*michael parekh on IT*

ON WAXXI AND INTERACTIVE PODCASTS

ALL TOGETHER NOW

I had the pleasure on being a co-guest with Michael Arrington of TechCrunch yesterday, on an "interactive podcast" hosted by the founder and CEO of Waxxi.us, Tracy Sheridan. 

What's an interactive podcast, you ask?  Well, as Waxxi's site describes it:

"An interactive, participatory, podcast is one in which you, the audience (or ‘podience’) member, can participate in the conversation – or the podcast – and have an opportunity to ask questions of the podcast guests..."

An additional enhancement is the ability to have all the participants involved in a real-time IM (instant messaging) chat window. The ability to see real-time reactions, comments and questions by the audience as we were speaking, was an added plus.

Members of the audience were readers, listeners, and active participants in the event, all at the same time.

Having done countless conference calls over the years, this experience was a memorable one because of the interactive features. 

As the technologies evolve, one can see a whole host of additional features (real-time audience surveys, immediately shareable transcripts/audio/video clips etc.) morphing group conference calls to a much more participative experience for all parties.

More info on yesterday's podcast is available here.

I also had fun listening to Michael Arrington's thoughts on the current Web 2.0 environment, with the on-going examples of the on-going array of new companies that are introducing new products and services. 

He was particularly jazzed about a company called Zlango yesterday, a company he posted on a couple of days ago.  It's an Israeli company that is introducing a cool, user-expandable pictorial language that can be used in SMS chats on cell phones around the world.

Anecdotally, in the year that TechCrunch has been introducing and reviewing the latest and greatest from the Web 2.0 world, I count 622 companies and product announcements so far, as of yesterday.  That's almost 2 per day.  And these are the filtered ones from the far greater number that Michael sees coming through every day.

I don't know how Michael and his team keep up with them all.  But I'm glad they do. 

My thanks also to Tracy and her team for making the whole experience smooth, fun, and informative.

ON VERIZON WIRELESS'S GENEROUS GESTURE

FREE TO GO?

On the surface, it looks like small miracles do occur.  I'm referring to Verizon Wireless's decision yesterday to offer lower termination fees to subscribers who wish to cancel their service before their contract is out.  According to this AP story:

"Targeting a top gripe by cell phone users and breaking ranks again with its industry, Verizon Wireless plans to prorate the fee it charges subscribers who break a contract so they only pay an amount proportional to the time left on their agreements."

The company plans to implement this policy

"...this fall for all new customers and any Verizon Wireless subscribers who sign a new contract..."

In other words, for existing, loyal customers like yours truly, "NO EARLY TERMINATION FOR YOU!"

On the surface, this looks like putting almost $8.75billion of revenue at risk.  That's the total amount of potential termination fees due the company, extrapolating from this tidbit in the AP article:

"About 50 million of Verizon Wireless' 53 million subscribers are under contract, and nearly all would face an early termination fee of $175 if they decided to change carriers or just close their accounts."

But given the pro-ration, and the high ranking of it's wireless services relative to competitors, the amount is likely to be much smaller. 

Overall, it's a smart business strategy for Verizon Wireless, what with increasing push-back from customers across the country against this industry practice, as the AP piece outlines. 

And as the AP piece points out, the company's move is designed to put more of the hurt on it's competitors than itself.  This is due to the company's current record of having the best customer retention rate in the industry.

Finally, a nuanced benefit might be to encourage customers to try the latest phones and PDAs from Verizon, by rolling early from one contract to another.

The question now is how competitors react to this move, if at all.

DISCLOSURE:  I hold shares in Verizon Wireless.

ON CELLPHONE BASED GEO-LOCATION SERVICES

POINT AND SCOOT

After years of what I consider false starts in figuring out the holy grail of GPS-driven "geo-location" applications for cell phones, this New York Times article finally describes one that intuitively feels just right and seems to fill a real need.  Titled "With a cellphone as my guide", the article explains:

"If you stand on a street corner in Tokyo today you can point a specialized cellphone at a hotel, a restaurant or a historical monument, and with the press of a button the phone will display information from the Internet describing the object you are looking at.

The new service is made possible by the efforts of three Japanese companies and GeoVector, a small American technology firm, and it represents a missing link between cyberspace and the physical world.

The phones combine satellite-based navigation, precise to within 30 feet or less, with an electronic compass to provide a new dimension of orientation. Connect the device to the Internet and it is possible to overlay the point-and-click simplicity of a computer screen on top of the real world."

The service is available only in Japan for now, because US wireless carriers haven't seen the need (or the money) in introducing a similar capability here.  Only Verizon and Sprint here seem inclined to introduce this capability in the US.  The technology apparently adds less than $10 to the hardware cost of a cellphone.

This type of a "geo-location" service is particularly relevant in countries like Japan, where a formal grid-based postal addressing system has not yet been developed.  There are other countries like India, and many parts of China that have a similar problem and opportunity.

There are countless possibilities of good and bad applications of this type of technology for consumers.  The blog 21talks describes just one neat application made possible:

"If you can plug voice over IP or podcast with this kind of service, you can end up with geolocalized tourism, voice-assisted Yellow pages or even cellphone-based Treasure Quest."

And terrestrial tourism is only a trillion dollar industry worldwide.

One can only imagine the kinds of things that are possible when a service like this is tied together with web-based mapping systems from companies like Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and AOL.

What's truly remarkable about the service in Japan so far, besides the fact that it has over a million users, is that the base service is apparently FREE to use. 

Additional premium overlays are planned, but the fact that a free service is made possible by the various companies involved, including the wireless carriers themselves, is a remarkable act of commercial self-restraint.

Because a sure way to kill the open-ended innovation possible around a capability like this, is to stifle it with surcharges right out of the gate.  Thus ensuring that many mainstream users will never take a chance in trying it.

ON MICROSOFT'S OFFICE 2007 "TEST-DRIVE"

TRY IT BEFORE YOU BUY IT

At first glance, reading this Microsoft announcement almost makes it seem like the company is offering users the opportunity to download and try it's Office 2007 as a beta product.  That doesn't compute since the company has already offered a Beta version for a while now.

The headline in the announcement asks the user to take Office 2007 "out for a spin".

But a closer examination shows that it's really a slick, online "web demo", using a thin Citrix web-client that needs to be downloaded (via Microsoft News Tracker).

It's a clever touch, presumably to allow more mainstream users to check out the application without having to download the whole beta application.

Not quite the same thing as kicking the whole software package around for a bit on your own machine.  You can do that with the official Beta version of Office 2007 though, targeted mostly at developers and IT managers.

It's an interesting twist  to the industry's on-going  predilection for releasing Beta software.

I guess we can call it a Beta "Lite".

ON PHILANTHROPY 2.0

GIVING THOUGHT

Today's news of Warren Buffett's giving some $31 billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock to the already world-leading $30 billion Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is terrific news for society at large. 

As an aside, one wonders what's going through the minds of mega-yacht enthusiasts Paul Allen and Larry Ellison, as Don Dodge implies.

While one can only applaud initiatives like those made by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, I do empathize with Paul Kedrosky's reaction to all this magnanimity:

"All cynicism momentarily aside, I am in awe at this kind of giving. I really and truly hope it does good, even if the skeptic in me is uneasy with the whole idea of large charitable foundations."

The technologist in me wonders how this could be done better, more in keeping with what I call the "Prime Directive" of technology investing, i.e.,

"To look for places where one can see a 10x improvement in price/performance".

In other words, how would one re-think philanthropy from a technology and/or Web 2.0 perspective?

How could one magnify any size of giving dedicated to long-term philanthropy, by the 10-X kind of levels expected by Moore's Law type of curves?

Is that even possible?  Certainly, one innovation along these lines are the recent introduction of "microcredit" oriented philanthropy.

In addition, how would one re-think the centralized, gate-keeper way a foundation is typically organized and run?

In other words, how could one get the "Wisdom of the crowds" to help direct where the funds go.

Is there a Google PageRank inspired algorithmic way one structure a philanthropic effort, regardless of whether we're talking about deploying billions or millions?

Or alternatively, is the a Digg-type approach to philanthropy that could be considered, where the number of "Digg" votes for a given cause, help determine whether it gets funded?

I guess what I'm wondering about is whether one can adapt the lessons learned from technology and people-powered internet services to re-think how philanthropy could be done better.

Any thoughts?

ON WAITING FOR MORE THAN DOUGH ON THE WEB

CALL TO ARMS

The New York Times has a timely article this weekend in their "Money" section, titled "Waiting for the Dough on the Web". 

The piece mainly looks at all the internet initiatives and acquisitions by media incumbents of late, and asking the implied question, "Where is the BIG money?" 

As author Richard Siklos explains:

"...lately, I've been getting a few versions of this: "You talk to a lot of the traditional media companies. Who do you think has got this Internet thing figured out?"      

That is a tough but very pertinent question, given all the digital hurly-burly of the past decade or so.

Rupert Murdoch and the News Corporation, for instance, get points for their speed and resolve to gain traction online. The company's moves have included the purchase last year of the teenage hangout MySpace.

Robert A. Iger at the Walt Disney Company is notable for being the first to put television shows, his from ABC, on iTunes and then to try streaming them on the Web, supported solely by sponsors.

Time Warner has the AOL paradox on its hands: it owns one of the top Internet destinations but is clouded by the service's daunting business challenges.

Viacom has made some small but clever acquisitions — Neopets and iFilm, for instance — and has a proven record for knowing what young people want and giving it to them on MTV and Nickelodeon.

Among newspaper companies, I'd posit that the Washington Post Company and Dow Jones — and, yes, The New York Times Company — stand out for their online strategies.

And, for cable television channels, CNN and MSNBC seem to have staked out prime real estate online.

But one could make a case that the amount of focus on — and hype about — Internet activities at media companies has some kind of inverse relationship to the amount of near-term revenue they represent for these companies."

Reading through this semi-comprehensive list provoked ANOTHER question in my mind. 

Never mind the revenues and profits, which as a shareholder in some of these companies, I would also like an answer to as well...but WHERE IS THE INNOVATION to date by the incumbent media companies?

Admittedly, some of them deserve some credit for having the gumption to scoop up some promising, innovative companies like MySpace, Neopets, and the like, with alacrity unusual for their size and stature. 

But to paraphrase Cuba Gooding and Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire (picture via Google Images):

"Show me the Innovation!"

I mean the web and it's constantly evolving technologies, along with it's broad implications for media and other industries have now been with us for over a decade.

The incumbents have studied and re-studied, bought and sold, poked and prodded these various technologies to death, over the past decade.

While many of these technologies are threatening to their incumbent business models, many are also well-suited to augment and expand their market-leading, huge cash-flow generating, off-line businesses.

Now we've seen the incumbent media companies' peers and competitors at the big, incumbent internet companies (aka the GYMAAAE gang), do their share of internet acquisitions.

But we've also seen the GYMAAAE companies trying to do some innovative stuff as well.

And as we've seen so many times in the past, successful innovation does bring financial success, as do successful acquisitions.

So while the laundry-list of the companies cited above are doing more than their fair share of the latter, it'd be nice to see them do some of their share of the former.

ON SHIPS AND PLANES IN THE NIGHT

COMING AND GOING

Here's a notable coincidence.  There's a New York Times story on Techmeme about Verizon shutting down it's two-decade old Airfone service on U.S. airlines. 

It's occurring at the same day that Carnival Cruiselines is announcing that it'll introduce a service by Wireless Maritime Services, (a joint venture between AT&T/Cingular and Maritime Communications Services), that enables traveler's regular cell phones to work on most of it's ships by next year.

Might have to finally consider taking a cruise in 2007.

In the meantime, the folding of Airfone has bittersweet memories for me (picture from newswireless.net).

A service with great promise, I remember Airfone as a service that got me out of jams a few times when I absolutely, positively had to reach someone on the ground. 

But most of the time, I remember it as a service that frustrated me by not giving me an out-going line when needed, and/or blinking out in the middle of a call, and/or giving me the scratchiest, most barely audible voice signal, while charging me a king's ransom per minute. 

All the time making me constantly swipe my credit card on the darn device like my life depended on it.

Don't worry, we won't be totally phone-less in the air.  As Dailywireless.org reports in a technically detailed article,

"AirCell will likely supplant Airfone with a cheaper in-plane telephone/data service.  AirCell won the FCC auction for the 800 Mhz frequencies earlier this month."

In the meantime, the Carnival service sounds more promising, as Mobiledia describes it:

"...the service is compatible with any cell phone and allows guests to make and receive calls anywhere in the world from any cruising region.

The new cell phone service requires no additional software or special dialing procedures - guests simply make and receive calls as well as transmit text and multimedia messages as they would on land using their personal cell phone. International roaming fees apply to all shipboard cell phone calls."

Translation:  you'll be able to use your own cell phone to make and receive calls, but you'll only pay a Prince's ransom per minute for the privilege.

The more things change, the more they remain more or less the same.

ON ROAD RAGE AND LED LICENSE FRAMES (PART II)

CREATIVE COMMUNICATIONS

Technology continues to improve, even in the most mundane of areas. 

A few weeks ago, I posted on the emergence of LED License plates to better communicate with drivers behind and around you (for better or for worse).

Well, Coolest-gadgets.com (via Techmeme), reports on "Emoticon tags" that allow for even more expressive communication with one's fellow drivers. 

As the article explains:

"The battery-operated message display module is attached to the rear windscreen and is activated by remote control, so you don’t need to install any wiring..."

With the device,

"...you can let drivers behind you know exactly what you think of their driving behaviour!

If they’re driving too close, just hit the :(  button on the controller and see what happens.

If they drop back for you, you can give them a thank you with a smiley, but if they don’t you can hit the “Back Off” button as a last warning before you hit the “**** off” button!"

Again, not sure if I'd use this in certain cities like LA.

I'm not sure what's next...maybe little Nerf guns that can be attached to the rear bumper, and used to remotely shoot foam bullets at tail-gaters that get too close?

ON A GOOGLE PRODUCT THAT THRILLS

THIS ONE'S A WINNER

With this post, I'm officially classifying Google's recently introduced "Browser Sync" extension as a "Thriller" product, worthy of more aggressive marketing by the company.

Long-time users may recall when I introduced the "Thriller" category last year, describing it as,

"...tech products/gadgets/software/services that thrill with a capital "T"!  Make your jaw drop...make you a believer in technology..."

I was pretty enthused about Browser Sync already when Google introduced it earlier this month.  As a refresher, here's how Google describes this cool piece of software:

"Google Browser Sync for Firefox is an extension that continuously synchronizes your browser settings – including bookmarks, history, persistent cookies, and saved passwords – across your computers.

It also allows you to restore open tabs and windows across different machines and browser sessions. For more info, please visit our FAQ."

So why am I so thrilled by this just a few days after it was introduced?  Let me give you two of many reasons:

1.  Common Computing experience across multiple computers:  So far I've installed Browser Sync on over five Windows PCs/laptops and four Mac computers/laptops in multiple locations on both coasts.  I know my computing environment is not typical. 

But the cool thing is that with Browser Sync, I can close a browser with a whole bunch of tabs open on one computer in New York, get on a plane and fly to the west coast.

On arrival in the other location, I can then open a browser on a Mac or a PC,  and have the EXACT Firefox browser session, with all my critical applications opening up as just as I left them, in New York.  One can pick up right where the work was left off, without skipping a beat.

I know there have been third-party Firefox extensions with a similar feature, but the Browser Sync experience has a cleaner, easier to use interface, and the implementation feels smoother.

2.  Fast ramp-up on a brand new computer.  I had a hard drive crash on my Thinkpad X43 a few days ago.  Luckily I had a recent back up of my data files. 

After some calls with support, it was clear that I would have to send the thing in for repair, where their technicians would "lobotomize" my machine by installing a new hard drive, and installing a new copy of Windows. 

I'd effectively get back a fresh, "new" machine.

So, as I sent the machine in to the Lenovo Thinkpad repair facility, I was dreading having to re-install my critical applications and get the "new" machine up and running just the way I like it.

In the past, it generally took me half a day or more to get a new machine to be just the way I like it.  And this time, I didn't have half a day, since I was supposed to get the machine back only 2-3 hours before heading out of town for a conference.

As it turned out, I got the machine back literally 50 minutes before I had to head to the airport for the SuperNova conference in San Francisco.  So, I had to work as quickly as possible.

First, I updated the machine with all the recent Windows Updates.  Then I re-installed Microsoft Office, and copied over my data files from the back-up external drive. 

But the machine still wasn't "mine"", in that it wasn't personalized the way I had it before the crash.

I downloaded Firefox, and quickly installed the Google Browser Sync extension.

A few minutes later, after signing in, Browser Sync had imported all my bookmarks, passwords, cookies etc. onto the new machine.

The "thrilling" moment came when I went to "My Yahoo!" page, and I was automatically signed in without having to put in user name and password.  Same thing for all my online content subscriptions.

A few minutes of this, and I realized that the new machine was "personalized" enough to be a good enough clone of my pre-crash machine.

And the whole thing had taken a little over half an hour.  I had time to make a couple of calls before the taxi arrived to take me to the airport.

Very, very cool.

Browser Sync is the closest one can come to hardware-independent shared software experience today.

Google really needs to market BrowserSync's benefits in a more mainstream, non-geeky way.

As a start, they may want to make it more accessible on their site.  As it is, one has to go through almost half a dozen pages on their site, to get to the Browser Sync page. 

So for now, it's only for people who know about it, and really, really, want to install it.  And that's mostly geeks.

They should make it a part of the main site, and make it an integral part of the Google Toolbar.  The company is getting more aggressive in marketing the toolbar, with recent distribution deals with Dell, and with Adobe yesterday.

It would really differentiate their Toolbar against all the competitor offerings, and offer a "Thriller" experience to boot. 

Almost close to what one experienced when using Google for the very first time.

ON WRIST WORN COMPUTERS

READY AT HAND

I've long wondered if mainstream users would ever be comfortable wearing a computer on their wrists. 

With computers morphing into new form factors like the UMPC, and becoming more essential than ever in conducting one's daily life, it's not far-fetched to assume that a user would want one "at hand", as it were, at any time.

Well, a company called Parvus is rolling out a Windows CE-driven wrist computer, designed primarily for military/government/law enforcement applications.  Called the ZyPad WL 1000, the device has a few features besides those found in a regular computer.  NaviGadget explains:

"The ZYPAD™ WL 1000 is a wrist-wearable wireless computer flexibly designed to give the user instant access to computing capabilities while carrying out non-computer tasks in the field. Featuring hands-free operation, robust wireless capabilities, and built-in GPS tracking, this versatile wearable computer serves as an ideal tool for Emergency Search and Rescue, Healthcare, Homeland Security, Maintenance, Law Enforcement, Logistics, Transportation, and Defense applications..."

Integrating a tilt and dead reckoning system, the WL 1000 can be used to determine if a user is motionless or fallen down and then transmit a locator beacon after a specified amount of time. This technology is also used to conserve power consumption by placing the unit in standby mode when the user’s arm hangs down beside the body (patent-pending)."

Full details on the device can be found at Parvus's site.

The question is, if a device like this were configured for mainstream web applications like Google, Yahoo! MySpace, YouTube, Instant Messaging (any flavor), email (any brand), iTunes, etc., do you think ordinary users would wear something this geeky looking on their wrist?

I mean mainstream users already walk around with bluetooth headsets in their ears, seemingly having conversations with themselves

The wrist computer could even come in fashion-coordinated colors.

Any thoughts?