I was listening to an interview with Mark Zuckerberg where he mentioned the idea that Facebook was not creating anything so much as 'revealing' what he called the 'social graph' - a way of representing how everyone on the planet knows everyone else.
It seemed to me that there are a few other graphs which could also be mapped by a web service. Once mapped these graphs could yield value to advertisers and to end users. One such graph is the 'trust' graph - who trusts who to make recommendations (see post). Another is the geneological graph - who is related to who.
Facebook gives you the option to reveal how you know someone. In theory, this should map out everyone you are related to as well. However there are a few drawbacks - the person has to be alive, on facebook, and everyone in the process must take it seriously. At the moment, I think my brother and I "met randomly in a freak paragliding accident".
Genebook would address these problems. The service could be a facebook application, or an entirely new site. You would start by creating a page for everyone in your family, going back as far as possible. You could add media and 'tag' it so that any photos of your long dead great Aunt would appear on her individual page. Of course Genebook would need to be able to have a 'family tree' view as well as a page view.
Without having done any research into current offerings in this market, it feels safe to assume that this much functionality is par for the course. The advantage of Genebook would be in aggregating the memories and media of the entire living family. If my cousin was to start using the service it would first confirm if they were in fact my cousin, then give allow them to add media or create pages for anyone that they were related to. This way, the living members of the family could be adding the various photos, sound recordings, newspaper clippings and oral history of the clan to create a whole that would be much more than the sum of the parts.
Of course there would be clashes and difficulties. Genebook would need to give users the ability to keep a family member link, or piece of media private or exclusive to certain other family members. Discrepancies need not be a problem in that the system could present differrent versions of the same page to different viewers - thus it would be very easy to agree to disagree. If a synthesis was desired, it could be handled in a very wikipedia way with the ability to maintain a sideline discussion.
There are now lots of online services that are attempting to replace the video store. The services are reportedly plagued by problems in quality, high bandwidth requirements and a lack of the special features now found on most DVDs. To me the biggest drawbacks are in convenience - long form feature films call for a living room and a big screen - locking the content to a certain computer is a recipe for obscurity.
Apple now has AppleTV (take2) which aims to allow users to download directly from the living room with a remote. The downloads are progressive which should help with quality and cut down on any latency issues. The film can be taken along and viewed on an iPod or iPhone.
These all seem like steps in the right direction in terms of convenience. The problem is in the DRM. The user has 30 days to start the film, but once started, only 24 hours to finish watching. After this time, the film is locked. This is applying a 90s mentality to a 00s service. Netflix has pioneered a new way of renting films in which you retain (say) 3 films for as long as you want. When you want a new film, you have to send one of the old ones back.
It seems to me that this would be the best way to rent movies online. It would enable users to set their own viewing habits. The beauty of the Fairplay model of DRM for iTunes music purchases was that it provided enough freedom that most users did not even know the system was locked. Movie rentals should be the same.
The fact that Net Neutrality has become an issue is itself quite interesting. It seems like it could be the first real attempt of the technology companies to enlist public support to scare off prejudicial changes to their regulatory environment. I'm not sure what I'm basing that on, or whether it is right but a hint that I'm on the right track is that no one is talking about solutions. At some point someone will need to build more capacity - hence the intractable debate - but something can be done in the meantime to make the internet more efficient.
One of the main issues is 'network shaping'. Using this process, an ISP or teleco (often the same entity) would be able to detect certain types of network traffic (bittorrent, youtube video etc) and slow those bits down while giving priority to other bits which carry their own proprietary content. Some reports suggest this is already happening to varying degrees.
The rationale for such behaviour is that there is not enough room on internet backbones for everything. New services are very bandwidth hungry and are chewing up all the space - so it makes sense to build some intelligence into the network so that it can discriminate between bits and everyone still gets their email.
The problem with this, is that it goes against one of the founding principles of the internet - the idea that the network should be dumb, and that innovation should happen at the edges. One of the reasons that there has been an explosion of new businesses and services on the internet is due to the fact that anyone can build a website, plug it in and it will work - there is no need to ask permission from anyone. Contrast this to the dearth of new services on mobile phone networks where a new service would need to be enabled by a central authority.
So, assuming this bandwidth crisis is real - what can be done?
1. Internet pricing plans should be changed to reflect the realities of how expensive bits are to get to the user. Stop calling plans 'unlimited' when they are not. If it costs more at certain times of the day, have that reflected in the pricing. If it costs more to send big chunks of information very quickly, allow the pricing to discriminate between this type of use and slower transfers.
2. Give users more control over how they use their own bandwidth. A lot of the services that the telcos are complaining about do not need to be sent at peak usage times in big fast chunks. An RSS feed that is drawing down a video podcast every day could easily be programmed to hit the server at a specific 'off peak' time or to download the file over the course of 10 hours rather than 10 minutes. The end result to the user is the same - they get the file in time to go to work the next day - but the changes to the network if this were adopted en-masse would be huge.
This is some amazing photography - I would love to see a behind the scenes video of how he lights these scenes and whether there is a lot of post production work involved...
I think:
There are some really innovative elements. In particular the fact that it is hooked up to a cellular network so you always have access to download a book but that you DON'T pay a subscription model for the cellular connection. In a way it points to the proliferation of great new services and ideas that could eventuate if the network providers were forced to go 'open' and allow any device to run on their networks.
It is ugly. People have praised the great interface, but to me it looks ridiculously clunky and inelegant. The idea is that you conserve power by making the big screen non-interactive, but that is such a step backward in UI. The keyboard in particular is an odd choice - it takes up so much space in something that is meant to be a 'book' replacement. "Touch" would be a much better fit - slide your finger across the screen to 'flip' to the next page.
The premise of being able to carry all your books with you at once is cool. For a minority of the market it will be cool enough to require them to carry a dedicated device. Possibly a bigger opportunity lies in increasing the screen size, resolution etc of an iPhone type device to the point where e-books become easily readable. That way you're not carrying an extra device, it comes with built in access to the internet (and can thus purchase new books on the fly). The drawback may be that it needs to be charged more often, but you're used to charging your phone anyway.
Is google the beginning and the end?
Why is it taking so long?
Mahalo?
Aggregation of non core roles - expansion in choice - virtue?
Beautiful data - new search methods.
XXXXXXX
