About a year and a half+ ago I read a fascinating article in Business 2.0 magazine called “The Disruptors”. The article was published in September 2006, and to date is one of the most eye opening articles I’ve read. The article talks about 11 companies with 11 big ideas that would change everything, or more accurately change industries, destroy established companies, and even change how we do things day to day. So today I started reading another article in Information Week called “5 Disruptive Technologies To Watch In 2008” that talks about virtualization, and that I’ve always been a big believer in both on the server and web application/services side. The more recent article in InformationWeek was definitely more geared towards technology disruptors, and to be frank wasn’t such a surprise to me. Anyway it got me thinking about the old Business 2.0 article, and how eye opening the “big ideas” were, so I decided to re-look at the ideas and determine if there were still strong disruptor candidates.

Netvibes.com
First off this article first introduced me to Netvibes.com, and ever since then I’ve been using it. The idea was that a highly personalized start page with no major advertising would knock Yahoo, MSN, AOL, and Google off the portal “my homepage” leader board. Although Netvibes.com has grown tremendously, the other major portals are still around, and in-fact iGoogle and Yahoo’s relatively new portal homepage have matched some of the unique personalization features Netvibes.com originally dominated with. For now it doesn’t look like Netvibes.com will disrupt the major portal, and what it really shows is how fast these portals can react and adapt to new challenges.

BlueLithium
Everyone heard the buzz about BlueLithium and there highly targeted ad serving based on the whole networks click streams. The disruption was targeted against Google and traditional CPM ad networks back in the day. Well in this case I think BlueLithium rocked the online ad industry and certainly pushed companies like Google and ValueClick to react with similar behavioral targeted products. In September 2007 Yahoo made a big move and bought BlueLithium for $300M. In the short term I’d say BlueLithium had a major impact, however the competition was quick to react again and new competitors have risen as a result.

Salesforce.com’s AppExchange
The disruptor in this case was not salesforce.com as a CRM solution but the underlying database and so called “Web Operating System” salesforce.com exposed when they launched AppExchange. The big idea was to allow developers to build on-top of the AppExchange infrastructure and ultimately compete with the traditional enterprise big boys such as Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, etc. The problem salesforce.com has is that clients want to see lots of strong partners (developers) building products on-top of AppExchange, and developers want to see lots of customers before investing in AppExchange. This is an unfortunate catch-22, which hopefully will dissipate over time. Around May 2007 AppExchange was uncoupled from the main salesforce.com CRM system and prices were reduced in order to attract both customers and developers to the on-demand platform. Although I believe it’s too early to determine if AppExchange is a destructor, I believe it certainly has all the potential attributes and characteristics to disrupt the big boys.

Stay tuned over the next few weeks for part two and three that look at Coghead, Clearwire, Jajah, EEStor, Zopa, NanoLife Sciences, Applied Location, and NextMedium.

Being a futurist, or attempting to be, I have to constantly change the way in which I think about things. One thing I have been challenging people on of late is the concept of one device with multiple display options. i.e. In 2011 my iPhone will have a normal screen (like it is now), then a screen 5 times the size that I unscroll (via lcd paper) for a more engaging experience … then when I want to watch a movie at home off the same device I’ll just plug it into my projector (or big monitor, or whatever). One device, multiple display options.

Get it? Now that you’re all caught up, trash that idea because it it old news.

I found this on Slashdot a few minutes ago like most of you:

“A University of Washington researcher has developed a contact lens including circuitry and a matrix of LEDs. Although not yet a working prototype, this may be a foundation for terminator/robocop style overlay displays in which computer graphics could be superimposed on your normal vision. ‘Building the lenses was a challenge because materials that are safe for use in the body, such as the flexible organic materials used in contact lenses, are delicate. Manufacturing electrical circuits, however, involves inorganic materials, scorching temperatures and toxic chemicals. Researchers built the circuits from layers of metal only a few nanometers thick, about one thousandth the width of a human hair, and constructed light-emitting diodes one third of a millimeter across.’”

So now I’m rethinking everything, again. NOW how will I design web sites when one pair of contact lens can display anything, at any size (relatively), to any user from any device?

It will happen. The contacts will be directly on the eye so they will be able to generate an image appropriate for the situation (a small icon in the bottom left to signify voice mail, or “full screen” to play a movie… at any “size” I choose). Also consider that my contacts can sync up with Bluetooth 6.7 to my phone (which is also my computer by 2017), my home system, “Billy” (that’s what I call the AI that runs my house), or my friends XBox when we are playing Call of Duty 12 in multiple player mode.

One display, multiple display sizes, multiple devices … you caught up yet?

Slate blogger Mickey Kaus has been pushing an interesting theory on political consumerism, namely that the news cycle and technology have evolved and advanced so far - and in such coordination - that consumers are more adept at cycling news and information much more quickly than even a few years ago, “that voters are comfortable processing information at the vastly increased speed it can come at them”.

He cites this phenomenon, called Feiler Faster Thesis, on why everyone got NH wrong in Barack’s favor:

“…Voters who don’t really follow politics are much less informed than they used to be, which causes polls to shift rapidly when they do inform themselves … You’ve got a vast uninformed pool of voters that only begins to make up its mind until the very last minute–after the last poll is taken, maybe–and then reaches its decision by furiously ingesting information at a Feileresque pace.”

But what if we were to put this in general, non-wonkish marketing perspective: due to technology’s rapid dissemination of information and socialization of product and brand “truthyness”, the temporal market place for any brand or product is being truncated and only the most immediate message are penetrating.

One the one hand, long term investment in brand awareness creates only fleeting - not sustainable - consideration momentum that can be capitalized on (why Barack saw an Iowa bounce, but it disappeared overnight; why Hillary’s crying episode quickly overshadowed the Iowa results leading right up until voters made up their minds).

Retail sciences are exploring this trend widely, focusing on the “moment of truth”, when a consumer pulls a product from their shelves. But are agency strategists keeping up with the consideration cycle and funnel of today’s rapidly promiscuous consumer?

I’ve contended for some time now that the sales funnel looks less like an upside down triangle and much more like an extraordinarily thin hourglass, which continuously curves into itself. Maybe Kaus is right, and that it’s not so thin after all.

Reading the financial sections these days will make you aware of the potential economic downturn (example: AT&T seeing softness in consumer spending). So if you’re contemplating whether you should establish (or grow) an online marketing budget, please allow me to suggest that your monies should be hoarded until the economic “haze” clears because nothing is better than watching your competitors take market share. In times like these, it is clearly important to be more focused and strategic with your online marketing efforts.

If you sell your products offline, it is time to think about:

• Setting up a shopping cart to allow buyers to learn more and directly order your products.

• Accepting payments online to speed up the collection process and improve your cash flow.

• Using a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to collect leads or other customer communication and efficiently route them within the organization.

Because eCommerce is a highly matured area on the web, there are actually several affordable/inexpensive solutions that can be easily implemented, and these are great especially if you’re just starting out. But as your business grows, your needs will likely change so you’ll want to give slight consideration to solutions that have more features, can be tailored to your organization or can scale to support more employees (aka users). These solutions will likely require more effort to implement.

If you’re already selling your products online, it is time to add more sophistication to your existing system(s). So, it is time to think about:

• Integrating a Product Review System into your Shopping Cart to enable buyers to better understand the quality of the product.

• Launching an targeted email program that delivers personalized email messages based on a user’s shopping habits, interests or even language preferences (FYI: the next wave of consumers in the US speak/read Spanish).

• Promoting your product offerings within a local search portal or even a mapping service (like Google Maps) to drive more local awareness.

In essence, now is time to get going but not without a strategy. It is simple to go from point A to point B, but only with a strategy can you move forward in a direct line.

RELATED LINKS:

• Hosted Shopping Cart (Ecommerce Web Site by Network Solutions)
• Shopping Cart Software (LaGarde’s Storefront)
• Hosted CRM Solution (SalesForce)
• Google Coupons System

One simply has to marvel at a man who, in Microsoft, has built an unquestionable empire. However, nowhere in my years of following Bill Gates have I thought “I’d like to watch football and have a beer with that guy.” He has, in fact, always been portrayed as a man with no personality (if not an evil one). Think back to Pirates of Silicon Valley.

Tangent: I actually just had a conversation with a couple of co-workers last week about Geeks being the new Cool. It’s true. I remember somewhere around 6 or 7 years ago watching an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (shameful, I don’t know why I just admitted that) where Buffy called a group of kids at her school “geeks.” These would be the computer lab-frequenting, Internet-savvy group of future business moguls she was referring to. I was insulted on behalf of all “geeks.”

Years later we live in a time where you’re not “with it” unless you have a Facebook account, the latest and greatest smart phone, and know who John Hodgman and Justin Long are. Even better, the more somebody knows about technology - the cooler they are.

Anyway … back to Bill. Jeff Hilimire forwarded me this video:

On the brink of departure from his day-to-day job at Microsoft (set for July), Bill decided to have some fun during a keynote at CES 2008 by showing a scripted, yet very entertaining video where we get a glimpse of how cool and fun he can actually be.

In a parody of what Bill’s last day on the job at Microsoft might be like, he endlessly pokes fun at himself - from workouts with Matthew McConnaughey where he’s told he’s “not ready” to take his shirt off, to an awkward experience with JayZee where his hopes of a rap career are dashed.

Sometimes the coolest people are those that embrace the parts of themselves that others might pick on. I had a blast watching this video!

In my previous post on complexity, I outlined some of the perils that can result from increasingly complex software. For part deux, we’ll examine a solution to the complexity problem.

One fundamental aspect of software development must be remembered during any conversation regarding the problems of software complexity: good software arises out of a process of gradual refinement. This simple premise is often overlooked by the stakeholders involved in a project (including developers). However, a single word has arisen out of the programmers’ lexicon into the mainstream that tersely communicates the state of a project currently undergoing some form of refinement: Beta. Beta is a powerful word. Beta communicates to the end-user (and client) that the application they are currently using has not yet reached its full potential.

Beta means different things for different applications. For some, Beta means that the application either has functionality that may not work at all under certain conditions, or that obvious functional points are missing but will soon be in place. In other words, it’s a means of providing coverage when things go wrong or when things are obviously missing. For Google’s increasingly popular GMail, Beta means “100% of the functionality we have provided will work 98% of the time, but there are many wonderful things we have in store for you that we will present on our terms.” It is thanks to Google, I think, that “Beta” has become an almost everyday word.

It is also thanks to Google that the process of gradual refinement in software, a process programmers call Iterative Development, can be packaged as a more palatable concept for stakeholders who drive software production (e.g. our clients at Spunlogic). Any application that contains an easily-identifiable amount of complexity (in either concept or execution) must go through an interim Beta phase until the project’s goal or the client’s vision has been met. Of course for large and complex projects, vision may be clouded from the outset. This provides all the more reason to develop and launch the project in iterative steps, refining the application while at the same time refining project goals when necessary. As more pieces of the application are launched, stakeholders can protect themselves from the storm of complexity by keeping the application under the “Beta umbrella.”

I’d like to return to Google and one of their flagship products, Google Maps, as an example of iterative development done right. Google Maps currently provides the means to view satellite data of a region with a road-map overlay, view real-time traffic data in major metropolitan areas, view building elevation in these areas, re-route driving directions via drag-and-drop interaction, etc., etc., across multiple countries. However, when Google Maps first launched, it did two things: provided driving directions (and not always reliable ones) on a slick drag-able street map view of the United States. Here are some highlights in Google Maps’ iterative evolution from a product that delivered two main pieces of functionality for one part of the world to a product that can do dozens of different things while representing many places across the globe (with credit to Wikipedia):

• February 8 2005: Google Maps first announced, providing street maps and driving directions covering much of the United States.
• Late June 2005: Google releases the Extensibility and Customisation API, laying the foundation for the Google Maps Mashup movement.
• Mid July 2005: Google releases Google Maps for Japan.
• January 2, 2006: Google Maps features road maps for the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and certain cities in the Republic of Ireland.
• On April 3, 2006: version 2 of the Maps API is released. Two months later, geocoding capabilities are added.
• February 2007: buildings and subway stops are displayed in Google Maps “map view” for parts of New York City, Washington, D.C., London, San Francisco. MARTA stops have since been added.
• February 28, 2007: Traffic information is officially launched to automatically include real-time traffic flow conditions for 30 major cities of the United States.
• May 30, 2007: Street View is added, providing a ground-level 360 degree view of streets in some major cities in United States.
• June 28, 2007: drag-able driving directions are introduced.
• November 27, 2007: “Terrain” view showing basic topographic features are added.

Obviously, Google Maps has become an extraordinarily complex application, and not all applications must deliver this degree of complexity. Regardless, the Google Maps development life cycle is a case-study in how to mitigate complexity through iterative development.

Assume that some of the great functionality present in the current iteration of Google Maps was not foreseen at the outset of the project, but grew organically from within the development process. At the same time, there must have been some functionality on the drawing-board that never made it out of iterative development (and certain things that did make it out have since been iteratively eliminated, like the “Hybrid” view). All the while, Google Maps lived in a Beta state throughout much of its life (it is no longer Beta).

We must take this model and apply it to our own complex projects. A Beta site launch will portend a better product for all stakeholders and iterative development will help solidify the product and eliminate distractions to the project goal.

It’s been almost a month since Raghu Kakarala and I discussed widgets together at a Lunch seminar, and there’s been enough interesting news since then that it warranted an update on this topic. The take-away points were: widgets are here to stay (in other words: not a fad), they can be either extraordinarily interactive or simple (so build one if you haven’t yet). and widget distribution is key (because it will extend the footprint of your website’s reach).

Now that you’re all caught up, here’s your widget update for December:

Widget vs. Gadget Debate

We found it interesting that widgets go by various names. For instance, Yahoo and Apple use the term ‘widgets’ whereas Google’s iGoogle and Microsoft’s Live Spaces use the term ‘gadgets.’ According to Widgets Lab, the distinction between widgets and gadgets is that gadgets live in a specialized web environment (also referred to as an ecosystem). Unfortunately, Google has recently made their gadgets interchangeable between the web and the desktop sidebar so this naming convention will likely go by the way side.

Monetization of Widgets Debate

As widgets have become increasingly popular, technology pundits have challenged the widget community to show them that widgets have real monetary value. News broke last week that GoodWidgets, a widget company that offers a slideshow widget, is up for sale for $10k. While this is “small potatoes” in comparison to other widget makers like Slide (Slide is Pitching For A $200 Million Valuation. Or Not.), it demonstrates that widgets are evolving into a “product” that can be sold. This comes on the heels of news that Clearspring has rolled out an ad network for widgets which lets users monetize their widget traffic. So while we’ve still got a long way to go, there’s at least monetization momentum.

e-Commerce Widgets Become More Seamless

In our presentation, we talked about eBay’s listings widget that could feature items from eBay stores. The idea was that famous listings can garner more attention. In other words, now your blog post on the recent Britney Spears Birthday Bash could include the listing for the half-eaten chocolate cake from the party. Well, it seems that PayPal is taking that same concept a step further by offering a PayPal storefront widget with a shopping cart. So now blog owners can create a store, add merchandise that’s relevant to their posting, and post the store to their blog. The neat thing about this concept is that only the financial portion of the transaction has to be completed on the PayPal site.

Again, it is another step for widgets becoming more useful and a part of the mainstream web.

On the official Gmail blog (aka Google’s Email service), Dave Cohen announced yesterday the release of colored labels for email. While labels have been around since the beginnings of Gmail, the introduction of colored labels simply adds a visual context to an already useful technique of getting your digital files organized. Below is a quick synopsis of labels and why you should start using them

.

What are labels and where are they used?

Labels are essentially another term for a relevant tag or a keyword. A label can be applied to any piece of information, such as an email, bookmark or photo, in the same way that you would put a label on a manila folder.

They are commonly found on Web 2.0 sites, including:

• Blogs, such as WordPress or Blogger
• Online bookmarking services (recently reviewed by our own Nalini Humphrey)
• Photo sharing services, such as Flickr

Why are labels important?
Besides the fact that labels are now commonly used feature of sites today, they are also a means of helping us be more productive. As I think about the way that I managed emails, I used to create folders with either a person or project name (like “Emails from Boss” or “EDS Website Redesign”) and add relevant emails in those folders for reference. Unfortunately, I would end up with emails that could go in more than one place so I would have to pick a single folder (which was annoying). This would present an even bigger problem when I would need to fetch a specific email but couldn’t find it in that one folder as it was hiding in another folder.

Enter labels! With labels, I am able to get around this issue by applying one or more keywords to the same message. This way, the message appears in all of the right places. And further, with colored labels I can add a red color to my to-do label so it sticks out.

Where else can I use labels?

Since labels are not limited to email, you can apply them to other items that you need to organize, like your photos or bookmarks. For photos, you can simply tag who’s in the picture and what occasion it was taken and with bookmarks I tag them with several related. This system actually helps me find the “needle in the haystack,” especially when I have to locate a bookmark for a CSS hack regardless of whether I’m looking under “code samples” or “designing websites” (I know that Wade, our Creative Director, cringes whenever I say that!).

I recently stumbled across this article on how to protect yourself against SPAM. Get this … a study conducted by a company called Nucleus Research revealed that the average cost of SPAM per employee per year is $1,934 - as a result of lost productivity*. While most of us may know what SPAM is by now, and how to defend ourselves from it (for the most part), some of us might not be familiar with its little brother, BACN. 

BACN is pronounced exactly like how you would say those greasy strips that clog up your arteries. This relatively new term, coined at PodCamp Pittsburgh, basically means emails that you actually want, but not right now. Some examples would be your subscribed-to newsletters and online bills. You can read about how it all got started here. Although BACN may not be as detrimental (or as annoying) as SPAM, it has the potential of robbing us of time spent on filtering our email - sorting the messages we really need from those we might never read.

Many of us battling SPAM have some extra help from anti-spam softwares or we use an ISP that provides SPAM protection. As for BACN, the solution may be as easy as thinking twice before signing up for anything online or offline. For example, do you really need that Facebook update when you are already checking your Facebook account for the fifth time today or the other various daily or weekly updates from your favorite stores (who’s websites you frequent anyway), when you are buried up to your neck with work?

So, with some help from SPAM protection software and a little common sense, we can all keep our inbox, and our bottom line, protected from the likes of SPAM and BACN.

A couple of days ago, I was having a conversation with a buddy of mine about how weird it feels to go on a trip where there is no internet access.  These, of course, are generally trips to see family or friends that put you in a location where getting online is usually not impossible, but a at least a chore, so you wind up doing without for some period of time.  My buddy and I were joking about how it changes the dynamic of conversations, because you can’t just go “Google” something to help resolve a friendly debate, or look up something that you’re trying to figure out.  My friend called it the “third brain” in a conversation.

While most of what we were saying was in jest to some extent, there was obviously some truth to it.  And there was something about that truth that bothered me a bit, and got me to worry a little.  Will the internet affect our ability to critically think for ourselves?

How many times a day/week do you wind up solving a problem by going straight to the internet?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to paint the internet as evil or something harmful.  I’m only curious about what subtle differences in the way I think - or my children think - that it can impose, and what about those differences is healthy or unhealthy.

If more and more problems are solved and those solutions posted online, do I need to find ways to ensure that I maintain my ability to problem solve?  What about my children?

Part of me knows how valuable it is to be able to find a solution online in a matter of seconds instead of taking hours or days to figure it out myself, or even worse taking up several of my peers time and energy as well.  But at the same time, isn’t there usually some intangible benefit to just figuring it for myself?

I can see future households where children are taught to look something up online before they ask their parents.  I can also see a workforce full of people who can’t solve problems without looking up the answers. 

So, I pose the question to readers … is this a problem?