ChaosScenario

Googlevision: Coming to a Best Buy Near You

A "who's who" partnership of innovation, Google, Sony and Intel is launching a new television platform that promises to change the way we watch TV by allowing people to access the rich utility of the Internet through their television screens.

"Google was able to conduct a series of Internet searches in a drop-down box that appears at the top of television programs. The search results pointed to Internet videos and other content related to the television program on the screen."

"A telecast of a sporting event can be shrunk into a small "picture-in-picture" box so a viewer can look at statistics or other material about the game on TV."

"Viewers can also make search requests by speaking into a remote that runs on Google's Android operating system."

"Google CEO Eric Schmidt described the potential of the Internet TVs as mind-boggling, although he acknowledged it might be difficult for some consumers to grasp at first. That's one reason he said Google decided to team up with Best Buy, which offers a "geek squad" to deal with complex technology."

It reminded me of an article I wrote back in 2007, "How to Save TV":

"This isn't a competition between TV and the Internet. The Internet is richer because of TV, and it's becoming increasingly clear that programs are richer because of the utility of the Internet. That interdependence needs to be embraced -- even harvested."

"As such, the way to save television is to discard the interruption advertising model on which is based -- that is, to make it more like what is good about the Internet. Rich interactive programs (Choose Your Own Adventure, anyone?), on-demand content that remains free and non-intrusive, and effective, accountable advertising."

"The Internet, simply, needs more bandwidth to support better quality content, higher adoption rates, and better usability. I know Cuban doesn't think much of this can be done, but I'm staking my future on the idea that it can."

"What will we call this integrated system? It's hard to predict. I suppose it depends on the primary path the innovation takes -- whether we're getting the combination of TV and Internet through AppleTV 10.0 or if we're getting it through Comcast Cable. If it's the former, perhaps our children will be asking if we can watch the Internet tonight. If it's the latter, maybe they'll ask if they can play on the TV."

First of all, you're welcome, Google. Your bill is in the mail.

Second, I have to raise an objection to this gross simplification used by the AP in their article:

"Google wants to turn televisions into giant monitors for Web surfing so it can make more money selling ads."

I'm not a fan in all the ways they want to do it, but Google wants to change the world. Selling ads is simply how they are able to fund new adventures, but it's also how they provide these paradigm changes for free.

The utilities they've developed in their relatively short life as a company have already changed the way we communicate, the way we travel, the way we do research, the way we invest, the way we advertise and the way we build websites,

Not everything they've developed is exclusively (or even remotely) their idea, but any way you look at it, they've fostered widespread adoption of many of their useful technologies because they've developed a sustainable business model that allows them to offer it at no cost to the user.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Google, Schmidt, or any other Google employee doesn't care about the money. As Ronald Reagan said, it can't buy happiness, but it certainly can buy a better class of memories.

But money is a means as well as an end. Google could have been anything. They chose the type of business they would be, the applications they would develop and the work they would do.

I'm sure the money is nice. But you cannot sell a product like they're proposing to sell unless it has value to the buyer commensurate with the amount they will pay for it. If Google started out with the question, "How do I sell more advertising," they would have folded long ago. - Cam Beck

Age of Conversation 3: By the Numbers

Buy it on Amazon

171 writers

15 countries

2 editors

202 pages

10 sections

$25,000 raised for charity (Books one and two).

Our illustrious and (apparently) indefatigable editors, Drew and Gavin, gave this version of the book structure and a directive: Make this something business people can use. There are enough self-proclaimed "social media experts" out there, and it's easy to be duped. How do you apply yourself in this age of constant communication? What is most important to know?

Once again, I tip my hat to Drew, Gavin, and the other 168 authors who made this possible. I was and continue to be honored to be a part of it.

In spite of having 171 writers, the essays are well constructed and easy to digest independently, and they work well together as a whole. Each one is 400 words or less (and I understand Drew and Gav were very strict about that point). Good for a snack, a light lunch or a meal.

Official press release  |  Buy Age of Conversation 3

- Cam Beck

Facebook rule #1: Don't be an idiot

On Friday, I wrote about how the expectation of certain kinds of anonymity is a myth in an Always On post-Facebook world. The New York Times reported Saturday that the younger generation is learning to keep the seedier side of their lives offline. But this, too, is a myth.

Even if you manage to keep yourself from joining social networks or correctly manage all of your privacy settings against continuously changing policies (which is doubtful), it's becoming increasingly difficult to keep your friends from posting comments and pictures of you on their accounts.

You can request that they take pictures down or try to surround yourself only with people who you trust to mind your personal brand to your standards, but unless you decide to be a hermit, this is becoming difficult, too -- especially for the younger generations.

What is true for corporate brands is true for individuals: If you don't want people to find out you've been doing something stupid, don't do stupid things.

Truthfully, no one will ever live up to that standard. We all do stupid things. Everyone.

But if you're in the business of building brands (and all of us are, whether we know it or not -- we represent our own brand, our family's brand, our employer or company's brand, our church or religious affiliation brand, our political or philosophical brand, etc.), how people perceive you and the entities you represent is predicated on your entire body of work - not the occasional act of stupidity.

True, this may be tainted when we do the inevitable stupid thing, but that's just something we're going to have to learn to live with.

Don't worry about the long-term. Just focus on today. To prevent yourself from doing something stupid, decide to live as if your life had a noble purpose today.

And let tomorrow worry about itself. - Cam Beck

Facebook, privacy, and the return of social norms

In the early days of the World Wide Web, people cherished their anonymity. Thanks to ubiquitous social applications like Facebook and the ability to access much of it through the ubiquitous search engine, Google, much of that anonymity is going away. A lot of politicians and "privacy advocates" are raising a stink. But is the loss of anonymity necessarily a bad thing?

I jumped on the Internet bandwagon pretty early, when I got my dad's permission to use his AOL account in 1994. I would go into their chat rooms a few times per week, and I don't remember ever meeting the same group of people twice. This was a place for me, a naturally (and sometimes painfully) shy person, to meet new people without the risk of feeling bad that I'd be outed if I said something stupid -- which, hey -- let's face it... is still pretty often. My anonymity afforded greater risk-taking.

At first, the conversations were as esoteric as they were innocuous, but later, as I started to form some firm convictions and developed an ability to articulate them, I noticed that many people saw their anonymity as a license to shrill when they held a contrary view.

The dark side of anonymity

When people cannot identify someone, they're less likely to conform to social norms that exist outside of that anonymity bubble. When people can identify someone, they are accountable for their words and actions, so they're more likely to conform to social norms of probity and decorum.

All your data are belong to us

Fast-forward to a today's Facebook era, and the anonymity has somewhat evaporated. Employers will typically find whatever they can on you -- outside of your history of work -- that they can find, freely available on the Web.

Not only is Facebook indexed, but so are Twitter and other social networking tools. And unless you have a name like "George Washington" or you set out in the beginning to take steps to conceal your identity (a tangled web, indeed), chances are slim that you will be able to effectively do so.

Anonymity, in short, is a myth in today's environment. But the myth persists, because people want it to be true. There is power in anonymity, such as the power to ignore social norms.

Now Congress is threatening to get involved in the Facebook privacy dispute. They are concerned that marketers might be able to use personal information about you to deliver more relevant ads.

Why is delivering relevant ads even objectionable?

Are our representatives afraid that you and I will buy something we actually want or need? Hogwash! When we buy what we need, it improves company revenue, which leads to higher employment, which helps incumbents get re-elected.

A happy and satisfied electorate is always less likely to rock the political boat.

(In fact, the only way to ensure people don't get rid of incumbents when they are unhappy is to ensure people don't blame them for their unhappiness, but that's a topic for another day).

What they really fear is what others will find out about them that they don't want them to know. If anonymity gives us the courage to act like the Great and Powerful Oz, Facebook is Toto pulling back the curtain and revealing us for who we really are. 

On one hand, we lost the security we thought we had to speak our minds however we wanted. If we represent a company (and if you own or work for any company, you do, whether you like it or not), this anonymity protected our livelihoods while we ignored the social norms we reserved for work.

Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and every other social media tool out there are still utilities of choice. If we do not want to participate, we are not forced to. As long as they are transparent about what they collect and how they use it, and their experience is still acceptable to you in spite of the presence of advertising, they ought not be punished for running their business in a way that seems to them proper for generating revenue and jobs.

If we don't like it, we are not forced to participate. - Cam Beck

Securing Your data: an important postscript

Facebook's recent embarrassing security SNAFU demonstrates that the bigger threat of gathering this information is the threat of that information being made public, not that "fat-cat corporatists" (a frequent term used to fan the flames of class warfare) might use it to better serve the end user and make a bigger profit. This speaks to the need for companies to secure that information and to be held accountable for not securing it.

This allows the market to take care of the problem without passing new laws to restrict their ability to collect it -- and miss entirely the benefits allowing it would bring.

To wit: because there would be a high price to pay for both securing and not securing certain types of data, companies will be reluctant to collect it. There is an inherent risk involved with collecting it to counterbalance the potential (lucrative) reward for collecting and using it properly.

Say what you want about people who steal electronic information -- they are not stupid. The reason they haven't used their formidable energies to steal your information or mine is that it is not worth their while to do so. But when you add our names to a hundred million other names, locations, likes, dislikes, etc., and it has immediately become a more attractive target.

Even the so-called honest hacker might be tempted if the right opportunity and right circumstances coincided.