Black Dot Calm

Google Starts to Buzz & Aol AIMs to Rejoin the Party it Started

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:42:23 -0500

Today I started using Google Buzz. It’s not that bad at all, but there was a reason that I never used Gchat that much to begin with: not enough of my friends are on Gchat, or even have Gmail accounts to begin with. That doesn’t mean they’re losers for not being among Gmail’s 176 million, but more like they’re getting all they need from services like AIM, or just don’t find the need for much online chatter.

I seldom find reasons to use AIM like I used to. Years ago it was just as important as your email address, included on cards and in every info exchange. But when I look at it today, the AIM list is an abyss equal to a search box. If I don’t know your AIM name, how do I find you? Sure, it may scrape your email box upon signup, but if we’ve never exchanged an email or you’ve given the service a different email address from the one you and I correspond on, what’s it gonna find? Really, AIM should be indexed in Google like Facebook and Twitter names, but that’s probably not possible. How many people use their real names on AIM? AIM also lacks, to my knowledge, the dual layers that a Twitter has to allow people a front facing name along with a government name (the one that comes up in parens in searches) that’s linked to the account. I guess this is because AIM is such a first generation communication tool, from an era when our paranoia about the net had everyone using aliases (that and the fact that most were using the names to talk dirty in chat rooms, and scour porn sites on the late night).

But today, everyone is online, and they’re not trying to hide who they are. So if you know their name, you can google and find them - and not their name plus 007, date of birth or whatever else they had to do because someone else got it first — on a network that you’ve likely got an account on. So how much does it really mean that AIM’s open to your FB contacts? A lot, I guess, if you still use AIM as your primary way to chat. But with FBs numbers, I think more people have been introduced to that action of chatting through FB chat than AIM at this point. It’s one of the reasons I’ve always got my FB chat off. I’m old school and on there to browse, not chat, but I get many more pings from young family members and friends who I’ve recently begin to work with there than AIM. At the end of the day, Aol Instant Messenger was an extension of Aol email/paid accounts. And once those lost relevance, so did the service.

Hard to imagine that there was a point where Google and everyone else looking to get in the game was making cases for Aol to open AIM up and let THEM in. Imagine if there’d been an AIM connect before FB started steam rolling? Kind of makes them look like a radio station that just switched their format to allow hip hop music in 2010.

So does that put Google in the same position with Buzz? Is there really any more room for innovation after what’s been built on the back of experiences from Friendster, Black Planet, Myspace, Facebook and Twitter? I don’t think it puts them in the same position, and I do think theirs plenty of room left to innovate, but just not sure if they’re going to be able to do it. Part of social networking, is social appeal. The network’s almost like that party that we all want the invite for. A place we’re proud to be. Google has never really shown an interest in going in that direction. They’ve always chosen the higher ground (gotta be something evil about being cool) and focused on the functionality. True, the mishmash of info coming in via social networks has become, as Google’s Todd Jackson says, “a Google-scale problem,” but do people see it that way? Not at all.

Will the 400+ millions of Facebook users realize that Buzz is giving them not only everything that Facebook & Twitter do, but also Foursquare and Gowalla in one application? Not at all, but it’s hardly about that to the consumer. It’s not about what any of those companies want the technology to be used for, but what you’re able to do with the technology they’ve created.

Google’s social networking endeavors are outrageously far ahead of the game. But then again, what do you expect when you focus on hiring people who’ve tested as geniuses. There’s a reason why folks have issues with standardized tests, and reasons why geeks are social pariahs. Tests measure intelligence in a very myopic way, and geeks aren’t that social. What should happen likely won’t, in the social equation. Like good girls having the hots for bad boys. These things don’t make sense. But when we all catch up, Buzz will make a lot of sense. It will realize the value in your social circle, instead of stroking your ego with friend counts.

It won’t be sexy at all, but neither is the phone company — and that’s how central Google is becoming with Buzz. Rolling out mobile devices and residential broadband at levels that competing businesses built on archaic business models can’t dare, but creating some of the last opportunities for them to fill their coffers via search agreements (akin to getting to the first high they’ll never find again), etc. Google will set the bar so high that anyone who gets over it will be incredible. Nothing evil about that!

(if any of these numbers are off, it’s because I didn’t do any research beyond reading articles online. Sorry, but these are just public thoughts)

iPad = iWant = weNeed

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:47:00 -0500

Laptops are cool. But just a bit too delicate. If you pay all that money and store so much personal info on it, do really want to carry it all over the house or dorm and risk losing everything you don’t have backed up somewhere?

The TV is still king, but I can’t take it to the can and get my Al Bundy on (keep it real; if you need video, etc, on your phone, no way your gonna let that QT pass without checkin’ a few must see clips). And the iPhone is cool, but I don’t really want to watch or read anything on it if there’s a bigger screen around.

The iPad makes up for all that. Really, it does what the Macbook Air was supposed to. I mean, you can’t do much but view web pages, check emails, watch movies & listen to music on the Air anyway — which is why Apps are so important. The cheapest Air would cost you $1,500+. What’s the difference? A keyboard & processing power used for applications that are now, for the most part, web-based? Air has an audio out, which isn’t much different from the iPad’s headphone jack with the right peripheral, and not much more.

But, how many people bought the Air? Don’t recall seeing news clips of anyone sleeping in line for that one. Who really needed a laptop so slim, so expensive, but capable of doing so little?

Geeks like me that bought the Sega Saturn on release day (read = not enough to keep the lights on), most likely.

This is why we need the iPad. We need the net with us at all times, and we need it in a form factor that’s easy on the eyes and handled with two hands. Add geo-location & apps, and the iPad suddenly becomes much more powerful than a laptop to the majority of the consumer market.

Remember, computers are tools, like hammers & screwdrivers. But thanks to a lack of intermediary machines like the iPad many folks have been buying jackhammers & powerdrills. Now, for a couple of hundred dollars you’ll be able to do all you need.

It’s ok to leave processing power & drive space concerns to people who pay more for software suites than most HP or Dell laptops cost.

Think about ;-)

New Media Ideas Mismanaged

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:08:26 -0500

Many newspapers haven’t been managing their businesses right. It’s how the net crept up and killed most of them. So now ereaders are on the market and many newspaper heads think their savior has arrived. :-(

Who really thinks a consumer would pay for multiple ereaders to read multiple papers? Isn’t that like Aol creating a machine to access Aol sites?

Old media heads think consumers must be locked into an experience for it to yield results and profits. Buy our ereader to read our stuff (written by a writter who doesn’t need them now that the net provides distribution). Buy our console to play our games (created by developers who won’t need the consoles for much longer. And now, you like The Globe? Buy the ereader, and pay for issues … and a an upgraded device every two years or so, if not sooner.

Getting a consumer to buy an ereader isn’t going to make them buy the papers they’ve stopped buying. The papers need to reevaluate how they provide value in an unimaginably competitive media world.

What’s the real strength of professional journalism when compared to blogs delivered to your hip via mobile device if most newspaper content is written at a grade school level?

And maybe that’s the bigger part of the problem — education. The WSJ is having considerably less issues than most papers. Could it have something to do with an educated niche willing to pay for educated content?

It’s been accepted that most journalists don’t make the big bucks. Ashame, when they go to expensive schools & keep (or kept) us all connected by reporting on the world around us. But if the newspaper product is at a 6th grade level, how much value would we expect a 6th grader to find in anything?How loyal do you think they are to any info source or platform?

I mean, how much different have NY Post headlines ever been from blogs? If they don’t use their resources to make their products & experiences markedly different why should they get special treatment? The only answer is the people, journos that have kept their businesses afloat for years.

(written while waiting for waaay too much paint to be mixed at home depot)

Distribution WAS a Business

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:00:17 -0500

So after the Farewell to the Physical post I started thinking about what most physical products really were. Turns out that most are nothing but distribution methods for data, and no longer necessary. It was funny because the first thing that came to mind was Stalone & Snipes in Demolition Man. Remember the Utopia the two were unleashed on? That future could be ours.

What happens when music labels wake up & realize that a small investment (let’s say a Grammy winning artist’s budget) in digital infrastructure & servers etc, would eliminate the concept of the music store & generate more revenue? Or movie studios go for simultaneous release? Or laser-cutting fabrication machines create most products in home after purchase?

While millions of jobs will vanish, I’d rather think about the millions of man hours that will reappear. In Demolition Man people seemed bored. Not that I think we’ll be sitting around waiting for a murder-death-kill, but rather we’ll have to reorientate ourselves with real physical communication, not to mention become smart enough as a society to fill new jobs in an information economy. What if 80% of US citizens worked on virtual jobs, with food, fire & police, health & beauty being the few physical jobs (obviously a few more would exist)? What would we do with all the space currently taken up by strip malls & warehouses?

Media becomes even more valuable in a world like this. The dominant socializer, so to speak. ‘Cuz if there’s less work we’d need really goog info to fuel the arguments we’d sit around and make all day. LOL

(all written on a train ride to Queens that took waaay to long)

Farewell to the Physical

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:20:00 -0500

Xbox Live is the online gamers machine of choice. PS3 is a console sexy enough to sit next yo your 52” in the family room, and comes prepped to play Blu Ray, the next level of DVDs. Wii is something you can play with the wife and kids.

But how long will you need any of these to play the great games they’ve got to offer? How much longer will you tolerate platform specific games keeping you from enjoying the hottest new titles? If what happened with music is any indication, not very long at all.

Music = data. Books = data. Games = data too. We don’t need CDs, tapes, or records any more to enjoy the creative work of artists from around the world in an instant. No need to wait for it to be pressed up, shipped, etc. We don’t need a book to read our greatest authors. We don’t need papers to get the daily news. How much longer will we need consoles to play games? Not much longer at all.

It’s this type of thinking that’s got me thinking the Kindle, Nook, and other one function electronic devices aren’t much more than modern day books and news papers — single service platforms. Even the most avid reader will opt for a competing device that offers more functionality at a lower or comparable price. (I actually think the Kindle is the ultimate device for public schools and will expand on that here later.)

So I’ve stopped running out to get consoles on the day of release. Haven’t gotten the Kindle because if I want to take an author with me I get the audio version and put it on my iPod. Anything else, I’m pretty sure there’s an app for that.

Part of today’s problem is that companies are trying to extend dying revenue streams by creating interim solutions. Almost like the old school rumors of Big Oil shutting down electric cars decades ago. There’s so much business, not to mention so many jobs, connected to the process of making the physical products that companies would rather find ways to sustain than evolve the businesses. Sure, it’s much easier said than done, but would you rather be a music mogul or an Apple exec willing to capitalize on their stagnant mindset?

Home grown test of tumblr video from iPhone app on wifi...

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:26:09 -0500

[Flash 10 is required to watch video.]

Home grown test of tumblr video from iPhone app on wifi connection.

No landscape?

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:22:56 -0500

This makes no sense!!! Landscape mode makes the iPhone the best smartphone for stuff like this. Any app without it sucks :-(

Test of the iPhone audio function.

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:21:26 -0500

Test of the iPhone audio function.

Trying Out a Few Things

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:33:03 -0400

So I keep coming across sites using tumblr, which meant i HAD to test it myself and see what everything was about.

Stay tuned.