Rich Musings

A Web of Nuance and Behavior

As is often the case with the tech/digital industry, a recent buzz term/idea has seemingly gained significant steam; “redefining” how we think about the connection between the real and virtual worlds. Buoyed by the introduction of Google’s new Search feature, the “Knowledge Graph”, we are apparently now destined for a Web/Internet “of Things”. Loosely, this new paradigm is defined as such:

• Historically our Web experiences have been driven more so by general information/content than specific “things”. In the real world, we interact with particular people, places, items, etc. 
• In the digital world these elements are present (with growing accuracy), but much less tangible. What we get is a relatively broad stroke of relevancy/interaction, vs. the level of precise, “real” experiences to which we are accustomed.

Though I believe there is some merit to this concept, I also believe that the shift is less about a movement towards “things”; and more so a progression towards nuance and behavior. 

If you examine our current digital state, we interact with people through Social profiles, places through check-ins and review platforms, and items through shopping actions and rating systems. The digital absence, thus, does not occur relative to “things”, which are at some level present throughout. What is lacking, and what innovations such as “Knowledge Graph” aim to correct, is the omnipresent filter of nuance and behavior (vs. broad relevance and simple interest).

Nuance in Web

Prior to being absorbed by Google, the now defunct Oink was a Mobile application/property that very much excited myself and several of my colleagues. Why? Vs. allowing users to review overall places a la Yelp (bars, restaurants, etc.), Oink gave users the opportunity to review very specific items within said places. For example, instead of giving “Old Ship” in the financial district of SF 5 stars, you would be prompted to rate the Nachos that you ordered 5 stars (those that know me understand that this is a very personal example).

The beauty of this is nuance. The reality is, our experience at a given restaurant is not defined by an overarching, theoretical interaction at the place- it is defined by our actual interactions with very specific items/things within the place (food items, ambiance, wait staff, etc.). As a result, the more “real” way of capturing the quality of an experience is cataloging precise, individual elements- and, giving users the opportunity to rate/engage with them. Oink nailed, at least from a conceptual perspective, this notion of nuance.

Behavior in Web

Taking this restaurant example even further, beyond precise cataloging, the even “more real” way to gauge the quality of experience is through behavior. Based on rating system, the Nachos that I consumed at “Old Ship” are 5 stars- an indication that I loved them, would recommend them, and likely would eat them again if given the opportunity.

Though this level of self-evaluation, my attitude towards the Nachos, is likely quite accurate; arguably, my behavior towards the Nachos, is more accurate. For example, if a digital tool enabled at the restaurant were able to track the reality that I ordered the Nachos every time (and finished my plate in-full); in theory, a “more real” determination of the quality of my experience could be made. I don’t love them simply based on what I say, but rather based on what I actually do. 

This concept is the impetus behind Facebook’s modifications to its “Open Graph”, which now seeks to track the behavior of its users towards things in the world and on the Web (vs. stated interest). Instead of me simply declaring my love for Marvin Gaye through my profile’s interest section, my interactions with Spotify (and the amount of times I listen to his songs) confirm my love for his music. My preferences in music, thus, become “more real”.

In my estimation, the future is all of the things that we frequently discuss. The interconnectedness of individuals with the cloud at all possible touchpoints (physical or virtual). The personalization of information and content at all possible touchpoints (physical or virtual). Moreover, though, I believe we are destined for a “Web” that places a higher value on nuance and behavior. The result will be, not the creation of “things”, but “realer” interactions with them at all possible touchpoints (physical or virtual).

A Two-Horse Mobile Race

As I emerged from my Holiday malaise- the byproduct of lethargy and too many adult beverages- I was met by the news that 6.8 Million Android and iOS devices were activated….on Christmas Day alone. Certainly the continued emergence of smartphones was no shocker, as Feature phones are destined to go the way of the Dodo bird and your “Top 8” friends (no offense, Tom). Nor was the fact that Android and iOS led the activation charge a surprise. The two platforms have overwhelmingly ranked 1 and 2 respectively since the precipitous fall of Blackberry. Note: Canadians, on the bright side RIM’s precipitous fall was balanced by the precipitous rise of Justin Bieber 

Rather, this news placed an exclamation point on this growing reality: we truly live in a 2-planet Mobile galaxy! Moreover, I personally see no immediate signs of the environment becoming more inclusive of other OS players. Why, you ask? Note: Even if you didn’t ask/have no intention of asking, my ensuing Soapboxing is unavoidable.

It’s not that compelling, alternate Mobile platforms are non-existent. Though iOS and Android have certainly excelled in the development of quality Software (and Hardware in Apple’s case), other entrants have also exhibited promise. Let’s briefly take a look at said entrants and their quality feature/functionality offerings:

HP webOS

- A novel card-like UI that intuitively “stacks” related windows together for easy usage (e.g. open a link from an email window/card and the subsequent browser window/card is neatly grouped with its originator).

- The ability to control the rendering of Flash in your browser (giving users the options of disabling, enabling or loading Flash-based experiences on case-by-case basis).

- The luxury of pushing content from your smartphone to another device (e.g. HP Touchpad Tablet) utilizing NFC.

Windows Phone (Specifically Mango)

- The ability to organize your Contacts into specific groups (e.g. Family, Coworkers, Friends, etc.) and communicate with/track said groups in a mass-form.

- The ability to easily store content/files from your device to Microsoft’s SkyDrive cloud service, instead of housing locally (up to 25 GB).

- “Live Tiles” that allow typical app icons to serve dynamic information (e.g. a Southwest Airlines icon that provides up-to-the-minute flight status vs. a simple, static logo).

The fact of the matter is, despite all of the goodness that the OS options above may offer, neither have been able to make significant traction in the race for Mobile market share. Certainly, there are negative factors at play- buggy initial experiences, key feature omissions, poor Hardware, etc. However, the biggest reason for the lack of adoption is simple: the barriers to Mobile entry have substantially increased.

No longer do consumers purchase a “phone” that can get them through a couple years, performing rudimentary communications functions. The Hardware itself may still be fleeting, but the fundamental purchase-decision that consumers now make is one to buy into a larger ecosystem (for lack of a better buzz word). Once we understand the elements of the modern Mobile ecosystem (and accomplishments of Android and iOS therein), it is much easier to then comprehend the magnitude of a potential OS switch (and why consumers are reticent to do so despite the sprinkling of cool new features).

Cloud Syncing

When you buy into a modern Mobile ecosystem, one of the luxuries that you acquire is the ability to store the majority of your content/info on a server vs. locally. From music, to native apps, to contacts- most of your accumulated Mobile history is easily portable/retrievable as you move from device to device (as long as you stay within the ecosystem). In the case of Android the storage mechanism is Gmail; for iPhone you rely on iTunes/iCloud. 

In the past, certain elements such as contacts were often housed at the carrier level (either via Network or SIM card). Nonetheless, the expectation was that some amount of manual transferring would be involved regardless of the shift/change that is made. Now, if I happen to purchase a new smartphone the Cloud is expected to fill in the gaps for me (again, as long as I stay within the ecosystem). Moreover, if I happen to also utilize another form-factor of Mobile device within my chosen ecosystem (e.g. a Tablet), the same principle of syncing applies. Thus, if I’ve chosen Android or iOS (and invested therein), the potential pain of leaving becomes greatly magnified.

Services/Content Offerings

As stated earlier, our phones are no longer responsible for performing a rudimentary set of communications functions. Rather, they are beacons of content and services- the centerpiece of our digitized lives. From a digital music store, to an e-book store, to a robust app store- the expectation is that my Mobile ecosystem will offer hubs for all of my content/service needs.

Android succeeds in this respect through the Market (movies, e-books, apps), Google Music, deep Youtube integration, and potentially Google Plus in the future. iOS’ bread is of course buttered through the incomparable iTunes, and its plethora of apps and content. Again, if I’ve grown accustomed to and invested in their specific brand of content/services, the prospect of ecosystem-switch will likely seem scarier than the prospect of listening to a book-on-tape as read by Mark Zuckerberg.

Though I do believe that Windows Phone has a strong chance to emerge as a solid #3 (based on their ability to scale in the two above ecosystem-buckets), Android and iOS will continue their dominance for the foreseeable future. Regardless of feature-set or shiny-new innovations, players that are just now pulling up to the Mobile valet are extremely late to the party. Google and Apple have built walls that are simply much too difficult to climb….at least for the time being. 

Web 3.0 is Silky?

Before I begin, allow me to acknowledge that I DO recognize how asinine it is to attempt to organize technology and its evolutions in a neat system of points (1.0 was the age of portals, 2.0 the age of Social, etc.). Clearly, the discussion/landscape is much more nuanced.

That being said, many predict that the future Web (“Web 3.0”) is a semantic one, driven by a tremendous amount of Data. An age where the lines between tech and human awareness are blurred. An age where our machines often know us better than our own mothers (a bit unsettling, I know). An age where our technological warlords force us to do their bidding (okay, that one’s a Sci-Fi fantasy…could happen, though).

We’ve seen manifestations of this future through behaviorally targeted ads that follow us across our browsing experience. Search engines that can predict our queries before we complete our first word, let alone sentence. Social applications that know an astonishing amount about us and our closest friends (or frienemies in some cases).

Our e-commerce experience has also been shaped by this “subtle” form of technological stalking. For many of us, sites such as Amazon are at the centerpiece of our digital shopping universe. We go there to buy music, movies, electronics, clothing, toiletries…..what doesn’t Jeff Bezos freaking sell?!

Beyond pushing merchandise of all flavors, the foundation of Amazon is, of course, their powerful suggestion engine. As we browse items, add to our carts, make purchases- Amazon is tracking us all the way. The data collected is used to develop robust, personal user profiles, which allow Amazon to suggest very relevant items, offers, etc. for US (based on MY interests, and the interests of others like ME).

From a practical standpoint, this helps Amazon drive incremental sales and revenue. In essence, they are able to bring to the surface products that a user would be interested in, but may have otherwise missed (pushing items vs. relying exclusively on pull). Moreover, the amount of data that they have generated on individual users like myelf, allows Amazon to “get us” in ways that very few platforms/companies can.

Amazon Gets Silky

Recently, Amazon announced their version of an Android tablet, the Kindle Fire. This moment was compelling news on many different fronts:

1. Amazon was diving head-first into the Android pool; not simply dabbling in the shallow Software-end, but fearlessly treading into the deep-end of offering their own device solution.
2. The Fire would be priced aggressively, making it the “potential iPad killer” of the month (still not buying that one).
3. The device would be chock-full of all of Amazon’s proprietary content goodness: Kindle books, Amazon MP3s, etc.

And then there was Silk, Amazon’s own browser, created specifically for their tablet. Beyond the shock of the company moving into the browser game, Silk promised a few very revolutionary (or potentially revolutionary), Mobile browsing features.

The majority of media outlets/curious end users focused on the performance elements. Unlike other browser offerings, Silk would render pages in dual-fashion. Part of the heavy lifting would occur via the Cloud, with certain elements of web pages being delivered courtesy of Amazon’s own servers. Part would come from local rendering on the Fire itself. This tandem effort would allegedly increase speed of loading, making our Mobile browsing experience that much better (and all of us happy, Mobile campers).

I, myself, gravitated towards a small, but potentially monumental revelation: “Silk will also predict your browsing habits”. Now, this feature certainly is tied to the performance element as much as anything. By anticipating the pages a user is likely to visit next, the browser is able to pre-load; again increasing the speed/quality of experience.

However, a more potentially powerful use/reality exists. 

If I were to visit ESPN.com, Silk would theoretically be able to determine that I am a football fan first and foremost, and that my favorite team is the Denver Broncos (Tebow Time!). As a result, it could make the accurate presumption that I would be looking for news/articles specific to those interests, and preemptively serve me the appropriate pages/content.

If I were visiting a restaurant’s site, Silk may recognize based on previous browsing behaviors (foodie blog visits, other restaurant sites, etc.), that I have a weakness for a great burger. It could then highlight the menu section/food descriptions that would best satisfy this culinary preference.

Certainly this capability already exists at the individual site level. Our web experiences are often customized based on cookies or user profiles that are activated by the sign-in. However, there is no underlying thread that allows for ubiquitous/consistent personalization as we move through disparate properties. Though Facebook has very much attempted this (and succeeded to a certain degree via Open Graph), the most seamless/all-encompassing unification would likely occur at the browser level (as it is the foundation/constant of our Web experience).

Aside from the browser that Amazon now has, it has also:

1. Accumulated a significant amount of data and behavioral insights on its own site property (as we discussed earlier). 
2. Developed a sophisticated engine/algorithm to make use of said data/insights (as also discussed earlier).

Combine all of these ingredients, and Amazon has all of a sudden put itself in a position to not only compete in “Web 3.0”, but potentially lead the charge. Historically, the tendency has been to view the company as a digital provider of tangible goods- I, for one, believe that it is time to drastically alter that opinion, Folks.

The True Value of Jobsie

Now Introducing………………the iPhone…………………….4S!!!

What was expected to be a seminal milestone in the history of our beloved fruit company, was instead a moment that left many collectively pondering: No iPhone 5? In many ways, today’s anticipated “Show” was a dud in the truest sense of the term “dud”.

The reality of the 4S revelation is that it is essentially a fairly substantial step-up for iPhone fanboys. Certainly it does not trump the most recent Android releases (yes I have a bias, how many times must I state that?). Nonetheless, it is certainly an upgrade over the 4.

Dual-Core Processor? Check.

Improved Camera? Check.

“Intuitive” Voice Command System? Check.

iOS 5? Check. Check. Check.

Why is then that my Twitter and Facebook feeds seemed to express much dismay immediately following today’s press conference? “No iPhone 5 :(?”. “Where’s the iPhone 5????!!!”. I will readily admit that my Social graph is by no means statistically significant. However, the disappointment was palpable.

I have a theory (of course I do or there would be no reason for this blog post).

Steve Jobs is seen in most circles as a tech visionary- and rightfully so. He is responsible for launching/picking some of the most successful, most transformative products in our history. No need for me to list them all, the Apple resume speaks for itself.

Beyond “product-picking” and an obsessive desire to achieve perfection, Jobs was most importantly, though: a Marketing genius. That is not to say he was an advertiser or marketer by trade or expertise. It is simply to say that more than possibly anyone else in the history of the industry, he realized a fundamental truth: Great Tech Needs A Great Brand.

What more evidence do you need than the hiring of John Sculley? Though he eventually pushed Jobs out of Apple, Sculley was a proven Marketing Guru (if there is such a thing)- with programs such as “The Pepsi Challenge” under his belt. Back-stabbing aside, Jobs correctly deduced that guys like Sculley (and Lee Clow for that matter) would be pivotal in establishing his company as a tech powerhouse. He knew, that people buy quality gadgets, but they also (and sometimes more so) buy into ideas, into lifestyles, into brands.

Now, I’m not saying that today’s events would have definitely played out differently had Stevie still been at the helm. Tim Cook is, by all accounts, an extremely worthy successor. Moreover, Apple is filled with talented individuals from the Hardware design table to the mail room. 

Additionally, who’s to say that the current product plan the company is unveiling was not guided by Jobs? Even while on medical leave, many speculated that he remained the driving-force in Cupertino.

What I can say, is that it is hard for me to believe that our black-shirt-wearing friend would not have simply named the thing: the iPhone 5.

Perhaps, the “5” is in fact on the way as many whisperings suggest. Perhaps, Apple realized that the “5” designation should be reserved for a more revolutionary, forthcoming set of smartphone innovations.

Perhaps, the new regime missed the boat entirely; and failed to observe that regardless of the feature-set, the expectation is that Apple will ALWAYS deliver something new (even if in name only).

From a Marketing perspective….from a Brand perspective….”4S” simply does not feel new enough for your average Apple advocate. I would venture to say that this is the first effect of the “Post-Jobs” era.

Maybe it is not the tech or product innovation that will drastically suffer in his absence- but the attention to the “Show”.

Google Walks Straight?

I do not consider myself a film buff by any means. I do, however, have a small, but dedicated list of favorite flicks that I could watch over and over again. Near the top of said this list lies a little piece called, “Usual Suspects” (if you haven’t heard of it, please emerge from underneath your rock dwelling place). The film is great on a variety of levels, but the defining element is the character played by Kevin Spacey- and the convoluted, yet eerie legend of Kaiser Soze.

Spoiler Alert: Throughout the film, “Verbal” Kint (played by Spacey) appears to be nothing more than a small-time criminal; a naive man-child whose involvement in a series of robberies is a byproduct of peer pressure vs. maniacal masterminding. This persona is reinforced by a physical ailment that “Verbal” possesses: a pronounced limp. All-in-all, he seems to be a generally well-intentioned individual who is more often than not simply in the wrong place (or with the wrong people) at the wrong time.

Now, in the end, the description of “Verbal” above proves to be VERY far from the reality. Ironically, it is revealed that the sociopathic genius known as “Kaiser Soze” (he who manipulates the entire course of the story) and “Verbal” Kint are in fact one. This realization is exclaimed as “Verbal” leaves the police station where he was previously being interrogated. As the camera (through a tight, close-up of his legs) focuses on his movement, slowly the limp disappears and he begins to walk straight. The physical impairment was thus part of an elaborate plan to throw everyone (including his cohorts) away from his true identity/agenda. “Verbal” is not the man we thought he was.

Before you begin wondering how this blog has suddenly taken a cinematic detour, allow me to explain the tech relevance. You see, “Verbal” Kint is not unlike one of the most influential, most publicized tech companies in our world today. In fact, a significant parallel exists, as revealed by said company’s recent actions/announcements. That company is, of course, Google.

Full disclosure: I remain an avid fan of the broader Google platform and all of its wonderful benefits. I am a diehard Droid user (both Mobile and Tablet), Google Search (as with many others) is fundamental to my online navigation. I generally like to think that Google is a well-meaning company whose primary goal is improving our technological lives.

That being said, I am also not naive to the sometimes harsh realities of big business and big ambition. I am very much willing to admit that, to pull a metaphor from “Usual Suspects”, Google is beginning to walk straight. 

Historically, Google has prided itself on the “Open” mantra. Unlike the Apple’s of the world or even Microsoft, the company did not appear to have ambitions to control the entire digital experience. Rather, they simply wanted to insert their products/utilities/platform across the landscape, enhancing other existing properties, and generally benefitting all involved (from devs. to end users).

This was manifested in a series of “Open” APIs, an “Open” Mobile platform, etc. At the end of the day, Google’s ambition was not to overtake the digital world, but augment it. They were not in the smartphone business, but in the easily accessible/usable OS business; not in the business of Social, but in the business of making it more searchable.

This picturesque view of the fellas down in Mountain View has begun to change. Two months ago, the company shocked the tech world by announcing and revealing Plus, an unmistakeable Social destination/platform. It was clear that Google’s ambitions were bigger/different than many had assumed. Sure there had been whisperings for years that a move such as this was inevitable. Nonetheless, the company steadfastly denied that a Facebook-killer was in the works. Again, their strategy would be to play in these spaces without directly overtaking them. Plus has shown just the opposite (limp begins to disappear).

Yesterday’s announcement that Google is purchasing Motorola Mobility takes us further down the rabbit hole. For the duration of Android’s existence, the company has reinforced its “Open” classification by consistently working with virtually any smartphone manufacturer with a dollar and a dream. HTC. Samsung. LG. Motorola. ETC. ETC.

The assumption (largely buoyed by Google itself) was that Google was not interested in tip-toeing over to the hardware side. Instead, they would continue their role as the middle man, providing a stable Mobile platform for any manufacturer out there (on any carrier). Sure, there would be “flagship” phones like the HTC G2 or the Samsung Nexus S or the original Motorola Droid. However, the idea of preferential treatment would be dwarfed by the “Open” philosophy.

Now, I’m certainly not saying that Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility spells the end of their relationship with the other manufacturers outlined above. Nor do I disagree with the fundamental approach. Finally, there may exist a smartphone that is Google-controlled soup-to-nuts- creating an experience that can trump the iPhone. 

The reality is, though, Google can no longer truly act as the middle man. They now have a vested interest in the success of Motorola Droid phones and tablets. Though they’ve had preferred relationships with other companies in the past, this goes beyond- Motorola’s revenue is Google’s revenue. As a result, being neutral is a virtual impossibility.

Google is no worse than any of the other tech companies that they are currently competing against. It is clear, though, that they are no better (from a philosophy perspective of course; I still prefer their products). In theory, this should be a surprise in an American society fueled by expansion and ambition. Nonetheless, it’s still weird to see the limp completely gone. 

My Obligatory Google Plus Post

Quick pop quiz: out of all the properties/platforms that exist within our vast interwebs universe, which categories lead in time spent? Regardless of your level of geekdom, you can probably evaluate your own online behaviors and determine the answer: Social and Search.

Now, Search is clearly dominated by this little ole’ company called Google. Despite old foes like Yahoo, and new entrants like Bing, Google is and will continue to be king of the hill (barring an unforeseen resurgence of Lycos). Social, however, is owned by the guy that Jesse Eisenberg played in that Oscar-nomiated movie (and his cohort of infamous hackers).

Despite the appeal of moving into the Social game, many thought that Google would be reticent to try to take Facebook head on. Exhibit A for this theory: Buzz; Exhibit B: Wave. Certainly rumors persisted that a Google-developed social network was inevitable, but skepticism was still present.

Even when the +1 functionality/button was introduced, many believed that the end game was increasing the relevancy of Search by pulling in Socially-based results (Social of course being Gmail contacts). In the end, the theory above now seems laughable. With the introduction of Google Plus, it is clear that Google is coming directly after Facebook…..and they are coming hard.

Now, Plus is intriguing for several different reasons. There’s the brand recognition and cache that Google offers. There’s the direct tie to the aforementioned +1 button that we’ve all come to know and love over the past month or so (or not so much). Mostly, the real story is that Google is not dipping its foot into the Social pond. Unlike the moves made with Wave and Buzz, the fellas in Mountain View are diving in head first.

Google is unmistakeably developing a comprehensive social destination. Not augmenting existing Social properties with Google magic. Not adding a Social layer to their existing platforms. They are out for the blood of one 26 year-old Harvard dropout.

The Good

Allow me to preface the following critique with the reality that I am not one of the privileged few that have already received a Beta invite to Plus (not sure if you can feel the bitterness….one of the many limitations of text). That being said, I will say that the obvious star of the past two-days’, Plus circus is “Circles”.

Perhaps the most significant (and troubling to a certain degree) recent revelation about the current Social sphere, is that it does not replicate our actual Social lives. No one interacts with a broad group of “Friends”, they instead segment their worlds based on categories, based on niches.

You wouldn’t necessarily have the same conversations with your co-workers that you would with the buddies that you grew up with. You likely wouldn’t share the same content with your family as you would with your sorority sisters. Unfortunately, the Social platforms that exist today (namely Facebook) were not developed with this reality in mind. Though the recent updates to the Facebook ”Groups” feature has certainly improved the ability to segment, the fact remains that the platform itself has been guided based on a broader from of socialization; one that does not completely mirror the real world.

Google has clearly attempted to capitalize on this Zuckerberg shortcoming, by rooting their Social platform in the ability to segment. This is achieved through the feature aptly named “Circles”, which in no way feels like a background functionality. Instead (based on what I can tell), the creation of “Circles” is the starting point that a user is prompted with once they begin using the network. All sharing/posting/communication then revolves around these categories, with users being able to easily push certain content/thoughts/files/conversations to certain groups.

Features such as “Circles are certainly enhanced by the Skype-like “Hangout” functionality, which conceivably allows you to video conference with multiple coworkers on a project, family members on an event (like a child’s birth), etc. Nonetheless, the undisputed differentiating proposition is the ability to Socially-segment from the ground up.

The Potentially Bad

Since part of blogging is overstating the obvious, I too will discuss Google’s biggest hurdle in making Plus a success. That of course, is getting people to migrate to the platform (this is why I’m paid the big bucks). Regardless of the shininess of this new Social network, one cannot deny the Fact that people have invested a significant amount of time, data, content, sharing and socialization in Facebook. Their friends are there. Their family is there. Freaking everyone in the world is on Facebook. As a result, driving usage, familiarity and eventual love for Plus is much more easily talked about in boardrooms than done.

Undoubtedly, Google will attempt to drive initial usage (at the very least) by integrating with other platforms. Ideally, they would leverage “Open” tools like Facebook Connect to allow Plus users to cross reference and add contacts based on their Facebook friends. Theoretically, users would also have the option of syncing their Plus activity (the activity that they chose of course based on the segmentation principles) to Facebook. Though I don’t personally know Mark Zuckerberg, I would guess that the chances of this actually occurring (or Facebook making it easy) are slim (on an obvious-overstatement roll!).

This leaves Google with a couple of options for integration: Twitter and Gmail. Twitter would certainly be beneficial for the “activity push” purpose, garnering further awareness for Plus, and providing a link back to the platform. The connection paradigm, however, is very different. The ability to import followers (or those a user follows) may not seem particular enticing. The reality is that Twitter acts as a “Wizard of OZ”-mechanism for many, allowing them to express a side of themselves (sometimes grandiose and inappropriate) without ever revealing their true/complete identity.

The latter option, Gmail, is a no-brainer. Users will certainly have the option of connecting with all contacts that they accumulated through Gmail on Plus (assuming that contact is also using Plus). Again, however, Gmail contacts are not necessarily as fully developed or carefully maintained as Facebook friends.

I do believe that the Android platform will be of some assistance. All of your phone contacts can be stored/synced to your Gmail account; and phone contacts are typically more encompassing/representative of your holistic Social universe than traditional email. Regardless, tapping into Facebook’s “Openness” would certainly help kick-start Plus (won’t happen but we can all dream). As it currently stands, attracting a dedicated user-base may prove an uphill battle for Plus.

The Outcome?

Google has certainly made alot of smart moves with Plus. They have a true killer feature in “Circles”. They have essentially copied the UI of Facebook to make the platform more intuitive/familiar. They’re even prepping a Native application (on Android for starters) which will certainly help their crusade for usage. I cannot say, however, that I’m particularly bullish on the introduction of a new Social network.

That is not to say that Plus does not have the opportunity to be very successful based on Google’s strategic decisions and overall scale. History, however, has taught us that the reality of a successful Social network is far more difficult to achieve than the concept. I for one, though, am eagerly awaiting my Beta invite in the meantime, so at the very least I can consider myself amongst the “cool kids” before platform blows up or fizzles out.

Zuckerberg Again?: The Rise of Mobile Web

I often refer to the significance of Native within the Mobile space (even within this wonderfully crafted, or maybe just crafted, blog). Native applications are what users have come to know and love, especially as it pertains to the smartphone space. Since I’m tired of giving Apple credit (it pains my Android heart), I will chalk this preference up to the quality of experiences that native solutions have historically delivered.

Being built specifically for a particular platform, within that platform’s application framework (essentially living on top of the OS), they have blurred phone usage and app usage (easily calling to the device’s GPS, Accelerometer, File Systems, etc. via APIs). They have become the undisputed stars of the Mobile show. All of this being said, Native applications are not the future in Mobile (gasp, gasp, gasp). Despite all of the praise that I effused above, there are also many challenges with going the “Native way”.

The most obvious of these challenges is the fragmentation of platforms/OSs. Though the Androids, iOSs, Windows Phones and RIMs are striving for smartphone dominance, the actuality is that there will ALWAYS be multiple players in the game. This may seem trivial to people like me (who will likely never write a line of code/or develop Wireframe 1), but for developers/designers/architects it is no small thing.

Though the future may bring a viable cross-Platform application framework, currently Native apps must essentially be built one-by-one. The differences in OSs (not only at the programming-level, but the interface-level), mean that there is no “one-size-fits-all solution”. Instead, development efforts must be focused on one Platform initially (nowadays devs. typically start with iOS or Android based on usage/penetration). Once devs. are successfully up-and-running on Platform 1, they can then focus their attention to subsequent Platforms.

As you can imagine (based on what I have described above), creating quality experiences for multiple Platforms (and even OS variations within those Platforms), can be a time and money consuming process. Moreover, beyond the initial creation of the app, maintenance/updating can also prove arduous. Every time the Platform developer (e.g. Google or Apple) issues an OS update, the developer must update their application accordingly.

The developer then must rely on the user to activate that update within their App Store/Market (unless of course they’ve enable automatic updates to that particular application). This is also the case for updates that are developer-driven; those that have nothing to do with OS changes, but are instead based on dev.-initiated updates to the app’s code/functionality. As you can see, ensuring that a consistence experience is always delivered across the board is somewhat of a nightmare (read: impossibility) in the Native realm.

This all leads to the obvious conclusion that Mobile Web will be the Platform of choice in the future. In this scenario, the true killer Native application becomes the Mobile Web browser, which is responsible for delivering optimized sites and apps to a wide array of smiley-faced users. Developers would no longer have to build disparate pieces of Software for a variety of Platforms (and contemplate jumping out of windows), instead (in theory) they would write once for the Web.

Now, one impediment to this reality is that fragmentation also exists within the Mobile browser space. Different browsers are capable of rendering different programming elements/languages to different degrees. As a result, even when developing for Mobile Web, variances/nuances must be taken into account.

Generally speaking, however, Mobile Web is likely moving into a more standardized direction (based on the Webkit/HTML 5 paradigm), which will theoretically eliminate this separation (and will also further establish consistency with “traditional” Web). Furthermore, even in its current state, Mobile Web is still much less fragmented than Native (the differences in Platforms are much more fundamental/extensive).

As a result, the biggest obstacle to the rise of Mobile Web is not lack of standards (as this will eventually be solved). In my estimation, the most difficult hurdle to clear is: introduction. Regardless of the benefits of Mobile Web (and its technical evolution going forward), its dominance will only come about when developers/companies/services make it a priority.

The day that a company of scale decides to build a Mobile Web application to supplement their Native offerings….or dare I say develop a Mobile Web application instead of a Native application….will be the jump-starting of our Mobile Web future.

Well, I’m here to tell you fine folks that the day described above may have already occurred. I, as many others I’m sure, was struck by the news last week that Facebook (you know the Social Network), was “allegedly” putting its eggs in the Mobile Web application basket. Sure this news was tempered by the simultaneous speculation that they are also developing an iPad app (an indication that in no way are they giving up on the Native way anytime soon- as they shouldn’t). Nonetheless, it was big news for Mobile Web.

With Facebook, comes a significant user-base (to say the least). This user-base is likely to at least experiment with whatever Mobile Web app offering Zuckerberg & Co. drums up. With experimentation comes familiarity (and possibly even preference), which opens up the door for other devs./companies to play in the Mobile Web app sandbox.

As usual, I will confess that I do not envision Native applications disappearing anytime soon (nor do I believe they will ever be fully replaced). I do believe (as do many Mobile experts smarter than me) that Mobile Web is our best hope for true ubiquity. From the end-user’s perspective, ubiquity may be of minimal importance. But for the devs./companies/brands of the world, the potential of less development time and less deniro-spent is surely enticing. The most famous Harvard drop-out may have just fired the first/most important shots in our Mobile Web revolution.

(Source: TechCrunch)

Touching the Future

Despite my personal opinions/preferences, I am a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due. Far too many people (in my estimation), allow their individual leanings to cloud their perspective, preventing them from being able to truly recognize a good thing. I am certainly not suggesting that I have mastered neutrality and am not also subject to certain biases (especially in relation to particular topics). I am saying, though, that removing yourself from an evaluation can often yield the best results.

The above disclaimer allows me to maintain my Google fandom while simultaneously singing Apple’s praises in this post (gotta love the power of rationalization). It would be difficult for the staunchest of Jobsian critics to argue that Apple is not largely responsible for establishing the two most recent interface conventions. The first of course, is the paradigm that I am currently employing (to write this post): the graphical interface, with mouse-click navigation.

Now, please don’t mistake this for an indication that Apple or Jobs for that matter, created this method of interaction. Steve admittedly swiped the idea from Xerox based on a copier demonstration he witnessed. It is, however, a testament to the reality that Apple was the first to fully recognize and harness the potential of the graphical interface.

The notion that a user would rather interact with an intuitive, visual icon than type a series of text commands sounds obvious now. At that time, however, a mouse was merely a pesky, disgusting rodent (outside of the Mickey context of course); and ”pictures” did not an interface make. What changed was Jobs’ vision (and maniacal commitment) to create an easier form of user interaction; a form of interaction that rules today’s Web and is the foundation of most platforms (from a UX perspective). 

Of course, mouse-click interaction (or D-Pad-click) is no longer the standard within two emerging spaces: Mobile and Tablet. Though graphical is still the game, a new form of user interaction has become king: Touch. Again, as much as many Android boosters (like myself) hate to admit it, this shift can largely be attributed to the Cupertino Fruit company. Though other touch-enabled screens and products existed before the iPhone, none elevated the paradigm to the level that Apple has. What began almost as a novelty has become the expectation of many users.

No anecdote better illustrates the spread of Touch than a conversation I had a few months back. I was speaking with a Media rep who was visiting my agency to present the media consumption habits of modern American youths (real heady/convoluted stuff, I know). Prior to her presentation, she mentioned that her two year-old son had become quite adept at using the iPad, which had become his “toy” of choice.

She further explained that his familiarity with/usage of the iPad had become so extensive that he began to translate its conventions to other media/devices. This led to a humorous situation where the child attempted to navigate their flat-screen TV through Touch gestures (tap, swipe, etc.). Of course, as is the case with most current TVs, the screen was not touch-enabled, leading to much frustration on the child’s part.

This story stuck in my mind for two reasons:

1. The freaking kid had an iPad at age 2! My toddler years were spent manipulating action figures and sculpting Play Dough. Gotta say, I’m a little jealous.
2. The Touch form of interaction had become intricately ingrained in him. So much so, that his expectation was that all other technological devices should offer the same functionality.

I may be wrong, but I believe this kid is a preview of future users. Users that see a Touch UI as a mandatory, not a frivolous experience reserved for iPhones (or Droids) and iPads (or Xooms: my tablet of choice). I think this mental shift will be partially attributable to the success of the iPhone and iPad, but largely attributable to the advantages of a Touch UI:

1. Touch is very personal (you are literally controlling the interface directly, not via separate mouse attachment).
2. Touch is intuitive (what’s more intuitive than using your own hands and fingers?).
3. Touch is what Minority Report predicted (maybe this last one is a bit irrelevant).

We’ve begun to see the full integration of Touch-based interaction across all digital spaces/form factors. Yesterday’s demonstration of Windows 8 provides the latest and perhaps strongest example of this reality. Here is Microsoft….the worldwide king of mouse-click Software (from a Sales volume perspective)….announcing a next-gen Desktop/Laptop/Tablet OS….designed based on Touch interaction. Sure it will accommodate mouse and keyboard, but the UI is unmistakeably optimized for Touch.

I’m not willing to buy into the notion that the traditional keyboard is in danger of disappearing. It is far too useful from a productivity perspective to be eradicated (unless of course a sufficient Touch/virtual replacement is developed). I’m not even willing to suggest that the mouse will immediately become extinct. There is far too much behavioral investment for it to be gone tomorrow.

I do firmly believe, however, that Touch is the future of digital interaction, and that more and more “hybrid” OSs/devices will emerge. This certainly creates work for those on the “traditional” (read: not Mobile or Tablet) side, as they will need to rework their Web and app architectures to match the new interaction standard. I, for one, am looking forward to this shift….and the invention of a smudge-proof screen.

Social: “Superstars” and “Good Players”

If you’ve made a practice of following the most relevant tech/media blogs, then you have undoubtedly read one (at least) article detailing the “Social Bubble”. Many experts (who are much savvier than I, of course) have suggested that we are in the midst of an unsustainable environment; one in which the plethora of Social options far exceeds the need. My take: people just like using the word “bubble” (try it, it’s fun).

This isn’t to say that there is an absence of merit within the argument (I’ll explain in a bit). However, something about the “Social Bubble”-statement/philosophy causes me to cringe.

Fundamentally, we are social animals (far be it for me to disagree with Aristotle). We crave social experiences, they are what sustain us (food and water be damned). Thus, we have historically manipulated technology in ways that allow us to socialize….better (from the earliest Web chatrooms to the platforms of today).

I will certainly make the caveat that better is a relative term, as I wouldn’t want to upset the Luudites (although a true Luudite wouldn’t be reading this blog). Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is, we now have the power to socialize with more people, more often, in farther away places, at the snap of a finger (or the click of a “Post”).

As a result, to hint that Social will somehow disappear (or crash for that matter) is laughable. Even a devolution is a fairly ridiculous notion. Like or lump it, Facebook (and to a lesser extent, in my opinion, Twitter) has changed the social interaction game. All of this being said, the pundits are correct in stating that we have ventured into a bloated, Social ecosystem; one in which the “superstars” and “good players” are often confused (kind of like the NBA).

In my view, our present Social universe can be divided into two key categories (for the sake of explanation, and lack of nuance): legitimate Social properties and other Social tools/functionalities.

I define legitimate Social properties as those platforms that not only garner a significant amount of users, but also a significant amount of time spent (becoming staples within the overall Web/digital ecosystem). These properties are few and far between, with the clear categorical-leader being Facebook. Other members of this group (in my estimation) include: Twitter, Linkedin (from a professional-social perspective), and to a certain extent Groupon (though I don’t believe its yet reached its full, property-potential).

Now for the other Social tools/functionalities. In no way do I intend to marginalize these players. Many of them, are extremely valuable in their own right. However, they do not stack up to Social properties in the arena of truly captivating a critical mass. They are often more single-serving, less woven into the fundamental, Social fabric. Some are more useful, others more frivolous. Examples of  these Social tools/functionalities (in my opinion) are: geo-sharing services like Foursquare, Gowalla and Scavenger; question-based services like Formspring; entertainment check-in services like Get Glue.

Again, I am not marginalizing the role of Social tools/functionalities. Many serve a definite purpose, resulting in relatively impressive usage. Many are also rooted in fundamentally, game-changing ideas. The danger occurs when the media tech/industry (or certain individuals therein) confuse these tools or ideas with legitimate properties, and make the assumption that they can consistently engage users in the long-term (in and of themselves).

Social tools/functionalities can certainly augment other platforms. Oftentimes, even, their features (or unique API) can be integrated into legitimate site properties, enhancing the overall worth of that property. However, the expectation that a user will ever spend significant and consistent time with these tools/functionalities is tenuous at best. Unfortunately, this expectation is often placed on these services, as demonstrated by the huge/irrational investments that they often receive.

Now, I will never suggest that the Facebooks of the world will never be displaced. If history has taught us anything: today’s king can easily become tomorrow’s peasant. I do not believe, though, any of the Social tools/functionalities I’ve mentioned have the capability to do so.

The smart ones will milk the most out of their peak usage period, positioning themselves to be purchased by a larger/broader platform. The more ambitious (read: foolish/naive), will aim for the territory of legitimate property (falling flat along the way). Some may refer to this as an impending “Social Bubble”. To me, it’s simply “Social Selection”.

Stop Using the “F” Word?

Now that the shock/intrigue has successfully pulled you into this post, I may clarify. The title above certainly does not refer to the infamous “F” word (the one that many know and love). That word will undoubtedly exist as long as the English language is spoken (if athletes, comedians and ad guys have anything to do with it).

The “F” word of which I speak is one that has grown in use and prominence recently; a byproduct of our ever-changing media and technology habits. That word is: Fragmentation….and it may be slowly going the way of the VHS player. 

Fragmentation is in no way a new concept. Our attention as human beings has never been singular. We have always looked to engage with new technologies, new media, new ways of doing. However, as these devices, these media, these technologies began performing the same functions, Fragmentation suddenly became more apparent.

Take the Mobile space. Originally (long, long ago….in a galaxy far, far away), your brick/car phone was used to make “phone calls”. Later, ambitious devices graduated to call and SMS capability. Nonetheless, the phone’s function was still communication.

Eventually, however, Mobile devices began to more closely mirror computers in functionality. Beginning with the introduction of web access and browsers on Feature phones, you could now, in theory, connect in the same ways on your Motorola that you could on your Mac. I say “in theory”, because in reality, though the option existed, the experience was not remotely the same.

The reason that Mobile web usage within the U.S. has just recently become commonplace is that the initial experience was drastically inferior to that on “Traditional” web. Though phones possessed the advantage of always being with a user, they/their browsers were not capable of customary web performance.

Sites loaded painfully slowly. Certain site content was unable to be viewed (e.g. video, etc.). Very few properties existed that were architected specifically for the space. Obviously, there were Network issues at play as well (we didn’t have the luxury of “4G” back then or universal wifi connectivity), but the pronounced variance in device experiences called attention to the Fragmentation.

Today’s smartphones have upped the Mobile web experience ante, creating an even greater congruence between phones and computers. The space is far from perfected and the form factors will invariably lead to distinct differences. However, the improvement, and the potential, is clear. There may come a day when we are no longer Fragmented in fundamental experiences.

Now, Web is only one portion of the consistency equation. The other must occur at the native level. Despite visions of a “local-light” future, one in which devices consist of nothing more than a browser delivering sites and Web-developed applications (with virtually all content/data stored to the Cloud); the truth is that native applications and experiences will be in demand for the foreseeable future.

Thus, regardless of the consistency that we are able to achieve at the Web level, we must also establish it at the platform/OS level. Leave it to Google to fully realize and embrace this need….to take on the mission of true ”ubiquity”.

I have fully disclosed my fandom in the areas of the Android platform and Google as a whole. Nonetheless, even I was pleasantly surprised (an understatement to make myself seem more like an objective observer) with their announcements at Google I/O yesterday:

1. A new “smart”, shared Mobile/Tablet OS, aptly named “Ice Cream Sandwich”. One that has the ability to detect the form factor, and subsequently deliver the appropriate/optimized experience.
2. The potential for a corresponding, shared application framework. One that would allow developers to build a Mobile-optimized and Tablet-optimized experience, dare we dream….simultaneously.
3. An “Open” Accessories Standard that allows 3rd party gadget manufacturers to develop products (e.g. digital cameras, game controllers, etc.) that are compatible with the Android platform (so long as they utilize the designated API).
4. A slew of Home implementations that allow your physical/domestic environment (appliances, electronics, electricity, etc.) to be in sync with your core devices (phone, tablet, etc.) via an API.

I must admit that to a certain degree, Jobs & Co. have already realized some of the developments above. Recent iOS updates have established significant consistency between the iPad and the latest iPhone/iPod touch models. The limitation, however (as always), is Apple’s tight control over the platform as a whole. Apple has no interest in establishing “ubiquity” outside of their proprietary ecosystem (and all of its constraints), which by definition prevents the establishment of true ”ubiquity”.

Conversely, Google (at least for now) has committed to ensuring that the “Open” system that they have historically championed, lives on in this next Android evolution. In theory, this opens the floodgates for any carrier/developer/device manufacturer to incorporate this latest iteration of the platform without any consideration of adhering to a “Google Standard”. Google has already taken Fragmentation into consideration by creating a universal, flexible tool that adapts to its necessary use.

Again, at this point, this is all very theoretical. Though we know Google is certainly moving in an “Open”-“ubiquitous” direction, we have yet to see the execution/implementation (which always makes the final determination of success). The plan is very ambitious, and many opportunities for roadblocks (and even failure) exist. Nonetheless, the potential for a truly transformative platform (unlike any we’ve seen) is palpable. Of course, I’ll be rooting for their success (shocker I know), while still remaining cautious and objective along the way (or at least pretending to).