Fred Wilson:
A central issue with the Internet, no matter what device and presentation layer you use to access it, is that there is an unlimited amount of content available.[…] Restricting access to content doesn’t work. Someone else’s content will get filtered and curated instead of yours. Scarcity is not a viable business model on the Internet.
Nothing to add, except maybe that at this moment there doesn’t seem to be any viable solution for the future of filtering and curation.
That’s the question that both Microsoft and Google are trying to answer since they signed deals with Twitter, Facebook, etc. to have these small “snippets of knowledge” included in their search results.
Couple of days ago, Google has announced that they are starting to push out results from Twitter and Facebook (this hasn’t reached all accounts yet though), so you’d expect that they came out with an approach for measuring the relevance. And I have found the following slide (thanks to ☞ TechCrunch):

In case you cannot read it from the low quality picture, here are the 10 metrics, which are pretty cryptic though,
Right now, I cannot read between the lines of this algorithm, but there seems to be 3 dimensions that are considered: the author, the tweet and the included links, the query. I guess we will have to wait a bit longer to find out more about it and to see if it works or not.
Google ☞ reacted pretty quick (Dec.1st) to the pressure news corporations put on them when mentioning delisting from the search engine. In case you missed this part see the resource section for a couple of links to give you more context.
What exactly are they offering? Nothing: 1/ a change to the “First Click Free” program (see link for more details ☞ Changes in First Click Free), whose implementation responsibility is still on the published side and 2/ crawling and indexing of preview pages, which is something that they were already doing.
Then, Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, has an article published on WSJ: ☞ How Google Can Help Newspapers in which he reinforces the Google benefit:
We send online news publishers a billion clicks a month from Google News and more than three billion extra visits from our other services, such as Web Search and iGoogle.
Such a statement is a bit confusing to me as it sounds like the users generating this traffic were not looking to but they were convinced by Google to check the newspapers. And this sounds pretty incorrect. People are going to Google looking for something. If Google wouldn’t be there, they would go somewhere else to look for their answers and so those billions of visits will not be lost.
The only interesting part of the article is his perspective on the future of content consumption:
It’s the year 2015. The compact device in my hand delivers me the world, one news story at a time. I flip through my favorite papers and magazines, the images as crisp as in print, without a maddening wait for each page to load.
Even better, the device knows who I am, what I like, and what I have already read. So while I get all the news and comment, I also see stories tailored for my interests. […]
Some of these stories are part of a monthly subscription package. Some, where the free preview sucks me in, cost a few pennies billed to my account. Others are available at no charge, paid for by advertising. But these ads are not static pitches for products I’d never use. Like the news I am reading, the ads are tailored just for me. Advertisers are willing to shell out a lot of money for this targeting.
All posts I’ve read on this subject are covering it from two perspective: how stupid is Yahoo! for externalizing this feature of the future or how smart is Yahoo! for opening their gates to the fascinating Facebook. But there is one dimension that is missing from these perspective: Facebook’s opportunity to tap into those 800mil Yahoo! users.
- More access to information doesn’t bring people together, often it isolates us.
- Individual perception of increased choice can occur while the overall choice pool is getting smaller.
- The myth of personal empowerment takes root amidst a massive loss of personal control.
These are not mine. It is Joshua-Michéle Ross that published these three paradoxes of the internet over a three article series on O’Reilly Radar: ☞ part 1, ☞ part2 and ☞ part 3
While you don’t have to agree with him, I think you should look around (on the internet though) and see if you cannot find good signs of these paradoxes. Here are the samples I came up with:
Are there any computer programs that you wish were faster? Time was, you could solve that problem just by waiting; next year’s system would run them faster. No longer; Next year’s system will do more computing all right, but by giving you more CPUs, running at this year’s speed, to work with. So the only way to make your program faster is to work with more CPUs. Bad news: this is hard. Good news: we have some really promising technologies to help make it less hard. Bad news: none of them are mainstream. But I’m betting that will change.
— Tim Bray
Good application architectures are supposed to transcend their platform, so you might find this book useful. It is also available for free in PDF format.
No. I mean not immediately. What would help in-flight WiFi take off would be plugs. If your laptop has a couple of hours of battery lifetime and your smartphone is not very far from that, the first thing you’ll need in order to enjoy WiFi is electricity. Then everything will come…
The only piece of hardware testing software I’ve used back in the days is the Nokia monitor test suite. Now, Google has open sourced ☞ Stressful Application Test:
Stressful Application Test (or stressapptest, its unix name) tries to maximize randomized traffic to memory from processor and I/O, with the intent of creating a realistic high load situation in order to test the existing hardware devices in a computer.
Wouldn’t it be cool to be able to use it before buying any new servers?
our online identities are comprised primarily of three specific kinds of data:
- Explicit or prescriptive data (i.e. the data that I input about myself: name, age, occupation, etc.)
- Activity or behavioral data (i.e. what I do and say online)
- Relationship data (i.e. my social graph and what my connections say about me)
Facebook is already capturing all this data and is probably the platform knowing the most about us. I guess the second one is Google. Or is it vice-versa?
Now if you don’t see the implications by yourself, I would encourage you to read the pros and cons of having all this data “out there” on Jeff Jonas’ article: ☞ Your Movements Speak for Themselves.
Tomorrow Belongs to What You Are, Do and Befriend Today
If you are looking for a way to give Google Chrome OS a try, you may find the following links useful:
Once you are done, please come back and share your experience with other readers.