a) Having access and sharing all your information across multiple devices and platforms OR
b) Having a secure computing/digital environment
If you’re like most of us, you want both.
But here’s the catch: when PCs were first introduced, they were local (sat on our desks) and their contents could be kept private (no information was shared). As we became more connected, we were taught safety first – “Get anti-virus!” “Make sure you have a firewall!!” We were living on the left side of this grid.
Then two things happened: cloud computing started to gain traction at the same time social networks came to define Web 2.0. (For those of you who don’t know the expression “cloud computing,” it’s where shared information, resources and software applications are stored and accessed in a “cloud” (the Web). If you use Google Docs, for example, its Office-like programs which store and share documents online are “in the cloud.” The same for its Calendar.)
Where does that leave protecting our files, identities, and the like?
It’s confusing, really. Public info in the cloud? How about Facebook, which has consistently said they don’t believe in privacy – so much so that there are now four senators calling for an investigation of the company and its policies? Have you changed your settings recently so you’re comfortable with the amount of info being shared?
Feeling virtuous because you don’t use Facebook? Doing any online banking? Using GoToMyPC.com to access office files from home? Or sharing pictures via Flickr? You’re in the cloud, whether in public or private.
Why is this comfortable for us? I suppose that for each of these things, we have weighed out the benefits (convenience, accessibility) with the risks.
But in the last few months, as I’ve explored delivering interactive market research reports to clients online, I’ve realized that where I draw the line in the cloud is in storing proprietary client reports in an area where they can have access to them. In other words, I’m not yet comfortable providing my clients with an electronic cloud-based archive of the work I’ve done.
To get there, I’ll need the following:
A private browser-based gateway or portal for each client. (This could include a “secure tunnel” from the client’s Intranet to where their files are stored in the space I’m paying for.)
The platform should be able to support multi-media elements (slides/pages, audio, video, podcasts of presentations, etc.) without software needing to be loaded on the client’s server/computer. (Rather like how the wonderful sales tool, SlideRocket.com, works today.)
Viewing of files must be completely secure – like SSL, with a visible lock in the browser.
Client files can only be uploaded and/or edited by me.
In short, if Carbonite and SlideRocket were to have a baby, I’d be very happy and there would no longer be a need for “drawing lines in the cloud.” I’d have both “a” and “b.”
Know of a solution for me? Think online reporting is moving in another direction? Let me know!
A few days ago, I got the wind knocked out of me with one of those rare “aha” moments. A headline caught my eye: “The State of Linked Data in 2010” by ReadWriteWeb. Being a curious sort, I read the blog post, and then spent the next few hours (days) exploring what Linked Data is. OMG.
Now I realize this may be old news to some, just as the WWW was when I got on board in 1993. But in 1993, I bought the first Mac built for online connection, and the good folks at Apple took days to successfully get me online as it was still such a novelty. So I’m thinking that Linked Data (also referred to as the Semantic Web) may still be an unknown idea to many of you as well.
Last May I was wowed by the concept behind Wolfram|Alpha, and I wrote on it here as it was launching. Since then, I haven’t heard that much about it (it’s a private effort), and I personally don’t believe it works that well.
Linked Data, an open-source movement, is more likely to be the real start of the answer of how inter-relationships between data can be seen and accessed on the Web.
Simple, one-dimensional searches are fine today, but what happens when your query is complex? Here’s an example I saw about football (I know, how unlike me!): you want to know which football players went to the University of Texas, Austin and played for the Dallas Cowboys as cornerback. What you’re really asking is that two databases – UT and Cowboys – talk to each other. But unless they’re connected in some way, they can’t talk. And that’s what Linked Data is all about – forming those connections through shared databases. (To see more – for those of you who are tech-inclined – visit this link.)
Today, it’s a little cumbersome to “code” the data for these linked databases, but when it becomes more automated, it will be quite powerful and I think more people and organizations will participate. Currently, the US government allows all federally collected data – data that we as taxpayers pay them to collect – to be shared across departments. It’s early days, but visit www.data.gov to see what the US government is doing. The Brits are also committed to this effort.
A company called Talis has a great example of how its platform is working for the BBC and I believe if you watch the short video, you’ll get excited about the potential of this new movement as an end-user.
What are the implications for other types of businesses? I can’t imagine they will share their proprietary information, but I do imagine that there will be “intranet-like” Linked Data resources where queries will merge public data with their private data and data from their vendors (such as agency media buys). Internal politics regarding who “owns” which data sources may be the biggest hurdle for full adoption.
I know that there will be more to write on all of this over time, but I would highly recommend a blog post by Scott Brinker. In his visual (below), you can see that he lays out seven business models going from indirect-to-direct revenue models and from ‘raw data’ delivery to ‘as an application’ delivery.
Over the last year, “apps” and “social media” have gotten a lot of attention. “Apps” are making smartphones more indispensible – “stickier”to use a word from Web 1.0.
And social media (Web 2.0’s driver)? While there’s a lot of hype, we’re beginning to hear that interest among some segments is waning. Dunbar’s Number has been trotted back out as rationalization for the slowed growth. (How many “friends” can you really follow?)
So, can social media be made more engaging and relevant with “stickiness”?
There are lots of folks out there trying, but the one concept that’s caught my eye for its potential “marketing legs” is location-based mobile services – such as Foursquare, Yelp, and Gowalla. Foursquare seems to be the one to watch and it’s doing some interesting things. Its site says:
foursquare is a cross between a friend-finder, a social city-guide and a game that rewards you for doing interesting things. We aim to build things to not only help you keep up with the places your friends go, but that encourage you to discover new places and challenge you to explore your neighborhood in new ways.
Consider customer loyalty programs. You login and say you’re at a restaurant. That restaurant knows you’ve been there 10 times before and could reward you with a free dessert. No cards to keep track of and you are engaged with the brand as you know your actions get you bonuses sooner.
A brand can promote its involvement via Twitter, at checkout, or wherever it makes sense.
Part of the social aspect comes from Foursquare’s “mayor” concept. If you’re the most frequent visitor to a location, you’re crowned mayor. A bit of a game or contest that could bring people in again and again.
What about brands without a retail presence? Pepsi sponsored a NY charity event for CampInteractive: every time New Yorkers checked in from any location with Foursquare, points were tallied and Pepsi gave money. In this case, social engagement with a purpose.
Even without charitable involvement or the “mayor” concept, this is a newer form of social media that provides something tangible to the user. Consequently, in my view, a highly “sticky” idea.
In the January 18, 2010 edition of Newsweek, there was a great piece entitled “Your Online Brain.” It’s well worth the read as it focuses on the different theories about the Web’s impact on how we think.
The last paragraph really caught my attention as I had just participated in a creativity session last week.
“Science historian George Dyson believes the Internet’s flood of information has altered the process of creativity: what once required ‘collecting all available fragments of information to assemble a framework of knowledge’ now requires ‘removing or ignoring unnecessary information to reveal the shape of knowledge hidden within.’ Creativity by destruction rather than assembly.”
The image I got from this was of “sculpting knowledge.” As a qualitative researcher, identifying consumer insights has always been about sculpting knowledge.
What does this have to do with my brain online? Well, my brain has been overwhelmed lately. I had some downtime over the holidays and I signed up for even more newsletters and feeds. I now need to cut back. I need time to think. The Internet is causing, as Evgeny Morozov said in the same article, “the disappearance of retrospection and reminiscence.”
It’s like a swimmer’s lung capacity: a swimmer might be able to hold their breath for a long time, but they still have to come up for air. I need a breath – to sculpt, process, digest – whatever your metaphor.
So is the Web changing how I think? No, at best it’s impacting how I problem solve (as I’m able to seek out so much more information in this new way). It provides me with more to think about.
Creativity is an iterative, infinite process: from inspiration to output and back again. It’s likely we’ve always been “assembling” and “destroying.” Said another way, when we seek the “knowledge hidden within,” it’s always through the prism of our “framework of knowledge.”
Before Malcolm Gladwell, there was, among others, John Naisbett. Naisbett’s Megatrends was a must read. My favorite was the “High Tech/High Touch” trend. His theory was that the more technology impacted our lives, the more we would strive to find balance with human interaction. We are social creatures, after all.
High tech/high touch has been going on with humans since the advent of technology. My view is that this is a three-step adoption/integration process.
Take the wheel. Great new technology. Took awhile to figure out how to use it (Mastery). First used it for work (Utility). When it became easier to make wheels (and more “cost effective”), someone probably thought “let’s hook up a mule and go visit some friends” (Social Usage).
Or the pen, after paper became plentiful (costs had come down). Mastery again came first (practice for legibility), utility came second (use for business or lessons), and social usage came third (write a letter to a friend). High tech to high touch.
Social usage is often linked to lowered costs and a distribution system or infrastructure that’s in place. Take the telephone. Initially, it could only be mastered by a few as distribution was more limited. When the infrastructure was built, bringing phones into homes, costs were still high, and usage was more local and limited – but business usage soared. Over time, and as people moved further apart, the telephone allowed people to “visit” without making a trip; they could do so more often and without the time and expense of a real trip. High tech to high touch.
Name your technology and it follows this basic mastery-utility-social usage adoption process, if the infrastructure is in place.
Video games: learn the rules –> a fun way to spend free time –> play with others online
iPod: learn how to use it –> build library –> share tunes with others
So social media networks are the logical manifestation of becoming comfortable with the Internet and cell phones and the other technologies of today. We’re comfortable now, so we’re socializing them. Facebook makes it visual. Twitter makes it fast.
Take the wheel. Great new technology. Took awhile to figure out how to use it (Mastery). First used it for work (Utility). When it became easier to make wheels (and more “cost effective”), someone probably thought “let’s hook up a mule and go visit some friends” (Social Usage).