I've been reading a bit about Saul Klein's brainchild - Open Coffee Club.
Essentially its about making an informal (no name badges...ever!), regular (i.e. same place, same time) meeting spot where people know that if they want to roll up to meet other entrepreneurs, developers, investors, tech journalists or whatever, they can.
Because I like the idea so much, I'm trying to organise (what I think is) the first Sydney Open Coffee Club (OCC)
Here's my post over at the Open Coffee Club site.
If you're interested in coming to the Sydney OCC please answer the 2 questions I've put there and tell your friends/family whatever so that we can get this thing started.
I really believe we have the necessary ingredients to put Sydney on the tech map, to produce an excellent investment environment for those willing to invest, to create amazing projects for develops to work on and maybe to stop our budding entrepreneurs from having to go overseas for recognition and reward.
Remember - spread the word!
Friday, 30 March 2007
Thursday, 8 March 2007
One Eye Deer Update
Haven't been writing too much lately because I've been busy with so much other stuff.
Anyway, One Eye Deer is getting closer to completion. The coding should be done soon and we can move on from there.
I'm going to try and catch up on some reading to see what's been happening in the 2.0 world that's worth looking more closely at.
In the meantime, its back to working on OED...we've got to release this thing soon.
Anyway, One Eye Deer is getting closer to completion. The coding should be done soon and we can move on from there.
I'm going to try and catch up on some reading to see what's been happening in the 2.0 world that's worth looking more closely at.
In the meantime, its back to working on OED...we've got to release this thing soon.
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
Do We Need This?
Do we need this?
When it comes to features on your new web app, sometimes this is a critical question. Now, of course this is more or less what 37signals have been saying for ages, i.e. keep it simple, but its good to revisit words of wisdom from time to time.
For instance – I was reading a recent article on Mashable about the launch of SnowVision – essentially a YouTube clone with a skiing focus. A few paragraphs down Pete Cashmore says that what it’s lacking is the social networking element.
Now, I can’t understand why this is a necessary prerequisite of a video site. Of all my friends who watch videos on youtube, I can’t think of any who actively use the social networking features. I always thought that what tends to happen is that you get sent a link to a video, you watch it, maybe you take a look around for other videos, then you leave. If I wanted social networking I would use one of the many, many, many other services out there that have that as their core function.
So, despite the fact that the snowvision guys have said they plan on introducing social networking at some stage, well done to them for not adding it at the start just because it seems to be the thing to do.
I have no doubt that, like on ours and many other web apps, if the users want it they will let the developers know and the developers can THEN invest resources towards making it happen IF that fits in with the role of the site.
When it comes to features on your new web app, sometimes this is a critical question. Now, of course this is more or less what 37signals have been saying for ages, i.e. keep it simple, but its good to revisit words of wisdom from time to time.
For instance – I was reading a recent article on Mashable about the launch of SnowVision – essentially a YouTube clone with a skiing focus. A few paragraphs down Pete Cashmore says that what it’s lacking is the social networking element.
Now, I can’t understand why this is a necessary prerequisite of a video site. Of all my friends who watch videos on youtube, I can’t think of any who actively use the social networking features. I always thought that what tends to happen is that you get sent a link to a video, you watch it, maybe you take a look around for other videos, then you leave. If I wanted social networking I would use one of the many, many, many other services out there that have that as their core function.
So, despite the fact that the snowvision guys have said they plan on introducing social networking at some stage, well done to them for not adding it at the start just because it seems to be the thing to do.
I have no doubt that, like on ours and many other web apps, if the users want it they will let the developers know and the developers can THEN invest resources towards making it happen IF that fits in with the role of the site.
Monday, 5 February 2007
One Million Penguins - One Failed Experiment
PaidContent has information about “A Million Penguins” – which is book publisher Penguin’s experiment to see “whether a group of disparate and diverse people can create a believable fictional voice."
Thing only launched last Thursday but I’ll do Penguin a favour and save them six weeks of waiting by telling them “No, it can’t” – or at least not in the way they want it to.
Just as a reminder, or a cheat-sheet for those who haven’t read it, The Wisdom of Crowds sets out some very specific criteria for crowds to be smart. They are: -
1. Diversity of Opinion (each person should have some private information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of known facts
2. Independence (People’s opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them)
3. Decentralisation (People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge)
4. Aggregation (Some mechanism exists for turning a private judgment into a collective decision)
Essentially, the way this works is that under these conditions, when you average out everybody’s contribution, everybody cancels out everybody else’s errors so that you’re left with a “pure” answer.
Now, while I disagree with a lot of what Jaron Lanier says in his essay “Digital Maoism” (his opinions can be summed up by the opening line on the site - “The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it”), there are some valid points within it…if you look hard enough. The points I refer to revolve around the type of information created by wise crowds which ought to be given credence. For instance, there is a difference between guessing how many jelly beans are in a jar and writing a creative fictional story. Actually, I should clarify this by saying that Jaron lumped writing books and writing wikipedia articles into the same basket, but I don’t think that is accurate so I’ve modified it a little. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be attempts at creating pages of fact. Fictional stories, like the one being “created” by Penguin, are quite the opposite.
That doesn’t mean that smart crowds ought not exist and play a part in the creation of fictional works. What it does mean, however, is that they can’t play the same role they might in creating a wikipedia article.
I predict that a small cabal of writers will lead the story and the inputs and that is how the work will progress. The other authors will contribute by acquiescing (I think that can be considered a valid form of contribution) either because they believe that the writing is better than they can contribute or because the style of the book moves away from something they want to contribute to.
Either that, or there will be a massive mess of a work that will be funny because of its discontinuity over and above anything else, which brings us to an interesting paradox - Penguin will only succeed with this book if their experiment to get the crowd to write it, fails.
Despite that paradox and the fact that this is clearly just a marketing stunt aimed at a market that is decreasingly interested in reading traditional books, props to Penguin for trying…
Thing only launched last Thursday but I’ll do Penguin a favour and save them six weeks of waiting by telling them “No, it can’t” – or at least not in the way they want it to.
Just as a reminder, or a cheat-sheet for those who haven’t read it, The Wisdom of Crowds sets out some very specific criteria for crowds to be smart. They are: -
1. Diversity of Opinion (each person should have some private information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of known facts
2. Independence (People’s opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them)
3. Decentralisation (People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge)
4. Aggregation (Some mechanism exists for turning a private judgment into a collective decision)
Essentially, the way this works is that under these conditions, when you average out everybody’s contribution, everybody cancels out everybody else’s errors so that you’re left with a “pure” answer.
Now, while I disagree with a lot of what Jaron Lanier says in his essay “Digital Maoism” (his opinions can be summed up by the opening line on the site - “The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it”), there are some valid points within it…if you look hard enough. The points I refer to revolve around the type of information created by wise crowds which ought to be given credence. For instance, there is a difference between guessing how many jelly beans are in a jar and writing a creative fictional story. Actually, I should clarify this by saying that Jaron lumped writing books and writing wikipedia articles into the same basket, but I don’t think that is accurate so I’ve modified it a little. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be attempts at creating pages of fact. Fictional stories, like the one being “created” by Penguin, are quite the opposite.
That doesn’t mean that smart crowds ought not exist and play a part in the creation of fictional works. What it does mean, however, is that they can’t play the same role they might in creating a wikipedia article.
I predict that a small cabal of writers will lead the story and the inputs and that is how the work will progress. The other authors will contribute by acquiescing (I think that can be considered a valid form of contribution) either because they believe that the writing is better than they can contribute or because the style of the book moves away from something they want to contribute to.
Either that, or there will be a massive mess of a work that will be funny because of its discontinuity over and above anything else, which brings us to an interesting paradox - Penguin will only succeed with this book if their experiment to get the crowd to write it, fails.
Despite that paradox and the fact that this is clearly just a marketing stunt aimed at a market that is decreasingly interested in reading traditional books, props to Penguin for trying…
Thursday, 1 February 2007
$2.9M for Vizu Answers - WTF?!?!
Nick Gonzalez over at Tech Crunch reports that Vizu Answers just got US$2.9M in funding from Draper Fisher Jurvetson (DFJ). Even if DFJ got 130% of the company and points on all future earnings of all directors they still got robbed.
This thing is doomed to fail because, quite simply, the information it provides the people who are paying for the service is completely useless. This type of polling is open to severe abuse and its impossible to know who is voting. How can this be considered market research?
Then the clincher…They are charging people on impressions, not on votes.
Hmmmm. Seems this is an advertising gimmick, not a true market research tool, and I suspect it won’t be long before most potential customers realize this.
I guess I should mention that this is kinda in the space that we’re developing something, which is why I might seem a little angry.
So, Hey!, DFJ, if you’re looking for a sound investment in the market research space, drop me an email at info at oneeyedeer dot com. I guarantee you something that is more innovative, more useful and more profitable than this nonsense.
This thing is doomed to fail because, quite simply, the information it provides the people who are paying for the service is completely useless. This type of polling is open to severe abuse and its impossible to know who is voting. How can this be considered market research?
Then the clincher…They are charging people on impressions, not on votes.
Hmmmm. Seems this is an advertising gimmick, not a true market research tool, and I suspect it won’t be long before most potential customers realize this.
I guess I should mention that this is kinda in the space that we’re developing something, which is why I might seem a little angry.
So, Hey!, DFJ, if you’re looking for a sound investment in the market research space, drop me an email at info at oneeyedeer dot com. I guarantee you something that is more innovative, more useful and more profitable than this nonsense.
Monday, 29 January 2007
Happy Australia Day!
A belated Happy Australia Day to everyone! (for those who don't know it was actually on the 26th of January)
With beautiful summer weather, Bondi Beach sea temperatures back up from the ridiculous 14C of last weekend to a reasonable 22C, OK surf conditions, 2 one-day international cricket games, the Australian Open Tennis Finals and a trip down the South Coast, I haven't really had the time or desire to keep up to date with my readings and posts.
But it's back to work today, so I'll see what interesting things I can find to make up for the silence.
With beautiful summer weather, Bondi Beach sea temperatures back up from the ridiculous 14C of last weekend to a reasonable 22C, OK surf conditions, 2 one-day international cricket games, the Australian Open Tennis Finals and a trip down the South Coast, I haven't really had the time or desire to keep up to date with my readings and posts.
But it's back to work today, so I'll see what interesting things I can find to make up for the silence.
Monday, 22 January 2007
How DuggSpace/The Rival Project Could Be The Bellwether For An Innovation Revolution
There was a recent, seemingly innocuous, post over at Digg where a reader suggested that if Digg could be created for $200 then maybe the Digg community could work together to create their own version of MySpace. The working name is 'DuggSpace' although for obvious legal reasons, it won't stay like that.
Mashable thinks it’s destined to fail. I think that's being short-sighted. There are obvious issues with the ambiguity of many aspects at the moment, but it must be said that it is VERY early stages and this stuff can still be sorted out. In any case, Duggspaces's success or failure is relatively inconsequential in comparison to the importance of the fact that it was started at all.
Let me explain…
Digg is a loosely collaborative site, whose function is not inherently social but, rather, to aggregate and filter “news”. Despite this, people are starting to organise themselves, within the comments section of the above mentioned post, into a group with the aim of creating a new and better version of MySpace.
Yep, that’s the same, 6th most visited site on the whole Internet (according to Alexa), MySpace you probably thought I was talking about.
Why is this so important?
Firstly, because what happened was never meant to happen on Digg. There wasn’t even a proper means for these people to organise themselves, so they innovated and used the comments to a post. This tells me that if you nurture collaboration, even in a loose sense, then there is the potential for emergent groups to arise and take that collaboration to new depths in the pursuit of common innovative interests.
Secondly, this group of largely unknown-to-each-other digg users want to work together to improve on one of the most popular websites on the Internet. This tells me that if companies don’t start engaging with their customers effectively in an attempt to promote and benefit from outside innovation then either those customers will bypass the company and create the stuff they want by themselves, or forward thinking competitors will engage with the customers and take them away from you. In each scenario the end-result for the incumbent is the same – 1 or more customers less.
Thirdly, because this happened on Digg. Sure, collaborative software development has been happening for years all over the net, but these people chose to use Digg rather than SourceForge or one of those other sites to kick things off. Digg (74th most visited) and Sourceforge (83rd most visited) are about as popular as each other in terms of visits, but sourceforge is a very specific software development collaboration site and Digg is, while having a strong technology focus at the moment, more generalist in appeal. This tells me that if you give people of different backgrounds and interests a place to hang out and some basic tools, innovation will emerge. Now, if you give them more than just a place to hang out and more than just basic tools, imagine what they might come up with…
This is not a joke. Emergent groups and outside innovation are coming up in a big way and faster than you probably think. The question is how many companies are ready for what’s about to happen?
EDIT: looks like DuggSpace may have changed its name to 'The Rival Project' for now.
Mashable thinks it’s destined to fail. I think that's being short-sighted. There are obvious issues with the ambiguity of many aspects at the moment, but it must be said that it is VERY early stages and this stuff can still be sorted out. In any case, Duggspaces's success or failure is relatively inconsequential in comparison to the importance of the fact that it was started at all.
Let me explain…
Digg is a loosely collaborative site, whose function is not inherently social but, rather, to aggregate and filter “news”. Despite this, people are starting to organise themselves, within the comments section of the above mentioned post, into a group with the aim of creating a new and better version of MySpace.
Yep, that’s the same, 6th most visited site on the whole Internet (according to Alexa), MySpace you probably thought I was talking about.
Why is this so important?
Firstly, because what happened was never meant to happen on Digg. There wasn’t even a proper means for these people to organise themselves, so they innovated and used the comments to a post. This tells me that if you nurture collaboration, even in a loose sense, then there is the potential for emergent groups to arise and take that collaboration to new depths in the pursuit of common innovative interests.
Secondly, this group of largely unknown-to-each-other digg users want to work together to improve on one of the most popular websites on the Internet. This tells me that if companies don’t start engaging with their customers effectively in an attempt to promote and benefit from outside innovation then either those customers will bypass the company and create the stuff they want by themselves, or forward thinking competitors will engage with the customers and take them away from you. In each scenario the end-result for the incumbent is the same – 1 or more customers less.
Thirdly, because this happened on Digg. Sure, collaborative software development has been happening for years all over the net, but these people chose to use Digg rather than SourceForge or one of those other sites to kick things off. Digg (74th most visited) and Sourceforge (83rd most visited) are about as popular as each other in terms of visits, but sourceforge is a very specific software development collaboration site and Digg is, while having a strong technology focus at the moment, more generalist in appeal. This tells me that if you give people of different backgrounds and interests a place to hang out and some basic tools, innovation will emerge. Now, if you give them more than just a place to hang out and more than just basic tools, imagine what they might come up with…
This is not a joke. Emergent groups and outside innovation are coming up in a big way and faster than you probably think. The question is how many companies are ready for what’s about to happen?
EDIT: looks like DuggSpace may have changed its name to 'The Rival Project' for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)