has not only changed the way elections are run, but it will change how politics are run in the future. With the web, citizens can interact with their government easily. While television demanded fake, the web demands authenticities. With the web we find out who the politicians really are. It is something that politicians aren't really used to. The panelist argue that this authenticity is healthy for society. Another big thing they talked about are the ways that Barack Obama mobilized people through the web using BarackObama.com, Facebook, Myspace, twitter, and of course Youtube. And also how he raised money through emails asking for small donations. He took advantage of the benefits of the interactivity of the web to raise money and change the nation.
Facebook
Of course I have to choose the Mark Zuckerburg panel, because as you all know how much I love Facebook. At first Mark talked about monetizing, but he's said that he's pretty much fine financially. Facebook is growing rapidly, especially this year. This month they've grown to 125 million users and its no surprize because even my grandma is on Facebook these days. Mark talked about the future of Facebook, which right now is "Facebook connect." This will allow you to use your Facebook profile information on other websites. It is in the works right now. Mark also mentioned the elections and how the candidates took advantage of the applications platform. The causes application has helped people to create virtual movements. Mark dicussed this and other topics reguarding the election.
The 2008 Presidential election is like the election of 1960 in that a new medium has become the dominant medium in which we communicated through during the election. In the sixties it was television. Today it's the web. In this pannel Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post, Mayor of San Fransisco Gavin Newsom, and Joe Trippi of Trippi and associates dicuss politics shortly after the presidential elecition with moderator John Heilemann of New York Magazine. This panel is one of the longer ones. It is actually 51 minutes long, but the information is relevant so it is worth watching. The web has not only changed the way elections are run, but it will change how politics are run in the future. With the web, citizens can interact with their government easily. While television demanded fake, the web demands authenticities. With the web we find out who the politicians really are. It is something that politicians aren't really used to. The panelist argue that this authenticity is healthy for society. Another big thing they talked about are the ways that Barack Obama mobilized people through the web using BarackObama.com, Facebook, Myspace, twitter, and of course Youtube. And also how he raised money through emails asking for small donations. He took advantage of the benefits of the interactivity of the web to raise money and change the nation.
Of course I have to choose the Mark Zuckerburg panel, because as you all know how much I love Facebook. At first Mark talked about monetizing, but he's said that he's pretty much fine financially. Facebook is growing rapidly, especially this year. This month they've grown to 125 million users and its no surprize because even my grandma is on Facebook these days. Mark talked about the future of Facebook, which right now is "Facebook connect." This will allow you to use your Facebook profile information on other websites. It is in the works right now. Mark also mentioned the elections and how the candidates took advantage of the applications platform. The causes application has helped people to create virtual movements. Mark dicussed this and other topics reguarding the election.
Web 2.0 Summit
The first panel I watched was The Future of Health, featuring Carol McCall of Humana Inc., Joanna Mountain of 23andMe and Daniel Kraft of Stanford Medical School. In it, they each discussed the current trends in medicine - a "long tail" of personalized, niche-oriented medical assistance online. Daniel mentioned that more people use the internet to get health information than from their actual physician, citing that one out of three web searches are related to peoples' personal health. He said that sites like WebMD and other health-related websites help personalize wellness activities, making it simple to troubleshoot most symptoms. For example, he talked about a site where users can check their blood pressure online, without going into a clinic. I have no idea how that would work, nor could I find it online...
Meanwhile, Carol focused on the importance of retaining physicians to translate important health information, such as genetic code or specific diseases that the layperson could not understand...definitely understandable, but maybe a small plug for health insurance too (Humana perhaps??). However, one interesting trend that Daniel mentioned was a virtual reality surgery program that clinic teams use to actually simulate an operation, able to add hypothetical malfunctions aimed to relieve stress when they physically go through with the procedure. Another trend that Joanna sees, that 23andme uses, is the idea of transparency. She discussed the importance of allowing the user to realize that not everyone knows exactly what works and what doesn't in the medical field and that all experts may necessarily agree on evaluating research results or how they make decisions.
The second panel I watched was Cloud Computing: The Future Web, featuring CTOs Padmasree Warrior of Cisco Systems, Inc. and Shane Robison of HP. They initially discussed the idea of a federal CTO and exactly what would go into that job, assuming Obama actually chooses one, and then they talked about cloud computing. Mainly, the panelists agreed that cloud computing is the next evolution of computing and technology and that it can be used in more ways than we can even realize at this point. Currently in its early stages, they likened cloud computing to how the Internet was initially formed: many different "clouds," both large and small, operating in and of themselves. However, Padmasree's prediction is that the "tipping point" (when cloud computing will really take off) will occur once private and hosted clouds move to what she calls the "Intercloud," a cloud which connects all other clouds - much like how the Internet works today. However, this will require much standardization and collaboration among companies in many, many headaches and years to come.
Padmasree mentioned two main benefits that large companies can currently see from cloud computing: (1) flexibility and (2) the speed of developing applications. These two results of working in the cloud will spur innovation like we've never seen. As it is, she mentioned the nature of work is changing into a much more collaborative environment - a place where "we don't go to work anymore, we just work." As cloud computing evolves, we will see much more of this cloud networking, like Cisco's innovation, Telepresence which combines video and social networking. Now called visual networking, Padmasree says we're just at the tip of that.
Shane discussed in more detail what we do with the innovations in cloud computing, such as how we think about those business decisions and what it means to the customer/business/technology relationship. He discussed the importance of using cloud services to navigate the information and how to make use of it, as opposed to simply ways of getting data. For example, by using a program called Brain information can be used to predict prices of commodities or the outcome of future events.
While the topics of these two panels were very dissimilar, they overlapped on several levels. It seems like the way health is advancing online is definitely toward a very personal and focused environment, and the nature of cloud computing absolutely parallels that. While I don't see people going to the "online physician" for a checkup, the Internet provides a level of accountability that is required for people to feel taken care of. For example, instead of going to one checkup a year, patients can receive daily "checkups" via the web. Of course, replacing physical checkups with innovations like Telepresence, would be crazy. However, using video and web-based technologies to provide a more interactive experience than simply looking up information on WebMD or Wikipedia is absolutely where the medical field should begin. Doctors could really use cloud computing to collaborate with other doctors, or even share information more fully and efficiently toward new techniques or specific diseases.
Sheth and Robbins
I chose to watch the presentations of Beerud Sheth of Webaroo, Inc. and Jesse Robbins of O’Reilly Radar.
Beerud Sheth spoke about the immense opportunity of SMS (text messaging) technology in his home country of India. He stated that there were 3.5 billion SMS users, as compared to 1.4 million Internet users in the world, which he states is the most widely adopted technology. In his home country of India, the disparity is even larger. There are 30 million Internet users, compared to 300 million SMS subscribers. With the use of mobile handsets being much more used then other communication technologies in other countries, he stated that there is a huge market for these users. The parallel of innovation on the technology pyramid as he states, has rich content cell phones such as the iPhone and T-Mobile G1 at the top of the pyramid, with the much broader base of the pyramid including normal brick and flip mobile handsets. Sheth decided to open GupShup, which is chitchat in Hindi, in which any mobile SMS user can create a group and invite friends to the group via their cell phone. It is one to many broadcasting, micro blogging, and user generated text messages all built into this service. He states that it is Twitter for India. His service has generated 12 million users, with 500 million messages a month in India. Instead of using the web in India, most people use the cell phone , in which he states is the lowest common denominator medium. He basically states that there is another web beyond the Web, and the Web 2.0 developers should start developing content for other devices, not just the Internet.
Jesse Robbins spoke about how Web 2.0 is transforming humanitarian aid. He basically stated that those who are inexperienced in technology are excited, and those who are experienced are scared. For example, people saying Twitter can help emergency systems are saying it can work, and the emergency professionals are weary of this new technology. The four steps to disaster innovation are 1.) disaster, 2.) ad hoc innovation, 3.) championship, and 4.) take what was learned from disaster and distribute it broadly.
He decided to go to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and help work for World Shelters building makeshift homes for displaced refugees. The challenge came with the I-90 bridge being destroyed and Red Cross not knowing that Google Maps was real time, thus creating the impression that the bridge was still intact. Mikel Maron came in and became the champion by using Open Street Map, which Robbins stated was the Wikipedia of maps online and fixing this. He created better maps for humanitarian aid and also for everyone. He concludes his presentation stating that non-profit organizations need help from Web 2.0 companies in order to help out many kinds of disasters that we face. In order to do this they must serve those that serve others, and make a difference through better technology.
The two speakers were very different in that they talked about completely different things. While Sheth spoke of social media for SMS, Robbins talked about how Web 2.0 could help for the better good of society. I did not intend for this to happen, but anyway, I thought both presenters were very effective in their message. I thought Sheth’s message was more important because EVERYONE uses text messaging. While many people do not have computers with broadband access, mostly everyone has a cell phone with text messaging capabilities. I believe this is a business model that Web 2.0 innovators can use here in the states to their advantage.
Beerud Sheth spoke about the immense opportunity of SMS (text messaging) technology in his home country of India. He stated that there were 3.5 billion SMS users, as compared to 1.4 million Internet users in the world, which he states is the most widely adopted technology. In his home country of India, the disparity is even larger. There are 30 million Internet users, compared to 300 million SMS subscribers. With the use of mobile handsets being much more used then other communication technologies in other countries, he stated that there is a huge market for these users. The parallel of innovation on the technology pyramid as he states, has rich content cell phones such as the iPhone and T-Mobile G1 at the top of the pyramid, with the much broader base of the pyramid including normal brick and flip mobile handsets. Sheth decided to open GupShup, which is chitchat in Hindi, in which any mobile SMS user can create a group and invite friends to the group via their cell phone. It is one to many broadcasting, micro blogging, and user generated text messages all built into this service. He states that it is Twitter for India. His service has generated 12 million users, with 500 million messages a month in India. Instead of using the web in India, most people use the cell phone , in which he states is the lowest common denominator medium. He basically states that there is another web beyond the Web, and the Web 2.0 developers should start developing content for other devices, not just the Internet.
Jesse Robbins spoke about how Web 2.0 is transforming humanitarian aid. He basically stated that those who are inexperienced in technology are excited, and those who are experienced are scared. For example, people saying Twitter can help emergency systems are saying it can work, and the emergency professionals are weary of this new technology. The four steps to disaster innovation are 1.) disaster, 2.) ad hoc innovation, 3.) championship, and 4.) take what was learned from disaster and distribute it broadly.
He decided to go to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and help work for World Shelters building makeshift homes for displaced refugees. The challenge came with the I-90 bridge being destroyed and Red Cross not knowing that Google Maps was real time, thus creating the impression that the bridge was still intact. Mikel Maron came in and became the champion by using Open Street Map, which Robbins stated was the Wikipedia of maps online and fixing this. He created better maps for humanitarian aid and also for everyone. He concludes his presentation stating that non-profit organizations need help from Web 2.0 companies in order to help out many kinds of disasters that we face. In order to do this they must serve those that serve others, and make a difference through better technology.
The two speakers were very different in that they talked about completely different things. While Sheth spoke of social media for SMS, Robbins talked about how Web 2.0 could help for the better good of society. I did not intend for this to happen, but anyway, I thought both presenters were very effective in their message. I thought Sheth’s message was more important because EVERYONE uses text messaging. While many people do not have computers with broadband access, mostly everyone has a cell phone with text messaging capabilities. I believe this is a business model that Web 2.0 innovators can use here in the states to their advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)