Many years ago I remember asking a newspaper representative if they were concerned about news stories being voted on by tracking clicks.  The person was perplexed at my question – and stated that their paper was not that sophisticated (this being one of [...]]]>

Are you voting for the news with every click you make?

Many years ago I remember asking a newspaper representative if they were concerned about news stories being voted on by tracking clicks.  The person was perplexed at my question – and stated that their paper was not that sophisticated (this being one of Canada’s largest papers).  But that question of the citizen deciding what gets reported has lingered in the back of my mind for several years now.

It wasn’t too long ago that the only way for a tv station or newspaper to know what stories mattered only by looking at ratings, focus groups or subscriptions.  It was a lot of guessing was involved.   But now an online edition of a paper can tell editors down to the second the amount of time your spending on a news story.  They know what stories you read, and what you don’t.

Factor in “rate this story”, “share this story” and “comments” – the citizen is now telling news organizations what they’re interested in creating a full circle feedback loop.   Now the paper reflects what people want to hear.
Clearly the danger is that less popular stories – the early Watergate stories could be dropped and never persued if everything is a ratings game. But the upside is the average citizen can now have a say in what they hear.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Latency has already killed newspapers (dpwilliams.com)
• Read a Twitter Stream as a Daily Newspaper (newtrierlibrary.blogspot.com)
• OpenParliament.ca (nsrtk.blogspot.com)

As I’ve said before 2010 is the year of the tablet, but we need to keep in mind – it’s not [...]]]>

So now Nokia is the latest participant in the tablet race.  And who cares?  Maybe the same crowd that thinks there’s still hope for Palm (See my note at the end of this article)?

As I’ve said before 2010 is the year of the tablet, but we need to keep in mind – it’s not about the hardware, but it’s all about the content.  As I see it the only worthy opponent for Apple’s market share is the Google Android, and it comes back to the applications.  And the HP Slate is bound to fail as it will be built on the cumbersome Windows 7 Mobile protocol, great for Netbooks – but not a thumb friendly OS.

The Tablet Market was open to anyone for the past several years, so this 12th hour attempt to get into a market because they need to compete with Apple is doomed to fail.

People seem to forget that the iPad isn’t some whim, rather it’s based on over a decade (plus) of software design, testing and real-world use centered around it’s iPod/iPhone platform.   Early versions of both the iPhone and iPod did have their bugs and flaws.

But at the heart of why Apple will win is content.  Every new iPhone/iTouch/iTunes app, song or video that a person buys is an additional strike against all other competitors.   Windows success as a computing platform can be traced back to being first to market.  As consumers purchased more and more Windows based products, the more entrenched the operating system became.

(This was wrote in April – before Palm was purchased by HP)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ballmer: Microsoft ‘Months’ From Tablet Launch (pcworld.com)
• Microsoft’s Betting on Phones, Tablets, and Clouds (fool.com)
• What Nokia Must Do To Stay Relevant In Mobile (mobile.slashdot.org)
• LG Developing Android Tablet (informationweek.com)

But what will it take to get consumers to make the leap and switch [...]]]>

So the current state of television is that vast majority of homes have a cable box, and a small minority now have a secondary cable-like box that allows users to pull in video from either their computer or the web.

But what will it take to get consumers to make the leap and switch from picking and choosing programming from the web first before switching on their cable/satellite box?

Intelligent programming. Right now I have to dictate to the receiver what I like, and flip accordingly to hunt out new shows that follow my interesting or time of day needs (like when you like to watch news – maybe after supper).

So web video programming on your TV will really begin to take flight when intelligence is designed into the site features. It already occurs with YouTube with their suggested video features. But we need this to entail all programming – including knowing who’s in the room – is it just you? friends are over? your kids with you? etc.

Smart, dynamic, programming. So the user never has to flip again. Other features like knowing your mood, day of the week, etc. This intelligence will get people off of cable.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Will the Internet Kill the Cable Box? (patspapers.com)
• How Much Of Your Cable Bill Is For Channels You Never Watch? (dvorak.org)

The concept that you can survive and thrive by being nothing more than a re-broadcaster of internationally produced (read American) content is comical.

The media world is now officially flat. Cultural protective barriers are [...]]]>

If Canadian television networks have any hope of surviving into the next decade, they need to drastically alter their business model.

The concept that you can survive and thrive by being nothing more than a re-broadcaster of internationally produced (read American) content is comical.

The media world is now officially flat. Cultural protective barriers are bound to fail. Technology allows the consumer to easily circumvent any regulatory barrier.

I presume we’ll see that broadcast web channels will become a profitable proposition. That more revenue will be generated by an online website vs. selling the re-broadcast rights to broadcasters in various countries. If that happens, why would a content producer bother re-selling their content if a global audience comes to their website?

Further that, what’s the point of a broadcaster if the content producer can obtain a large enough audience? What’s the value of NBC, CBS in an online world? Broadcasters have long thrived in a monopolistic world where technology and costs were massive barriers to entry and provided great controls over competition.

In the new world of reliable high-speed – it’s not the broadcaster that matters but rather the content.

CTV has slowly begun experimenting with an online parallel channel. Yet, it’s purpose is to be a re-broadcaster of American content. Taking advantage of restrictions on the web – they think they can survive with a cable industry model in an online world. Well good luck with that one.

Hulu – NBC’s broadcast network currently is limited to American only audiences. But for how long. Why would NBC (or the content producers) work with international broadcasters for replay rights if they can attract enough audiences in the homes of Canadians?

Why not circumvent a Canadian broadcaster and earn advertising revenue directly. Why wouldn’t a company not want 100% of the profits?

I’ve said this for years – content is king – who creates and owns the content will thrive in an online world.

The days of earning great sums of money simply by slapping your logo on someone’s else’s content is going to die. If Canadian networks want to grow – they need to become the makers of content. Look at the BBC who disproportionately export large sums of content in comparison to it’s domestic television market.

There’s an appetite for Canadian television – it’s just lacks the investment by our own broadcasters.

Related articles by Zemanta

• TV networks get CRTC go-ahead to air more commercials (canada.com)
• NBC cancels Canadian co-production The Listener (cbc.ca)
• Telus proposal a ‘win-win’ for distributors and broadcasters (financialpost.com)

To me the last decade was the decade of the internet.  Sure it started in the 90′s but the true infrastructure and adoption occured just [...]]]>

Hindsight is always rather entertaining.  Looking back you see just how naive we were and how we felt at the time that we had progressed further than what time shows.

To me the last decade was the decade of the internet.  Sure it started in the 90′s but the true infrastructure and adoption occured just in the last decade.  So people are correct in thinking that “we’re there”, we’re done”, “the internet has been built”.  NOPE. SORRY. WRONG.  The 2000′s saw the building of the World Wide WEB.  The key word is WEB.  It’s the tubes, some islands, but not the complete network rather just the road system in virgin territory.

The 2010 to 2020 is the decade of the Network.  We’ve been talking for 20 years about your fidge calling you to tell you that your out of milk.  Well this is the decade that you’ll really, truely see that come true.

The biggest factor that has occurred and took over a decade to build is that of the network.  It was this how long it took to get always on networking into everyone’s home (talking Canada of course).  People are adding more and more WIFI network hubs in their house.

So the stage has been set.  It’s been set for everything to finally begin to network.  Think of all the products you can have in your home that have become available in the last year that are web enabled: Blu-ray players, Playstation 3, xBox 360, Televisions, skype phones, printers, picture frames, etc.

The landscape is now beging to be populated with products that can actually talk to each other.  But this is just the start.  Wal-mart has forced all suppliers to ensure their products are RFID enabled.  What is RFID?  A small electronic bar code that can be read from a distance by various devices – such as electronic scanners at the cash register or by various other readers used for things like anti-theft or inventory.

RFID has the added attribute that every single product made on earth could hypothetically have it’s own unique identifying “pin” number.  You could for example follow a coke can from production, through the supply chain to the trash can, all the way to the recycling factory.   Add in GPS or other Geo-based tracking you could know where that can was at all times over it’s lifespan – yes it is very big brother.

But the positive side is that our homes using similar technologies will help result in the truely smart home – where everything begins communicating with everything else.  Your stereo could pass along to your car your favourite songs, your furnace would kick in cause it knows your only 4 blocks from home – but only in the den and kitchen because those are the only two rooms you use on a Tuesday evening.  I’ll expand in future posts on what future trends I precive.

For good or for bad, the next decade will see advances in everyday computer technology and interaction like you’ve never could have imagined.  (Think iPhone in 1995).

e the rise of the network.  Last decade was that of the Internet, and the 80′s were that of the computer.

Related articles (External Sites):

• 6 Ways Bar Codes Make Us Green, And One Barcode Scanner That Can’t (treehugger.com)
• Toshiba’s Cell TV will convert 2-D images to 3-D instantaneously (venturebeat.com)
• Netflix Watch Instantly Coming Soon to the Playstation 3 (cinematical.com)

The concept is simple, it’s not about recycling which sees a degradation in the quality of [...]]]>

FUTURE TREND: Wonderful, inspiring documentary discussing and promoting the concept of cradle to cradle design. Essentially ensuring anything that is produced for consumption should be easily transformed into new products when the original product has served it’s use.

The concept is simple, it’s not about recycling which sees a degradation in the quality of the material as it passes through the system. Instead we need to think of Waste = Food, so when we finish with a product it produces something better in it’s reuse. And example is an ice cream package that is not only biodegradable, but is embedded with seeds for rare plants. So there’s more value in the waste product then it served as a packaging material.

You can watch a sample here – or use Google to find a place to buy the documentary from an online service close to you.