Matter/Anti-Matter

Apple, Google, and Microsoft are facing some dilemmas about what to do with their OSes when it comes to Netbooks.

Microsoft's new search engine, Bing, is the first real competitor to Google.

I rarely use Google. Or rather, I rarely use Google.com. Because Google is embedded into Safari, I just use the search box there, which creates huge stickiness that's hard to displace. Of course, Microsoft has the same option now for embedding Bing into Internet Explorer, assuming it's allowed to by the courts. But the very short amount of time I've spent with Bing has me rethinking my search engine options seriously for the first time.

I know a lot of people gush about Google's user experience, and certainly there are a lot of nice things about using it: speed, accuracy of results, and things like weather, which give instant contextual results. But from an aesthetic point of view I've found its minimalism to be on the drab side, rather than the chic side. It's utilitarian, not fancy, and mostly not that fun.

Bing has had the courage to say "to hell with eking out the last millisecond of page load time," which both Google and, historically, Yahoo have always emphasized. In today's world, and moving forward, it's just not that important (mobile being an exception, but for that you can provide a custom experience).

Rafe Needleman at CNET Webware and Katherine Boehret at WSJ both have good write-ups on the niceties of Bing, so I won't repeat them here. It does some things differently than Google, breaking some ingrained habits, and while there isn't much that's significantly worse, there is quite a bit that is considerably better. The results that come back are somewhat different, sometimes more on target, sometimes not. I'd say the jury's out on that, especially since this is a just-launched service (assuming it's not just a reskin of Live, I don't know what's under the hood), and assuming it will improve as users contribute with clicks. (Like Google, it lists this blog as the top search when I self-search, so that's a plus.)

It presents the search results in a nicer way than Google, especially image search (multisize thumbnails and grids, different choices of detail, filters by image size, colors, etc., and overall a presentation that focuses on the images themselves). I love how sounds and videos are embedded into search results and how there's a mouse-over for a small preview. Hovering over the right edge of a search result description pulls up more information without having to click through to the page.

I like that the front cover photo changes each day and how you can float over it to find the hidden Easter eggs that lead you on unexpected paths (one is shown popped up in the bottom right of the above image). Ask.com tried the splash-image approach but that was more of a skin, but Bing's approach is more engaging and encourages you to actually visit the front page, rather than bypass it as quickly as possible to get to the results.

Bing avoids two traps: One, it doesn't just try to ape Google. Two, Microsoft hasn't overstyled it and thrown in the kitchen sink of aesthetics and functionality. There is clearly an editorial hand at work that hasn't allowed it to get focus-grouped to death. Kudos to Microsoft for that.

I'm going to drop Bing into my toolbar bookmarks and give it a whirl for a while. Who knows, maybe it will be enough to displace the 800-pound gorilla.

I'm still processing the many great insights from the next09 conference in Hamburg, Germany, one of Europe's leading digital-creative-marketing forums. This year's theme was "Share Economy," and the 1,300 attendees consisted of European VCs and angel investors, Web 2.0 entrepreneurs, media, creative agencies, and executives from German corporations (from BMW and Deutsche Bank to Deutsche Telekom).

Jeff Jarvis: "The Great Restructuring"

The first day, the keynote day, was a little disappointing, maybe because expectations were so high. Jeff Jarvis warmed up the crowd with his trademark "What Would Google Do?" PowerPoint deck. While a terrific thinker and speaker, for some reason he and the audience did not really click although he presented a lot of thought-provoking content. The rather stiff response may be attributed to the fact that the attendees were either too familiar with what they heard or felt slightly overwhelmed. Or maybe they were indeed excited--but too German to show it…

Umair Haque, who followed Jarvis, faced an even tougher, albeit partly self-inflicted challenge: explaining the new paradigm of "Constructive Capitalism" in 45 minutes. That's like asking Marx to walk you through his Communist Manifesto in Twitter. It didn't help, certainly, that Haque used the much gushed-about Prezi presentation software; all the zooming in and out was dizzying and, if anything, exposed the lack of stringency in his outline.

Fortunately, Haque had an opportunity to correct this first impression and reiterate some of his thoughts on a panel with Jarvis a day later, which turned out to be a much more suitable format for his ideas on the transformation of capitalism. He also took the occasion to rebut the attacks of Andrew Keen ("The Cult of the Amateur"), who, on the opening day, had chastised Haque (and all the other thinkers he considers to be under the dark influence of Silicon Valley) for propagating rampant free market liberalism and a dangerous new radical individualism in the guise of the social, consumer-empowered share economy that the conference was celebrating. Keen poignantly remarked that Twitter was getting us back into the 18th century, rather than liberating us from institutional hierarchies. He said it would reinforce an old power structure and an all too human division of roles, between those who follow and those followed.

 Andrew Keen: "Digital Vertigo"

Jeff Jarvis & Umair Haque: "When Money Talks"

Keen accused Haque et al of naivete and insisted that Google and the other Web juggernauts were not "leveling the playing field" through link love (by sharing the scarcest resource on the web: attention), as Haque had claimed, but were rather using it to expand their pursuit of world dominance. In Keen's eyes, Google's openness is nothing but a suave mechanism to foment a monopoly in the attention markets. In the same vein, a party pooper in the audience asked Jarvis: "If free sharing is the future of business, why doesn't Google share its page rank algorithm?" Jarvis' response wasn't all too convincing, "concerns over malicious abuse of the data." So much for radical transparency and trust as overriding principles in the share economy.

To Google's (and Jarvis') defense, one could counter with Haque's sharp line: "When we're all hyper-connected, the cost of evil goes up." True. Moreover, Google does provide real value as it has created a win-win-win business model (advertisers, consumers, Google) that is vastly different from the toxic chunk Haque bemoaned in the nonsustainable and ultimately value-free products that toppled capitalism as we knew it: the Hummer, fast food, derivatives, and so on. And yet, if advertising is the admission that you have a mediocre product, and that it is in fact an expression of "failure," as Jarvis put it, then it is hard to reconcile this view with the fact that advertising remains the main revenue stream in the very Google economy from which Jarvis wants us all to learn.

Despite the flaws in Jarvis' and Haque's thinking, however, I am eager to defend them. It's easy to deconstruct constructive visions of the future as ill-informed descriptions of present realities but it is a much bigger task to actually come up with a positive vision. Keen, the rebel with a good cause, does nothing but throwing a bomb, which he readily admits, but he falls short of offering an alternative to the frameworks Jarvis and Haque and others provide in response to the fundamental crisis of capitalism.

Google wouldn't care about any of this intellectual arm-wrestling all that much. It is fully consumed with doing what it does best: firing out beta-products and services, successfully failing by failing rapidly. One mistake that it made, however, may arguably have lasting implications. It didn't buy Twitter. And so the question, it seems, is no longer "What would Google do?" but "What will Twitter do?" Does Twitter mark the beginning of the end of the Google economy?

Jyri Engeström, who sold Twitter-competitor Jaiku to Google and is now a Google employee, might have a clue. On a panel with social media guru Chris Messina he offered some good insights on microblogging trends on the Web and defended the new Google Profiles ("you have to opt in"). Messina seconded him and brought up another interesting point that established the context for upcoming business models in the Twitter economy: the "glocalization" of Twitter. He described how Twitter is failing to extend the real-time conversation to the whole world, simply because of time zone differences: one part of the world is always sleeping when you're tweeting. The instant social Web conversation is therefore asynchronous, after all, and it is an interesting thought experiment to envision services that bridge the time zone gap and deliver tweets when the recipients can actually receive them (keeping them on the top of the feed), almost like an echo across time zones. What if the real value of real-time was the delivery of tweets when it really mattered?

The whole time dimension of Twitter is uncharted but valuable territory, and there are other add-ins, integrators, and localization services that will emerge in this vibrant new ecosystem. The conversation on the social Web is as rich as the human communication (if not richer), and it is just beginning to fully emerge.

What everyone agreed on at next09 is that the next big frontier on the Web (and in the Twitter economy) is how businesses talk to their customers. We are witnessing an irrevocable convergence of players. Conversational services such as Twitter and Yammer are moving into the social networking space and are acquiring the credentials of social networks and collaboration tools, while traditional social networking sites such as XING, LinkedIn, or Facebook are embedding conversational features to catch up with the irresistible pull of real-time communication.

For both groups, and, in fact, for all other companies, Umair Haque's advice is golden: Take one of the big ideals (democracy, peace, transparency, equality, and so on) and apply it to an ailing industry that is in need of transformation or at least some serious disruption: health care, finance, news, energy, government--you name it. Combine that with the principles of the Twitter economy--transparency, instantification, collaboration, and free sharing--and you have a winner.

The web is all atwitter today with news of Eric Schmidt's dismissive response at yesterday's Morgan Stanley Technology Conference here in San Francisco to a question from Eminence Capital analyst, Josef Jung, of whether Google sees Twitter's real-time search as a threat. An explosion of schadenfreude-laden articles and a furiously defiant pile of tweets have already responded to Mr. Schmidt's comments that demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of both the present value AND tremendous future potential of the twitter platform. The contrarians at Motley Fool are holding out hope that it was a strategic maneuver pointing to a planned acquisition. But no matter whether a monumental miscalculation or shrewd strategy, the move is a classic page from Ballmer's book of wins and losses, and signals Google's metamorphosis from David to Goliath.

Really, there's no right answer to to the sucker punch of a question. "Yes, it's a threat" would provide an exponential boost to Twitter's credibility and value, while "no, it's not" can only be dismissive of what is clearly a major growth trend and new behavior. But the real mistake was going into enough detail to incorrectly (VERY incorrectly) compare Twitter to existing (and arguably old) technologies (email and IM, specifically), without recognizing the differences. That is what paints Schmidt as out of touch, the wrong generation of leadership, and that is what moves Google into the territory of a Microsoft that either dismisses or acquires the new technologies it doesn't, itself, understand.

Google stock was down 2% (or $2B in market cap) as of this afternoon.

Scanning over the Cnet News page, I ran across this series of photos:

Google Chrome was born explicitly as a platform for Web applications. From the first bits I saw I can say that Google's new creation delivers most of the promises and brings new interesting innovations in the user experience realm. Competitors will find them hard to ignore, especially when you look at the tab concept improvements. For a good review of these points, you can refer to this post on Ars Technica.

Many hailed Google's move as a revolutionary step. And indeed, with Google Chrome, the Web application era is getting real. Let's look beyond the technology and outline some possible models and consequences Chrome might have for the field of user experience:

Firefox's concept, where the Web browser remains the key tool and the main interface for using a Web application, is a service that is completely online. In this case, the user experience is chiefly based on typical Web technologies, that is, the magic triad XHTML, CSS, and Javascript. Standard Web browsing is blended in with Web application interaction. The user jumps between tabs within the same context and tool.

An alternative model seeks to overcome the Web browser, hiding it for the user, like Mozilla Prism, or at least trying to replace it with a different client and dedicated interfaces. This is the model you can see in action with Adobe Air or Microsoft WPF, and also with Apple's iTunes. In this case, the user experience is based on a mix of locally installed software components and user interfaces, online contents and services. With this model you get the best performances and a more consistent user experience while the Web remains in the background as a distribution channel for data exchange. Any device and system has its own client, designed and created ad hoc. Nevertheless, as you can see with iTunes, the user sometimes is locked into a "walled garden."

The pure online Web application model based on Chrome, with few local components installed on your hardware, is certainly the most promising one: truly open, flexible, and easy to upgrade. But for now, Chrome is still a Web browser, and its dependency from the Web browser's user experience could be a soft spot, or at least a strong constraint for the Web application's evolution.

Talking about the Chrome "revolution," many commentators are using the metaphor of the operating system. The browser plays the part of the platform, and the Web application is the software. But a real operating system is not only a software platform; it also provides a framework for user interaction, a consistent UI layer, as well as components that the software designer and developers usually have to follow. It puts together many small tools and modules, unifies the user experience, and brings into play every software application built on it.

I think that this is the next big challenge. Will Google be able to change the rules of the Web user experience? With Chrome and Android, Google is getting into the big game: building a consistent and unique experience for end users as well as application designers and developers. Google is an acclaimed leader in Web technologies innovation, but from the end user point of view many Web applications are still nothing more than a toy for geeks. Now they have the opportunity to get their beautiful tech jewels out of the eternal beta phase, into true commercial products focused on the end user.

(Credit: Scott McCloud/Google)

Google's new Chrome browser is an interesting entry into the revitalized "browser wars." Given Google's Apps and Gears, the browser has essentially become the "OS" that contains them, so it makes perfect sense that Google would want to extend into that area to give it more control, and provide custom functionality that could not be accomplished with other browsers that it does not control.

But what is also interesting is how Google chose to describe some of its capabilities and intentions to the world: with comics.

The comics form has a number of benefits, the most obvious being that it does a better job of explaining technical features of Chrome better than a dry spec sheet would have.

For example, what if Google had said this in a features section of a page describing Chrome: "Multi-process rendering engine eliminates browser hangs due to single-threaded JavaScript executions."

I would have thought, "Gee, that sounds great, but I don't really know what it means." Well, the comics form allows the company to explain that in a non-intimidating way. It's still not exactly lay-person speak. (It is more geared toward journalists and bloggers who will be more familiar with the jargon than the general public.) But many more people will now understand what's going on under the hood and, more importantly, the resulting benefits.

A nice side benefit for Google is that because the team of people who worked on it are brought to life through the comic (rather than stultified by press-release lingo), it humanizes Google at a time when it is starting to get a bit of a big-bad-wolf-Microsoft reputation due to its size and clout. By focusing on the individuals, it takes the mega corporation out of the picture (literally and figuratively).

The comic itself was created by well-known online comics artist Scott McCloud, after doing many interviews with Google engineers. It's a great example of using someone outside the nitty-gritty of the product development process, with a knack for story-telling, to craft the narrative of the product. Too many good products fall by the wayside because not enough attention has been paid to the narrative--in other words, telling the value proposition in a way that the audience can relate to.

McCloud also wrote the mini-classic book Understanding Comics, which is a must-read for anyone who makes use of storyboards or scenarios to describe how a yet-to-be-made product will be used. Back when I was teaching industrial design I would get all my students to buy it.

Unfortunately, navigation of the Chrome comic itself is a bit clunky. There are just back and forward links at the bottom, which look pretty old-school considering how advanced the product they are talking about is supposed to be. There's also no sense of where you are in the "book." Is page 8 still early at the beginning, and do I need to get comfortable for the long haul, or am I almost done? (It's 38 pages long, so, yes, it takes awhile.) It's been treated more like a series of static pages than a slide show, and slide shows can be done much better and dynamically than this (in fact McCloud has some interesting uses of dynamic navigation on his own site).

My grandparents in England had cows on their farm so I've always had a lot of affection for them, and was delighted to read this story from the Los Angeles Times indicating a "hidden cow power." Turns out cows may have internal compasses much like birds and bees do for orienting themselves to magnetic north.

Using satellite images on Google Earth, German scientists were able to see that all over the planet, cows stand with their bodies pointing to magnetic north.

Studying photographs of 8,510 cattle in 308 herds from around the world, zoologists Sabine Begall and Hynek Burda of the University of Duisburg-Essen and their colleagues found that two out of every three animals in the pictures were oriented in a direction roughly pointing to magnetic north.

The resolution of the images was not sufficient to tell which ends of the cows were pointing north, however.

You have probably seen how cows will tend to face together in the same direction in a field, usually to face head on into a wind (reduces heat loss) or sideways to the sun (maximize heat gain), but because the photos on Google Earth are so widespread and taken in generally good weather, it appears that cows have a "default setting" of north-south orientation when local conditions don't override it.

As one of the researchers said, "This is an incredibly neat use of Google Earth. This is a study we would not have dreamed about doing five years ago."

Not just crowd-sourcing -- it's herd-sourcing!

(Credit: Learning by Connecting)

"The difference between the optimist and the pessimist is that the pessimist has more facts," said Jean-Paul Betbèze, Chief Economist and Head of Economic Research Department, Crédit Agricole S.A., in a panel at the Millken Institute's Global Conference 2008 in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago. True as this may be, his statement stood in sharp contrast to the overall vibe of the event: Yes, we can, was the prevailing sentiment, and the overwhelming majority of attendees would probably have outed themselves as fervent optimists, despite an abundance of fact-featuring PowerPoint slides supporting each of the panel discussions (I've never seen so many pie charts in my whole life). In fact, the gathered crowd was comprised of optimists with lots of money to spend on the world's most pressing problems (poverty; terrorism; population; resources; energy; environment; human rights; social justice; etc.) and may well have the power and means to solve most of them if they wanted to. Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and micro-lending pioneer, pointed out: "We wanted to go to the moon, and we went to the moon. If we really wanted to end poverty, we would have ended it a long time ago."

After listening to him and some other brilliant minds, I felt over-inspired and under-accomplished, ready to change the world or at least my life. It was indeed a humbling experience. And yet, it stunned me to realize that many members of the powerful elite are struggling to cope with the new realities of business and society. The difference between being on top and being ahead, between being innovator and pioneer, became obvious in several of the panel discussions, particularly those that addressed the changing media landscape, the ongoing digital revolution, changing consumer behavior, and the new business paradigms that come with it.

These trends include:

- A surge in broadband penetration enabling ubiquitous content distribution and hyper-social connectivity

- The explosion of user-generated content: every minute 10 hours of video are being uploaded to YouTube

- The collection and the friction-less, platform-independent distribution of content as the next big challenge for media and communication companies

- Mobile as the new container and memory device: 85 years of video (a whole lifetime) will be able to be stored on any new iPhone in a few years

- The power shift from content providers to media distribution platforms (Comcast, Hulu, etc.)

- The consumer consuming on his own terms

- The "prosumer" as a market force to reckon with

- The wisdom of the crowds as a source of innovation ("we are smarter than me")

Lex Fenwick, the CEO of Bloomberg LP, exemplified the old guard's awakening almost in real-time. First he boasted that he invented email and created the world's most valuable user community (of 350,000 customers) "by mistake," then he warned of giving users too much control ("they may join forces to challenge your prices"). Barry Libert, CEO of collaboration software provider Mzinga, nailed him on this: "If you have something to hide from your customers, or you are afraid of giving them too much power, you have a problem." At the end, Fenwick had converted from Saulus to Paulus, from "From Me to We," and, in a cathartic turn of events, he admitted he had learned quite a bit from the panel: "Thank you for your insights. I am inspired to make a few changes to the Bloomberg community based on this discussion."

Other companies have made this leap before him: Amazon, Netflix, Virgin Mobile, P&G, Dell, and recently Starbucks are all moving from a firm-centric to a network-centric organization, building and leveraging their community of users by giving them a voice in strategy, product development, and marketing decisions. They understand that crowdsourced and peer-to-peer business intelligence helps them overcome the "not-invented-here" syndrome, reconciling "inside-out" and "outside-in" innovation. Libert: "If customers cut the red tape and re-connect with customers, that's making it easier for them to find out what they really need." Of course it's always easier to proclaim a new paradigm than defending an old one, or as someone noted on another panel: "If you're a futurist and you think ten years ahead, by the time you're wrong, no one will notice."

Jason Calacanis, founder and CEO of Mahalo and in-character as enfant terrible, thrived in the devilish charm of the futurist. In a panel on "The New Rules of PR," he joyfully exposed the insecurity of his audience. It was not so much his co-panelists -- some old-school PR pros who bravely defended their profession against his "PR is dead" claim -- but rather the ensuing Q&A that demonstrated how disturbing the new rules still are for many who have held the power in organizations for decades and find it difficult now to grasp and embrace some of the earth-shattering changes happening these days. "Should our CEO blog?" -- Yes. "How do I stay in control of my brand if our CEO gets critical comments to his blog posts?" -- Well, the truth is, you don't. Just let go. Brands are assets in the public domain. With production capabilities and financial assets off-shored and out-sourced, brands are ever more important as the only remaining indispensable value of a company, and yet they are ever more volatile. In this open-sourced, hyper-transparent economy, your customer owns your brand, and no brand platform, no brand book, no rigid compliance guidelines designed to protect your idea of your brand, can change that. Brands are social funds. Your mission is to raise their intellectual and emotional capital. The creation of brand equity is a cooperative act based on the values that you share with your customers. And, by the way, marketing's job is to promote these values, not to invent them.

In a panel on "Business Innovations that are Changing the World," Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt said: "Let's not forget that the fundamental goal of any corporation is to change the world and not just to satisfy the interests of particular stakeholders." Indeed, this was the overarching theme of an economic summit that was all about social: social innovation, social media, social networks, social web, and social capitalism. What once was a noble mission is now a mandate for CEOs: the future of business is social, both in terms of raison d'etre and modus operandi. Companies that open themselves up to promoting and fully leveraging the social dimension of human beings in order to create smarter and more effective solutions for social problems will be the winners of this new social economy.