December, 2008


12
Dec 08

I’m Still Doing the Rain Dance

Cloud computing isn’t going to dominate the tech landscape, but will raise a ruckus for software vendors. Google and Amazon will be cloud computing winners, but the spoils will be relatively small. And there’s a race to deliver a cloud developer stack for both consumers and enterprise customers.

Handicapping cloud computing: The big picture | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com.

I don’t agree with the takeaways.  They may not dominate the landscape as currently configured (might be new players and/or new manifestations), but I’ve had too many business models that are workable ONLY because of the cloud…


12
Dec 08

The Next Step in Fantasy Football?

NFL’s Game Rewind could allow for a differentiated Fantasy Football platform.  Imagine a window for each of your fantasy starters.  Whenever they are in the red zone, or a “scoring” event happens (could be human tagged and then time delayed a few seconds),  imagine an alert and a focus around that window.  Lot’s of potential here.  I just don’t see many XP/user experience innovators as part of the organization though.  I doubt that kind of innovation will be realized.  Maybe ESPN can pull it off.


10
Dec 08

All That Data — So Little to Say

Google’s Zietgeist 2008 held so much promise as I clicked through from Techmeme, to Google Blog, to it.  But with all that data, this is the year end round up?  It doesn’t even qualify for the Cliff Notes version.  Google — give me unfettered access to your 2008 data, over the course of 2 weeks, and I’ll pull something a little more compelling together.  And I know–it’s about making money not understanding human behavior and generating insights.  But if you’re going to do it, why not do it Google style?


9
Dec 08

Got My Bold

Just arrived today.  Man the screen is amazing.  Crisp colors and high resolution.  I now have 3 RIM handhelds.  Will carry the Pearl and the Bold.  Don’t ask while I still carry two…  more driven by my love/hate for email + work and not by the devices.


9
Dec 08

Smarter Recommendations: Mood and Context

This post on TechCrunch, Clerk Dogs Takes a Curated Approach To Movie Recommendations, got me thinking about recommendation engines again.  Namely, the Netflix contest to optimize its algorithm.  The problem I’ve had with the Netflix approach is that it assumes it’s just a matter of being smarter at using inputs to predict outputs.  But what if your inputs are wrong?

An illustration will help.  I remember the first time, some time in the 90′s, I used Amazon’s book recommendation engine.  I had fun rating all the books I’d read.  Book lovers enjoy remembering the vast history of books we’ve had affairs with.  This type of engine works relatively well for books — looking at co-occurence of books read (and ratings) across users.  Music and movies present a more difficult challenge.

My premise is that many times movie watching (more so than music) is a social experience.  The movies you choose to see, order from Netflix, or buy, are all products of who you plan to watch them with.  Further, there is an element of mood.  How many times has someone said, like choosing where to eat out, “what are you in the mood for?”

Imagine a Netflix rating system that asked a few questions in addition to the stars:

  1. Who did you watch the movie with?  What would they rate the movie?
  2. What day of the week did you watch?  What time?
  3. Was this movie recommended to you?

These might not be the right three… but the way I’d approach the Netflix Prize challenge (though of course this strategy is not within the rules) is to cycle through a few qualifying questions asked in an easy yet entertaining way.  Imagine the fun byproducts of some of these questions?  The best date movie for a Saturday night at home, the most popular hump day movie, etc.

Just a beginning of a thought here.  I just think all 5 star movies (even my own) don’t always deserve 5 stars (though some might — though I’ll use another post to talk about the likelihood that 1 and 5 starts are more mood and context dependent than 2-4 stars).  And if you could tease this out, you’d get vast improvements over the “optimization” approach.  A lesson that could be applied outside the world of recommendations.


8
Dec 08

What’s Wrong With Email?

Twitter, Facebook, wikis, blogs, and a smattering of other web 2.0 companies are being used for business.  Yammer, specifically, caught my eye recently.  It’s described as Twitter for business.  But why?  What gap is it filling?  For me, the question is, what’s wrong with email?

Managing (if that’s possible) email is a full time job, at least at my company.  With a Blackberry in hand there is an expectation that you will read, and sometimes reply to, emails as you receive them.  If we could make money, as a company, reading and responding to emails, this might be okay.  There’s probably a startup idea there.  Regardless, that can’t be the only thing wrong with email.

The magnitude of emails can be troublesome, especially with the implicit expecation of response.  The problem, however, is predicated on the push nature of the medium.  If you take a random 10 emails from your inbox (or wherever your last 10 are), you’ll probably have a few that you wanted to receive — and in fact, are later arriving than you hoped (you have that same expectation of response for people you send emails to).  But, there are probably a few that are just important enough that you have to read, and maybe doing something with, just not as you read them.  And finally, you’ve got ones that are just cluttering your inbox.  These are probably the easiest to deal with.  The thing is, you don’t control what gets to your inbox in the first place.

Then there’s a matter of the content.  Forget the continuing degredation (or increasing efficiency?) of the resolution of language.  I’m concentrating here on the facts, requests, attachments, etc, that come along with emails.  When you combine the magnitude of emails with their walled content obsured behind time, sender, and title, you get the inability to extract value from within your email program.  All these other bits need to be removed from email and used somewhere else — in another program, in a contract, in a request, etc.

And a chain reaction from the previous problem?  The group feature of email is lost after the first email.  Meaning, if I send an email to 5 people, they all get the information inside.  But what happens when one person replies?  If we all wait to reply, in some predetermined order, there isn’t a problem.  In reality, however, people respond (go back to the first problem) and sometimes a barrage of multiple responses flood the cc’s of the email in a disjointed mess.  Further, if the intention is to progress on some file within the email, each of the recipients must open the attachment, make changes, and then hope to reassemble all of the simultaneous edits people are making.

This is just a start to some of what’s wrong with email as a corporate communication tool.  I want to lay out this initial list and see how far it gets when I start talking about the solutions to email, including Yammer.