We-Think – Charles Leadbeater - book review
We-Think – Charles Leadbeater
Mass innovation not mass production
Holiday book number 5 – Minorca 2008
From the inside of the cover ….
“You are what you share. That is the ethic of the world being created by YouTube and MySpace, Wikipedia and Facebook. We-Think is a rallying call for the shared power of the web to make society more open and egalitarian.
We-Think reports on an unparalleled ware of collaborative creativity as people from California to China devise ways to work together that are more democratic, productive and creative. This guide to the new culture of mass participation and innovation is a book like no other, it started first online through a unique experiment in collaborative creatitiy involving hundreds of people across the globe.
The generation growing up with the web will not be content to remain spectators. They want to be players and this is their slogan “We-Think therefore we are”
http://www.wethinkthebook.net/home.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiP79vYsfbo
A very good book for those who are thinking outside of the Box. I like the approach and the story. Leadbeater develops the idea that diverse groups are better than smart, narrow or opinionated groups. Diverse group lead to innovation and the reason for corporate failure is that they like everyone to be the same. Hence corporate life is about dull problems and not very exciting solutions. Collaboration is the opposite. However we should not get to excited as our new collaborative world has as many dangers for us as the one we currently have.
Leadbeater develops the idea (as I did in mobile web 2.0 www.futuretext.com ) that Maslow pyramid is about how we gain identity and what value there is in this. I liked his ideas about current obsession with occupation and job titles are not good for us. Relationships and share interests will drive us over the next hill.
There is not a massive take away from the book, but it did provide some good reference as to why I am reading and thinking like I do currently. This has helped me to structure some very clear views on thouhgs on some projects that I was struggling with so – many thanks. My slogan “I create, I share therefore I am someone”
Here are my best bits
| Page | Quote |
| 72 | Scott Page, a professor of complex systems at the university of Michigan, used sophisticated computer models to find that groups with diverse skills and outlooks came up with smart solutions more often that groups of very clear people who shred the same outlook and skills. |
| 77 | The kind of problem-solving that comes only from intense collaboration. In the worm project, the researches started by meeting in the coffee room at Brenner’s laboratory. In We-Think, crowds need meeting places, neutral spaces for creative conversation, moderated to allow the free flow of ideas. This is why, at their heart, these projects have open discussion forums and wikis, bulletin boards and community councils, or simple journals lie Lean’s Engine Reporter and the Worm Breeder’s Gazette, so that people can come together in a way that allows one plus one to equal twelve many times over |
| 96 | Henry Ford created a model of mass production; Linus Torvalds and his ilk are creating a way to organise mass innovation. All of this is encouraging large companies to shift towards more collaborative , networked approaches to innovation to share costs and multiply their source of ideas. |
| 141 | We-Think really will pave the way for more We Make. |
| 193 | You cannot feed a hungry child with MP3 files. Those with strong social networks use the web to strengthen them further. |
| 229 | As societies get riches and more of the basic needs for food, clothing, housing, warmth and security are met, people will become increasingly interested in the psychological dimensions of well-being. It is vital to our psychological well-being that we are held in high esteem, valued and recognised for what we do. Our identities – what we are good at and what matters to us – depend on the recognition of other people. In the past, certainly in the rich work, many people acquired a sense of identity from their position in a bounded local community. In the 20th century, occupation and position in an organisational hierarchy often provided the key. Now, people increasingly get a sense of identity from the relationships they form and the interests they share with others. The web matters not least because by allowing people to participate and share, it also give them a route to recognition, if only through the comments posted in response to a blog, a rating as a trader on eBay, the point acquired as a game player, or the incorporations of software they have written into the source code. People are drawn to share, not only to air their ideas, but in the hope their contributions will eb recognised by a community of their peers.
|
| 230 | Recognition cannot bought and sold on the market - at least not the kind of recognition that counts.
We win the recognition that counts from impartial, external sources, usually communities of our peers.
These communities meet a basic human need that will get stronger as we become materially richer.' Ideas are animated when they are shared, and people are driven to share because recognition and regard can be reliably earned only from communities, networks, clans, families, religious groups, movements that are not animated by money. |
| 231 | Groups are wise, clever and smart only when they are made up of independent people who are capable of thinking for-themselves-and armed with diverse skills and points of view. Feeding this development will be a fundamental change in our economic culture: over the next two or three decades, people will start to play quite different roles, seeing themselves increasingly as participants and contributors, as well as workers and consumers |
| 232 | Participation will, however, mean quite different things in different settings. More companies and brands, politicians and celebrities will try to incorporate their consumers as fans and followers, recruiting celebrants. They will participate, but more in the way a congregation does in a church service.
It would be naive to imagine that a new way of organising |
| 233 | As we have seen, critics are already warning us to worry about a whole slew of possible disadvantages: the erosion of professional authority and knowledge; the loss of individuality in a morass of social networking; the eradication of spaces for reflection as a result of our being constantly connected; and the degradation of friendship when relationships are mediated by technology. There are no central gatekeepers to control access to the Internet |
| 234 | In their different ways, all the web's critics converge on a single worry it makes the world more unreliable, threatening and out of control. Whatever the limitations of top-down, industrial-era institutions, at least the world they created was relatively orderly and people knew where they stood |
| 235 | First, those who have top-down control will fight to retain it, even as power threatens to, seep away from them. |
| 238 | Mass production came of age during the fight against Fascism in the Second World War.-We-Think might come of age in the fight against global warming, because finding alternative ways to generate energy, use resources and cope with rising sea-levels will require collective innovation on an immense scale |
| 239 | We-Think offers a different possible story, one of trust and collaboration built on liberal and enlightenment traditions of peer collaboration in pursuit |
The Future of the Internet (and how to stop it) Jonathan Zittrain
The Future of the Internet (and how to stop it) Jonathan Zittrain
Review by Tony Fish, Minorca 2008
The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It by Jonathan Zittrain, cyberlaw Professor at Oxford is a difficult book to read and not for the faith hearted, on the same lines as ‘The wealth of Networks’ by Yochai Benkler. Personally, a very well written book and as with other books written by top rating academics, every sentence is well balanced and has a thought linked to it. This is no speed read. However, overall the book left me rather numb, as it is a heavy read, and there is not one single impression you walk away with. The best one liner summary I can give is “leave the internet alone and it will continue to develop faster than those trying to stop it.”
Zittrain develops an argument to protect the “generativity” of the Internet but warns of its own powers and the anxieties of regulators to step in, believing they have seen it all before.
The book has three parts. The first part is a historically-motivated discussion of generativity. The second part develops the ideas of generativity. The third part is Zittrain’s own opinions on cyberlaw based on part 1 and 2.
From my perspective I had the following thoughts as I read the text:-
- News is never complete. News is only news because it is new. The focus of the book is about generativity. This theory is based on something always being new, most at the generation of the users. However, new does not necessarily mean new. This blog is new, but there are already lots of very good reviews. Even this review will not complete the story. Generativity assume unstable and new, is human culture unstable and new, are they mutually exclusive?
- Picture vs Image. This is the difference between the exact fact and the overall impression. A picture has colour and depth and can provide lots of detail, depending on the focus. An image is like a poor quality black and white picture held at arms length in poor light. There are topics Zittrain loves and has some of the best pictures in the gallery, others especially mobile, reputation, metadata and content where Zittrain prefers the Image as it can be tethered to his story.
- “shadow IT” The issue that a corporate faces. Corporate IT likes the tethered control, so the users bypass the solution with their own IT. This was not explored – shame.
- Where is the edge of the network. This is a critical issues, and is never even mentioned.
- Mobile and the implications of always on (collecting data). This is my favourite topic “mobile Web 2.0”. Whilst I do see Web 2.0 as read/write there is as aspect of mobile that provides the tags’ (attention, location, time, who) to the write. This metadata I would agree is where the next battle is and much of this book focuses on the read/write aspects of content only. However, his one comment about ownership of this data is the users, suggest to me that there could be more coming.
However like big brother – here are my best bits….
| page | quote |
| 4 | The value is derived from steeling people’s attention |
| 31 | Another fundamental assumption, reflected repeatedly in various Internet design decision that tilted towards simplicity, is about trust |
| 53 | Hacking a machine to steal and exploit any personal data within is currently labour-intensive; credit card numbers can be found more easily …. |
| 57 | Consumers will increasingly abandon the PC from these alternatives, or they will demand that the PC itself be appliances |
| 58 | Next-generation video game consoles are not the only appliances vying for a chunk of the PC domain. With a handful of exceptions, mobile phones are in the same category. |
| 59 | Problems with generative PC platforms can this propel people away from PC’s and toward information appliances controlled by their makers. Eliminate the PC from many dens and living rooms, and we eliminate the test best and distribution pint of new, useful software from any corner of the globe. Recall the fundamental difference between a PC and an information appliance; the PC can run code from anywhere, written by anyone, while the information appliance remains tethered to it maker’s desires, offering a more consistent and focussed user experience at the expense of flexibility and innovation. |
| 63 | Good summary remarks |
| 70 | Much of the book’s argument rests on the notion of generativity, which is defined as: …a system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences. The Internet, PC and Facebook are generative,. The iPhone, TiVo and SaaS-based Web 2.0 sites are not. |
| 71 | What makes something Generative? There are five principal factors at work: (1) how extensively a system or technology leverages a set of possible tasks; (2) how well it can be adapted to a range of tasks; (3) how easily new contributors can maser it; (4) how accessible it is to those ready and able to build on it; and (5) how transferable any change are to others – including (and perhaps especially) non-experts. |
| 77 | Free software satisfies Richards Stallmans benchmark “four freedoms”; freedom to run the program, freedom to study how it works, freedom to change it, and freedom to share the results with the public at large |
| 82 | Tim Wu has shown that when wireless telephone carriers exercise control over the endpoint mobile phones that their subscribers may use, those phones will have undesirable features and they are not easy fro third parties to improve |
| 84 | .. that in order for large organisations to become more innovative, they must adopt a more “ambidextrous organisation form” to provide a buffer between exploitation and exploration. |
| 90 | Generativity , then, is a parent of invention, and an open network connecting generative devices makes the fruits of invention easy to share if the inventor is so inclined. |
| 97 | First among the injured are the publishing industries who IP value is premised on maintaining scarcity, if not fine-grained control, over the creative working in which they have been granted some exclusive rights. |
| 98 | For others, the impact of a generative system may not be just a fight between the upstarts and incumbents, but a struggle between control and anarchy |
| 99 | One holder of a mobile phone camera can irrevocably compromise someone else’s privacy. |
| 100 | A failure solve generative problems at the technical layer will result in outcomes that allow for unwanted control at the content and social layers |
| 101 | People now have the opportunity to respond to these problems by moving away from the PC and toward more centrally controlled –tethered” – information appliances like mobile phones, video games consoles, TiVos, ipods, iPhones and Blackberries. |
| 102 | …even if they realise that a more reliable system would inevitably be less functional. A shift to tethered appliances and locked-down PC’s will have a ripple effect on long-standing cyber law problems. Many of which are tugs-of-wars between individuals with a real or perceived injury from online activity and those who wish to operate as freely as possible in cyberspace. |
| 106 | They are tethered because it is easy for their vendors to change them from afar, long after the devices have left the warehouses and showrooms. These tethered appliances receive remote updates from the manufacturer, but they generally are not configured to allow anyone else to tinker with them – to invent new features and distribute them to other owners who would not know how to program the boxes themselves. |
| 106 | Applications become contingent: rented instead of owned, even if one pays up from for them, since they are subject to instantaneous revision. |
| 109 | Tethered appliances have the capacity to relay information about their uses back to the manufacturer. |
| 123 | “a grid of 400 million open PC’s is not less generative than a grid of 400 million open PCs and 500 million locked-down TiVos. Users might shift some of their activities to tethered appliance in response to the security threats. |
| 125 | It is a mistake to think of the web browser as the apex of the PC’s evolution, especially as new peer-to-peer applications show that the PCs can be used to ease network traffic congestion and to allow people directly to interact in new ways. |
|
| The law of 1 vs the law of many, security vs freedom |
| 128 | A larger lesson has to do with the traffic expert’s claim about law and human behaviour: the more we are regulated, the more was may choose to hew only and exactly to the regulation or, more precisely, to what we can get away with when the regulation is not perfectly enforced…. This observation is less about the difference between rules and standards than it is abut the source of mandates; some may come from a process that a person views as alien, while other arise from a process in which the person takes an active part. |
| 134 | Postel’s Law a rule f thumb written by one of the internet’s founders to describe a philosophy of Internet protocol development: “be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others.” |
| 144 | Wikipedia shows, if perhaps only for a fleeting moment under particularly fortuitous circumstances, that the inverse is also true; the fewer the number of prescription, the more people’s sense of personal responsibility escalates |
| 150 | This is easier said than done, because our familiar toolkits for handling problems are not particularly attuned to maintaining generativity. |
| 151 | Recall that the IETF’s report acknowledged the incident’s seriousness and sought to forestall future viruses not though better engineering but by recommending better community ethics and policing. |
| 154 | And with only a handful of networks that people watched in prime time, the definitions of what was worthy of prime time ended up a devastatingly rough aggregation of preferences |
| 155 | In an effort to satisfy the desire for safety with full lockdown, PC’s could be designed to pretend to be more than one machine, capable of cycling from one split personality to the next. |
| 156 | There could be a spectrum of virtual PC’s on one unit |
| 162 | So why not place legal blame one each product maker and let them sort it out? |
| 163 | To the extent that PC OSes do control what programs can run on them, the law should hold OS developers responsible for problems that arise, just as TiVo and mobile phone manufacturers take responsibility for issues that arise with their controlled technologies. |
| 165 | Gated communities offer a modicum of safety and stability to residents as well as a manager to complain to when something does wrong.. but these moated paradises become prisons. Their confinement is less obvious, because what they block is not escape but generative possibility; the ability of outsiders to offer code and service to users, and the corresponding opportunity to users and produces to influence the future without a regulator’s permission. |
|
| http://www.herdict.org/NetworkHealthAbout.jsp?_sourcePage=%2FHerdometer.jsp |
| 168 | The ongoing success of enterprise like Wikipedia suggests that social problems can be met first with social solutions – aided by powerful technical tools – rather than by resorting to law. |
| 173 | Failing that, law might intrude to regulate not the wrongdoers but those private parties who have stepped up first to help stop the wrongdoers. This is because accumulation of power in third parties to stop the problems arising from the generative pattern may be seen as both necessary and worrisome – it takes a network endpoint famously configurable by its owner and transforms it into a network middle point subject to only nominal control by its owner. |
| 194 | The internet future may be brighter if technology permit easier identification of internet users combined with legal processes, and perhaps technical limitation, to ensure that such identification occurs only when good cause exists. |
| 195 | We must figure out how to inspire people to act humanely in digital environments that today do not facilitate the appreciative smiles and “thank yous” present in the physical world. |
| 214 | On the web everyone will be famous to 15 people |
| 216 | Cheap processors, networks and sensors enable a new form of beneficial information flow as citizen reporters can provide footage and frontline analysis of newsworthy events as they happen. |
| 220 | Increasingly, difficult-to-shed indicators of our identity will be recorded and captured as we go about our daily lives and enter into routine transactions. The more our identity is associated with our daily actions, the greater opportunities other will have to offer judgements about those actions. |
| 221 | Further, these data bases are ours. |
| 225 | It is data as service, and insofar as it leaves too much control with the data’s originator, it suffers from many of the drawbacks of software as service (chapter5). For the purposes of privacy, we do not need such a radical reworking of the copy and paste culture of the web. Rather, we need ways for people to signal whether they would like to remain associated with the data that they place on the Web, and to be consulted about ususal uses |
| 245 | Any comprehensive redesign of the Internet at this late stage would draw the attention of regulators and other parties who will push for ways to prevent abuse before it can even happen. Instead, we must piecemeal refine and temper the PC and the Net so that they can continue to serve as engines of innovation and contribution while mitigating the most pressing concerns of those harmed by them. |
The Future of Reputation
The Future of Reputation, gossip, rumor and privacy on the internet Daniel J. Solove 2007
Review by Tony Fish, Minorca 2008
Overall a good book, but this is a speed read. For me personally well balanced and good issues raised. Downside too US centric, too much about the law and too little about the complex inter-relationships.
Overall the book left me with a number of questions the most important one being “at what point does reporting on (shamming) the norm breakers make it acceptable that more people will break the norm, seeing the shame as tolerable to gain the benefit.”
The basic premises (which I agree with which is why I read it) is that the Internet model provides a broadcast, available and permanent record. The ability to forget, forgive, ignore, wash away, remove or bury has gone.
Throughout the book I picked up five core themes
Change (why this is an important topic)
Judgements (where and how is reputation created)
Trust (the components of reputation)
Context (how reputation can be destroyed and responses)
Law (the balances and checks for democracy)
Solove makes some good points about how to move forward and as these are the key values of the book, I’ll leave you to buy it and read them. However his middle ground approach does not really encompass Scott McNealy views on privacy as of “get over it”
I would like to have seen developed a model about the complex inter-working relationships between the creation of norms, culture, shaming, correction, law and rights (including free speech)
It made me think however how much I enjoy story telling. Imagine that great wheeze that you recall how you climbed Everest in bare foot with your best mate after a good night out. In truth this was something you read as you were camping in the Alps. Today you can tell the story, which indeed improves with time and becomes more embellished ( a true story). However, someone else will soon be able to look on the Web and see that it was not you and there is no truth in your story. Will this indelible web world be the end of great story telling? However, I hope my mind map helps present the scope of the book, what it does not show is the over-emphasis on law that is prevalent in the book.
mobile 2 - VC panel summary
* Tony Fish
* Dr. Maximilian Niederhofer, Associate, Atlas Venture
* Inma Martinez, Investment and Innovation Executive, Stradbroke Advisors
* Claude from HP who replaced Anil Hansjee, Head of Corporate Development - EMEA, Google
* Patrick Raibaut, Partner, Debaeque Venture Capital
connecting things is interesting
change consumer behavior fast
need model not based on carrier revenue sharing
mobile will competes with other more attractive investment opportunities
mobile is fundamentally flawed - channel friction and scale
Direct to consumer is an issue
flat rate data and operator charges will change.
VC cannot make money - the exists are not large enough given the risk and investment.
too few large mobile exists hold it back
innovation is good
clear business model for trade sale is acceptable
know your audience before you exploit their data
check out www.mobileweb20.com
Best
Tony
Scott McNealy
June 2008
Stewart Townsend of SUN's start up program hosted a short session with their spiritual leader and founder. The pearls of wisdom I came away with
- Always use someone else’s money
- To lead you need to have 9 to 11 direct reports, fewer and you’re a manager
- Get rid of the problems (people) as soon as you can, if not sooner
- Always use someone else’s money
- The cloud will know
- Go big and
- Always use someone else’s money
Tony Fish
mobile digital footprints
London, November 2007.I hope that this blog improves awareness, raises questions and promotes debate over coffee.
This blog explains my view on the power of 2.0 (two dot zero) ideals, why 'Mobile Web 2.0' centres on the unique value created by "mobile metadata" and why AMF Ventures believes that Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, understands that the ownership of mobile metadata will create more shareholder value than search!
Introduction
Web 2.0 talks of “harnessing collective intelligence”. This ciewpoint presents the idea of extending this concept to the realm of mobile Digital Footprints and explores where shareholder value will be created.
At the forefront of “harnessing collective intelligence” is the mobile device, as the device is able to capture content at the “point of inspiration”. Notwithstanding any content captured directly from a device through an action of the user, there is the larger issue of Digital Footprints; this being the data captured (location and attention) just by keeping a mobile device with you. This unique mobile data and its exploitation is the essence of ‘Mobile Web 2.0’
Back in 1996, Nicholas Negroponte described the concept of Digital Footprints as a “slug trail”. We have always left Digital Footprints. Web 1.0 was about the ‘consumption web’ and clicks; in 1.0 the user left some aspects of a Digital Footprint but did not ‘write’ to the web. 2.0 gave us the ‘read/write web’ and users have emerged as both creators and consumers, we are now the audience and the author. Since we are now writing and creating content we are leaving much larger footprints, however the mobile device can provide data on where we are, how long we have spent there and who you were with; without user input! This has significant implications. However, leaving aside the privacy and security arguments, there are other implications to the leaving and more importantly harnessing of these Digital Footprints.
Web 2.0 has shown us that customers are not afraid to ‘share’ data and personal information (for instance sharing personal photos using Flickr). With Mobile Web 2.0, we add the uniqueness of mobile and leap forward because the Mobile is a personal device. Extrapolation of the trends seen on the Web (sharing personal data) to the mobile devices suggests that we are likely to witness a much richer “Digital Footprint” – and more importantly – a footprint tied to personal identity through our personal mobile device. In that sense, the idea of harnessing collective intelligence becomes dramatically significant when coupled with the ideas of mobile Digital Footprints. Therein lays the significance of ‘Mobile Web 2.0’ and Eric Schmidt’s assertion of ‘Mobile Mobile Mobile’ as the next opportunity.
What is 2.0?
2.0 is an umbrella for practical thinking that centres on the network effect, collective intelligence, the long tail, wisdom of crowds, clans, clubs and all other manner of data exploitation ideals. In contrast to this, early web models centred on cost reduction and zero cost of customer acquisition.
Companies such as Paypal, E-bay, Amazon, Last Minute and Google have changed our traditional methods of finding information, booking holidays and selling services. Consumers see the impact of these web services - but there is a wider and deeper impact which is not immediately evident. The impact is all pervasive i.e. it directly impacts on our children, our parents, our suppliers, our customers and our customer's referrals. It is all about the 'network effect' and the ownership of the underlying data i.e. the metadata. This is a principal of Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 brings the power of data ownership and the analysis which were previously the domain of large companies within the cost range of the SME. 2.0 technologies provide the data that the 'shop keeper' always had; which enabled him to welcome Mr. Smith and recommend something different to Mr Smith today! In that sense, moving from 1.0 to 2.0 is about the move from separation, isolation and solitude to relationship, engagement and conversation. The social engagement fostered by Web 2.0 and underpinned by data is more important than specific software, tools, methodology.
Tim O'Reilly [O'Reilly Media] described the 7 principals of Web 2.0 in an article published in October 2005. The article focused on the Web as a platform. The progressive thinking that underpins 2.0 has now extended across most sectors and business practices including:- Advertising 2.0, CRM 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, TV 2.0, Mobile and many more. Irrespective of use, 2.0 epitomises a business model that will be built on data, identity, trust and connection. Two services as shown in table 1, have typified Web 2.0 these are User Generated Content (UGC) and social networking.
|
| User Generated Content | Social Networking |
| data | the images, video and text uploaded by the creator | images, video and text shared by the users |
|
| generation of usage metadata for analysis | |
| identity | an identification of who the creator is, reputation. | validation of friends and connections, |
| trust | from the users to protect their identity and | |
| connection | the basic requirement to enable the | |
Table 1. Data, identity, trust and connection - the lynchpins of 2.0
Consumer or Creator?
Every call we make is about someone creating and someone consuming and then swapping roles. Every SMS we send is about creating, every SMS we receive is about consumption. Consumption is about one click; switch on the TV, buy on Amazon, read your message, receive a call. Creation is many clicks; dial a number, create an SMS and post a blog.
YouTube, Flickr and blogs are a recognition that humans are as much creators as we are consumers. User Generated Content technologies have enabled the masses to put their creations into the public domain. We can create and this enables users to entertain themselves outside of the linear broadcast TV model; creation, in some instances, of content has become the mechanism of entertainment itself.
Whilst the Web consume model, balanced by new UGC and social networking models has seen massive growth, the mobile sector will soon over-take the Web as a platform for creation and social networking. The mobile phone has the advantage that it is always available and content can be created at the point of inspiration; this is the balance to consumption which is the ‘point of entertainment.’ As shown in figure 1
Figure 1 The balance between creation and consumption.
The mobile industry has focussed on the consumption model, which to a greater or lesser extent justified 3G business models via payment for services, applications and content. The creation side (photos and video) and taking content from the mobile to the web has emerged as a service that users exploit. Further, creators will put up with a poor user interface to engage, as it is their creation they will spend the time to master the processes.
Take up of consumption and creation within the mobile context is predicated on issues discussed at length within the mobile industry; battery life, handset constraints, UI, data pricing and access speeds. However, neither creation nor consumption are unique to mobile!
Mobile Web 2.0 – the uniqueness of mobile
The previous few paragraphs have briefly highlighted how value can be created from a mobile device as:
o the device is always available at the point of inspiration (creation) and point of entertainment (consumption);
o it provides a new media platform to complement Print, TV and Web, and;
o it is available for payment, either as a replacement or complement to plastic and cash. Which form and what limits are furiously debated by commentators who are either protecting or seeking to exploit.
Value added mobile business models were built on the idea that the user would consume and pay for content and applications. Progression of technology has allowed the Web to become mobile, bringing to the mobile service provider the possibility of advertising revenue. New and additional value could therefore be accessed utilising the same ideas that have driven Web 2.0, insomuch as the mobile can mimic the Webs' focus on clicks within the application or browser to deliver the data and information for personalisation, context and advertising revenue. These clicks are known as our "Digital Footprint" and are a driver of value creation. Digital Footprints come from Mobile, Web and TV - the digital metadata of who we are, the true value and why the ownership of this data is the battle ground to be won and lost.
The reason AMF Ventures believes Eric Schmidt will wake up thinking "mobile, mobile, mobile" before he looks at his email, worries about the value of Double Click or improving a search algorithm is because users spend least time on TV, some on the Web but the mobile is attached personally 24/7 as shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: time and value of data
However, even if mobile based form factors will be the predominant method of Web access globally, this thinking has limited the real value and uniqueness of mobile, as it has constrained the possibility of data collection to clicks from within the mobile browser or application.
If unique "mobile metadata", data that the mobile platform can deliver which cannot be collected or obtained from another source, can be sourced; it will create value over and above other platforms such as the Web or TV. AMF Ventures has identified four unique categories of "mobile metadata" that add value to a users’ 'Digital Footprint’ and are waiting to be exploited. These are:
o Availability - as the device is with the user from dawn to dusk;
o Location - where the user is, has been, is going;
o Attention - what the user is spending the time doing, outside of an application or browser, and;
o Who - who the user is doing activities with.
The value creation opportunity comes from the ownership of these metadata categories, as the owner will be able to undertake the analysis and exploit the trends and connections. It is unlikely the user will ever know this (or care!), as long as the final service which they see will be tailored exactly to their needs.
The implications of Mobile Web 2.0
How will this vision of mobile Digital Footprints be delivered and what technology/technologies will be used? Clearly it is a whole 2.0 ecosystem question which aligns with recent announcements from Google who also believe that an alliance spanning handset manufacturers, network operators, developers and software vendors is required. Such alliances recognise that benefit individually, benefits collectively. Give this recognition that we must look at all components of the value chain at once and no individual component (or entity) in itself can deliver a service that the customer values it is a likely to be a mashup.
Hence, the device, the network and the software stack must all act in harmony to create an ecosystem which delivers a truly tailored service to the customer (in return for the Digital Footprint that the customer is willing to share with the trusted entity.
Accepting the principle that users don’t care about the underlying technology and will willingly share their Digital Footprints, the same users focus on: trust and value. User will work with the provider that they trust most as long as they perceive value from the delivery of these advanced services. The provider that understands this principle stands to leapfrog the competition through network effects and can deliver more advanced services to the user, at a lower cost with improved performance; it is likely that such a provider will reduce churn, improve margin and increase market share.
Concluding remark
Although slow in coming, Mr Negroponte’s slug trail is finally upon us with Dr Schmidt’s vision. The combination of Mobile Web 2.0, Digital Footprints and Trust is very disruptive. 2.0 thinking has a significant impact on network access choice, middleware platform functionality and device capability. The impact of this combination is just being felt and the effects will accelerate with Google’s recent announcements about ‘android’ Google clearly recognises that the whole ecosystem must grow with all existing players benefiting (and that’s the difference between a Gphone (going it alone) and android (an alliance).
There is a wide range of opportunities to create value for companies in the expanding mobile value chain and eco-system, however, emerging business models will be based on different economics. "Mobile Web 2.0" is about the uniqueness of "mobile metadata" in relation to the Digital Footprint and is not merely about the extension of the Web to the Mobile.
WHAT is the value and the WHO effect
This Viewpoint focuses on where value is being created. As professionals and industry leaders we understand that market development through the integration of mobile, TV and web creates possibilities and complexity. Whilst it is evident that new interactive and customer engaging services can be created, without the enormous development costs of pre-Internet days; where our limited resources should be focused is still a significant concern. Balancing risk and reward is as much an executive skill today as at any time in corporate history.
With the attention of the world press, Apple has launched the iPhone, however, the iphone doesn’t create additional value for the device and telecoms market. Apple sells devices at the expense of Nokia and Motorola, AT&T acquires additional subscribers from competitors by forced churn, but these activities don’t grow the market. Apple and its global telecom partners hope that through personalization, the newly acquired customers will not churn again, therefore retaining value for themselves through the introduction of a new device (and its children); but no new incremental market value has been created.
The WHAT principle
The focus of today’s services is personalization – the making of your user experience, creating value from the reduction in churn and incremental service revenue, assuming that any incremental margin is not eroded by competitive pressures. The focus on personalization is, to my understanding, a focus on WHAT:– what you as a user want to do; what service you want; what is needed now. The sole benefactor is the individual, but does this create any value? The assumption is that personalization provides focus, and that this focus leads to the ability to deliver engaging and personalized services including advertising. This advertising being derived from the same advertising budgets, which is now redirected from other display channels. Therefore does personalization actually create any new value and will it actually grow the overall spend of the entire market?
Commentators, consultants and media sellers will provide convincing evidence to back their own propositions and the purpose of this Viewpoint is not to debate the personalization opportunity but to introduce the WHO effect. Whilst personalization will increase value for the provider; assuming that there is value for the user, it does not itself create new value for the entire converged industries. However mobile personalization could create value, if the focus is on WHO and not WHAT!
The WHO effect
Personalization has been about the WHAT principle. This has focused on a single customer: ‘you’. The WHO effect is the multiplier. The focus shifts from WHAT, to orientate on WHO you are doing something with. In simple terms when you go for dinner, who are you with? When you are in a business meeting or seminar, who are you with? When you are at a concert, in school, or on holiday – who are you with? The opportunity is that these ‘WHO’s’ are gravitating toward and enjoying the same experiences as ‘you’. The additional profiles of those who you are with, can combine to create a new and incremental market value!
Consider the advertising issue created through personalization, it reaches you – one person in two billion. The world is divided into two billion personalized worlds, only relevant to one person at any given time, and each person with an unequal bite of the advertising spend! The WHO effect would suggest that as you are enjoying something with others, even though it is outside of their personalized preference, it is possible that it would be worth providing information on products and services to the group. The WHO effect is the electronic ‘word of mouth’. It assumes and depends on the fact that we adopt at different rates and some not at all. These issues provide the limitation to personalization and the WHAT principle, but opportunity to the WHO effect.
This WHO effect is not open to the traditional broadcast, TV and entertainment companies, although they are the traditional home of the display advertising budgets. This service could be offered by Web companies, however as your profile and personalization has a dependency on your web access time, it could be difficult. The major benefactor of the WHO effect will be mobile companies as the mobile device becomes the platform to collect data, interrupt the connection and deliver the value.
The opportunity to exploit the WHO effect is not open to companies who want to ‘control’ the user experience and developer environment such as Apple, they can only enjoy the WHAT principle. Open mobile platforms, open access services and developers who services work across all devices will be able to exploit the WHO effect. The multiplier value of mobile is not in knowing WHAT you are doing (location and attention), but WHO you are doing it with; surely the outcome is WHO Google buys and not WHAT!
Development of ‘Mobile Web 2.0’ thinking and debate by Tony Fish.
Tony Fish can be reached at tony.fish@amventures.com
Bothered 2.0!
Why does “Eric Schmidt” the CEO of Google say that “mobile, mobile, mobile” is the next opportunity. My viewpoint is that the ownership of mobile originated data is the opportunity.
Within my understanding; 2.0 as a movement is about the network effect, collective intelligence, wisdom of crowds, tribes, clans, clubs and all other manner of long tail matters. Web 2.0 is the passing phase from1.0; which centred on cost reduction and brand values. Moving from 1.0 to 2.0 is the same as moving from separation, isolation and solitude to relationship, engagement and conversation. Consumerism 2.0 will be built on mobility and trust.
Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, said “mobile, mobile, mobile” as the next opportunity at the O’Reilly Web2Expo in San Francisco last month, where I was speaking on Mobile Web 2.0. I fully agrees that the mobile platform provides an opportunity that can advance faster and further than any other platform; such as the Web, TV, radio or newspaper. The mobile based form factor will be both the preferred method of IP access globally and, being always with you, will be the prime source of collecting your data or ‘Digital Footprint’, which Google would like to own and exploit!
Our mobile device is not only with us, it is increasingly part of us; it has become for many users the most personal thing. Published research suggests that we notice the loss of the mobile device faster than our wallet. The mobile device, if capable, can capture your ‘Digital Footprint’ [My first impression of this was described as ‘the slug trail’ in Being Digital by Nicholas Negroponte 1996. Digital Footprint is also known as a ‘Lifestream.’ ‘Lifestreams’ will soon be structured using APML as a common data interchange format for attention or iPALS - identity, Presence, Attention, Location and Services.] which is our daily actions and activities; when we start moving in the morning, what information was searched, requested or delivered, where we have been, where we stayed and for how long. Relationship analysis using our contact base would detail who we were with and who was nearby. Other Screens of Life [‘Screens of Life’ is a phrase explored in Mobile Web 2.0 as a mechanism to describe how we interact with media; both as a consumer of content and as a creator. The screens of life being Cinema, TV, PC, HeadRest (Airplane or Car), Mobile Device, Informational (iPod)] will be unable to repeat this data collection feat, at best a fixed access Web model may get 10% of the available data of your daily pattern, TV maybe 1%, but the mobile device opens the possibility of 90%
Assuming privacy laws and big brother objections can be overcome, this Digital Footprint of captured data or its aggregated trends has a use and a value. The use is personalisation, the exploitation of personalisation is sales and marketing, the value is based on ownership of Digital Footprints. This Digital Footprint being made up of clicks, attention, location and is the focus of our converged industries. 2.0 as a movement has a fascination with this data, in O’Reilly language ‘the