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 next Intel inside.’ Digital Footprints are about where we have been, for low long, how often and the inter-relationships. Digital Footprints are not about individual identity, passport numbers, bank account details or social security numbers. Digital Footprint metadata comes from the Screens of Life – the digital metadata of who we are, the true value to marketing income based companies who need this data for personalisation and why the ownership of this data is the battle ground to be won and lost, the reason why I speculate that Eric Schmidt wakes up thinking about how to own an individuals mobile metadata before he looks at his email or worries about the value of Double Click or improving the search algorithm.
Bothered 2.0!
I would contend that this Digital Footprint or metadata belongs to me - its creator. However, who will I trust with my Digital Footprint if I don’t want Google, Amazon, Ebay, Vodafone, News Corp or Disney to have ownership of it. I need a trusted, open Digital Footprint store, collecting, collating and serving my metadata, through an open API across all platforms and services. I recognise the value of sharing a Digital Footprint, as it leads to service companies improving my mobile, Web or TV experience through personalisation and offsetting cost. But who should I trust and what should I trust them for; as most 2.0 corporations want my Digital Footprint metadata to justify the business model; as owners of Digital Footprints will control advertising revenue. As Google only controls the Web footprint, control of the mobile is critical, especially as mobile devices adds two whole new classes of unclaimed data platforms, availability and location.
Should I be bothered or not?
May 2007 Tony Fish AMF Ventures
- Posted by tonyfish on 16/05/2007.
- 2 comments
Identity Mashup event April 2007
Mashup* 24th April 2007
Identity 2.0: my digital identity is an asset, but who owns it?
Tom Llube - CEO of Garlik
Tom provided the opening pitch and covered a lot of ground from the perspective of the consumer. Whilst many question were asked by himself about what is identity and what do consumers believe it is… few tangible answers were given. Tom restricted his view to 3 years from today and avoided the star gazing and further limited his views to the segment he is interested in “the digital mainstream” 8.5 million of us. His 5 insights are:-
1. The language of digital identity means nothing to the average consumer, identity management provides no trigger. To mean something it must have an ‘East Enders’ Story line and should be understood by Pat Butcher!
2. Concern is high for personal information, but it is not clear what the proposition is. A shredder is great, but what is the digital equivalent for protection
3. Identity is highly emotional
4. Trust is required – but not sure for what or by whom
5. Motivation – is it unclear what the motivation would be
The take away for me is that focus is great, but lack of clarity on the proposition still cause commercial problems
Richard Baker, IDM Lead Consultant, Business Continuity, Security and
Governance Practice, BT
Richard provided the enterprise view and why identity protection is important, but started from the view that we will have an identity as a citizen, a consumer and employee. Managing these identities is a balance of convenience, cost and risk. Easy to use, low cost, very risky. Hard to use, high cost, low risk. Identity needs security, and security starts from ensuring that the person is who they say they are [verification], once approved you need authentication [proof you are still the same person], this all needs administration, control and management [cost]. However, governance is critical. Both in terms of trust but also in terms of legal duties.
Simon Wilison - OpenID consultant
Simon came from the technical viewpoint and provided an overview of OpenID and where is fits into the whole scheme, stressing that it is a small component, it will not solve all problems, e.g it is not a trust or verification system, but is useful and will be even more useful if further identity technolgies are layered on top. He raised a question about why Google and MSN want control….
Edgar Whitley - Reader in Information Systems (London School of Economics)
Edgar joined the panel, but first commented on governments wishes to provide the underlying frameworks of proven and trusted identity, and questioned which parts of my identity have value. Tom responded saying criminals say an ID is worth £800, as this is the tangible value they can steal.
Luke Razzell - Founder of the Identity Society
Luke probed "identity" from various angles. In his own words it’s a strange and slippery creature. His direction was somewhat more philosophical that the others on the panel. There is a great debate to be had about persona’s and who I am, but there is a core value is being assured that who I say I am is who I am, assuming you did not start out as a fraud.
All being said and done, identity is a wide ranging topic and cannot be solved is a few hours. The session did provide more questions than answers, but for most who attended will have expanded the types of questions. Who owns identity and especially my digital identity and what is the value is a competitive arena is very much open for more debate. Winners will win big, losers as always – lose. My final view was that whilst the iphone solves 3rd world debt and promises to bring peace and harmony to all mankind, Identity needs Pat Butcher and an Eastender headline – therefore, one identity is solved we will know who shot Phil……
Tony Fish
Other views from the event good and not so good - many thanks for taking the time ....
http://piersj.vox.com/library/post/mashup-identity-20-event-24th-april.html
http://jimmyg.org/2007/04/25/identity-20-mashup/
http://www.weaverluke.com/blog/labels/mashup.html
http://blog.grahamsadd.com/2007/04/a_good_idea_has.html
http://www.vecosys.com/2007/04/24/live-blogging-from-mashup-identity-20/
http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/2007/04/mashup_covers_identity_20.php
why I would pay the BBC license fee in the future
To day the BBC, I believe, maintains a high hurdle bar for linear programming and content creation. This is not enough to ensure that I will continue to pay the license fee. Notwithstanding this understanding of quality hurdle, the BBC is a national asset. It is independent of commercial pressures. It is trusted. So what else can it do?
The BBC faces issues on the changes from linear programming to VOD, appointment viewing to time shifting, podcasting and user generated content, editorial pressures and new technologies; but these are just business change as normal. As the consumers adapt and technologies improve, these business as normal decisions are difficult but faced by all payers in the media, telecoms, IT and technology industries.
Given that the BBC is a trusted party, would I pay a license fee to them to become my trusted safe deposit box for my digital identity?
My digital identity and preferences are currently stored at Google, Ebay, Microsoft Live, Amazon, Yahoo, my ISP, Myspaces, etc etc. All those services that I subscribe to. However, I want my preferences, my identity and my history that allows services providers to improve service delivery, to be stored in one place. A place that cannot be commercially exploited. However should I chose, I as a user can sell my data to commercial companies, and it would be open and free for my chosen services to use to improve experiences, that that data that they will use will be all of my data, rather than the subset.
However, if the BBC supported my digital identity with an avatar - would I be happy with the BBCs ownership of that avatar - a sort of digital in loco parentis?
The type of digital identity I am suggesting is not one that the home office would issue; it is not an ID card. This digital identity that the BBC would store for me, would be based on open standard and open API’s, but which ones?
Question, is there a gray market for myspace.com ?
Last night at mashup London, the audience heard from an expert panel. The content was of a high standard and so was the debate. [link to mashup] However, there was a specific focus (maybe due to the presenters) that personal publishing is for the 14 to 24 market, this could be that this group is vein, has too much time, views it as substitution to TV or a host of other irrational and non-logical reasons.
Is there a gray market for the same technologies? The over 60’s are cash and time rich. They have many more life issues to share and chat about, and often in need of good informed independent opinions. Maybe for medical care, which medicine should not be mixed, dealing with midlife crisis siblings, wills, death, homes, care, pensions, holidays, travel and eating out.
Does anyone think that this is an interesting market, is there a market for personal publishing and how would you enable this rather technically illiterate market to become bloggers?
I am a verified Tag - not a number
Players (corporate companies who own brands and networks) want control points for good economic reasons [barriers to entry], control of numbers has been an underpinning element in communications, search resolving [directory] has been another.
Whilst I understand comments about what are tags and resolving numbers, which look the same, I accept the criticism that I did not explain my intention well. I am not sure that I will do much better this time, but I am sure you will let me know, and I will still be somewhat vague, as this is thought in progress and your point of view is probably more valid than mine.
If (if) my identity (ID) is only a collection of verified information [assumption], I need two elements to justify identify ( who I say I am) - who I am based on some historical fact(s) and that these facts are conferred somehow. My historical facts are made up from my DOB, NI, education, jobs, interests, relations, finger print, preferences etc. These facts allow me to gain Identity and acquire verified identity (conferred) such as driving license, passport, entry cards etc. These verified identities in turn allow me to buy verified services such as banking. These verified services allow me to pay-for (buy) non-verified services such as communications, who give me a number, that becomes part of my identity. But a communication number cannot be used to identify who I am, therefore the loop is open. This suggests that I can use simple and then complex proof to gain an identity to gain access to services.
Now, Avatar's, handles, numbers and indeed my name; are like tags, totally agree - they are descriptors in space and time to resolve something that I cannot remember as it is too complex [dna, ip address, family history] . However, some of these services are one dimensional and allow a user to hide, to be hidden, to falsely identify who they are and be me [fraud]. Verified Identity, my passport, driving license (in most cases) should be a true representation of who I am at some point in time. Now, how about a verified Tag. Something that allows me to be identified and verified, but not because who I say I am, but others. A closed loop system. Since, the Internet allows me to set up an ID called tonyfish, without proof. I can then take someone’s verified ID can communicate to another channel. As this is open – it can be abused.
