Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Wired Magazine Turns 20

By the time I started my career in digital media in 1998, Wired Magazine was already firmly established as the leading chronicle of "new media" and high technology and its impact on our culture, economy, and everyday lives.  Both the print edition and website have remained my favourite publications.

The current issue of Wired features an A-Z of prominent topics covered during their 20-year history. In a rare instance most of the material from the print magazine is available on their website. They've even built a cool online interface to access their A-Z list,  that I highly recommend.

I thought I'd share most of the list here. The list is an excellent showcase of the huge number of changes and trends of digital media and technology. It's also a nostalgic trip and test of one's wired cred. How many do you know?
  • Angry Birds
  • Apps
  • Arab Spring
  • Banner Ad
  • Beta
  • Big Data
  • Blogger
  • Carpal Tunnel
  • Code
  • Comics
  • Convergence
  • Crowdsourcing
  • Darpa
  • Design
  • Dreams
  • Electric Car
  • Emoji
  • Etsy
  • Facebook
  • Failure
  • Faking It
  • Flickr
  • Friendster
  • GIFs
  • Geek
  • Gmail
  • Goatse
  • HTTP
  • Hacker
  • Higgs Boson
  • Hypertext
  • IPO
  • Instagram
  • Jargon
  • Kickstarter
  • Kottke.org
  • Kozmo
  • Maker Movement
  • Memes
  • Microsoft
  • Napster
  • Neurodiversity
  • Nintendo
  • Onion, The
  • Online Dating
  • Porn
  • Printing
  • QR Code
  • Reddit
  • Science
  • Screen Names
  • Share Economy
  • Silicon Valley
  • Silk Road
  • Snark
  • Sony
  • Storage
  • Stuxnet
  • TED Talks
  • Titans
  • Trolling
  • Turing
  • Tweet
  • UX
  • Viral
  • Virtual Communities
  • WIRED 01.01
  • Wikileaks
  • Yelp
  • ZeuS
  • xkcd
I'm a bit disappointed that I didn't know six of the above items at all (a couple of which I'm glad I never heard of), and I forgot the names of two.

I omitted their list of people, as did Wired for their online version as the print edition includes many luminaries' profiles. But I believe that although some individuals have contributed greatly to the development to key companies and technologies, it has been all of us that really made these concepts a reality.

I'm looking forward to Wired's next 20 years and hopefully by then I'll have an e-Reader or tablet to read it on and won't be needing print editions finally. 

Monday, February 06, 2012

Top 20 Most Important Developments of the Internet

The Internet Society is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. They are a global organization devoted to maintaining a free, open, accessible, and viable Internet.

I've recently blogged about the Internet Society's call for people to submit ideas for a new Internet Hall of Fame they are establishing.

Internet Society is also marking their anniversary with a listing of what people think are the 20 most significant developments in the history of the Internet, whether an innovation, event, or product.

So I figured I would offer my top 20. I tried to combine technological inventions, commercial product launches, and events that have shaped the Internet.  I've linked to Wikipedia (#16) for more information on the topics.

Top 20 Internet Developments:
  1. ARPANET - the military research network of the 1960s that became the Internet
  2. Hypertext - interlinking of digital text and media, predicted by Vannevar Bush in the 1940s, developed by Ted Nelson and Douglas Engelbart in the 1960s
  3. Email - invented in the 1970s and is the bedrock of Internet-based communications (honourable mention to Hotmail for making email more accessible in 1996 by offering the first free web-based email service) 
  4. Domain Name System (DNS) -  gives us the ability to use plain language web addresses
  5. MUDs (Multi-User Dungeon/Domain) - the first form of networked games, developed in the late 1970s and is the precursor to modern forms of collaborative and online gaming such as Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) 
  6. Archie - first Internet search engine (for FTP sites), developed at McGill University in 1990
  7. World Wide Web (WWW) - Tim Berners-Lee creates the ultimate digital medium in 1991
  8. Mosaic - user-friendly browser launched in 1993 that accelerated the popularity of the Web by displaying images and text together
  9. Netscape's Initial Public Offering - the browser's phenomenal IPO propelled Internet development and usage
  10. Secure Socket Layers - Netscape's encryption system, developed in the mid 1990s, helped make the web secure enough to allow e-commerce and e-banking to flourish
  11. Travelocity - one of the first victims of e-business were travel agencies (who books in person anymore?) and Travelocity, which launched to consumers in the mid 1980s via CompuServe, was one of the first online travel booking sites
  12. Internet Movie Database (IMDB) - launched first on USENET in 1990, IMDB was one of the first websites to popularize user-generated content, in the form of user ratings and reviews, thus being Web 2.0 years before the concept was created (honourable mention to Writing.com for also being one of the first UGC sites and one that encouraged more lengthy and collaborative content)
  13. Classmates.com - widely popular website, launched in 1995, that was among the first to create what we now know as a social networking site (way ahead of Friendster, in 2002,  and MySpace, in 2003)
  14. GeoCities - launched in 1995, popularized personal web publishing by offering free web hosting and  customizable homepages (honourable mention to Blogger with its 1999 launch it was one of the first and most popular web publishing tools and helped create the blog genre))
  15. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) - these guidelines, first published in 1999 by the W3C, have done more than anything else to enable websites to be accessible to people with various abilities 
  16. Wikipedia - launched in 2001, two huge contributions: 1) open access to encyclopaedic information and 2) breaks down barriers of official knowledge by allowing anyone to participate in its creation
  17. Delicious - launched in 2003, the social bookmarking site became possibly the first instance of folksonmies, that is collaborative user tagging of information objects (in this case bookmarks)
  18. Streaming and downloadable media - from listening to the radio or watching video live (such as Victoria's Secret's annual fashion show, the first majorly successful webcast), to downloading music MP3s from Napster or iTunes, to watching videos on YouTube or through IPTV - the Internet has  fundamentally changed our media consumption and purchasing (or lack thereof) behaviour
  19. Mobile Web and Internet-enabled mobile apps - mobile apps or mobile-friendly webpages have enabled ubiquitous access to the Internet, surpassing desktop access since 2008
  20. Open-source software and standards - free programming languages, such as HTML, JavaScript, and XML (hence AJAX), and software, such as Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP and Perl (hence LAMP), have made it financially possible for anyone to build and host their own websites, breaking down prior elite forms of media production and distribution
Runner-ups:
  • Open access publishing - the Internet made it effective to share information freely and widely, with resulting open access journals, such as First Monday (about the Internet) 
  • Internet porn - legendary driver of online development and adoption
  • Forums and chat rooms - excellent new forms of multi-person communication
  • Recommendation systems - using our collective data to help identify things we may like, the music site Pandora is an excellent example of the power of this, the Netflix Prize contest helped propel development in this area
  • Google - revolutionized search engines and the first great online-only company
  • eBay & PayPal - perfected microsales and consumer-to-consumer commerce
  • VoIP & Skype - no more long-distance telephone charges
  • Craigslist - the first widely popular online classified website that assisted in the demise of newspapers
  • Foursquare - the first geosocial network and location-based service to hit critical mass
  • Internet of Things - everything will soon be wired to the Net from cars, refrigerators, and closets
As you can see I had a hard time, limiting myself to 20.

I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on what should be on the list (or off), and any corrections, such as missing predecessors or international developments that set the trend.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Internet Hall of Fame - Nominate First Inductees

The Internet Society, a global non-profit organization devoted to promoting open access and innovation for the Internet, is twenty years old this year.

To mark their 20 years they have started the "Internet Hall of Fame" to honour the contributions of individuals to the development of the Internet.

Despite the ubiquity of content on the Web, I have been surprised how little work there has been done documenting the history and achievements of Internet and digital media history. Granted, a few stars (including Internet Society founders Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn) are well-known for their contributions, but there are many more people who's contributions are not well-documented or significantly recognized. This led to my efforts to document Who's Who in Canadian Digital Media & Technology.

So I am excited to see the Internet Society launching the Internet Hall of Fame.

I'm also excited that Internet Society is allowing anyone to nominate someone. The final decision will be made by judges from a cross-section of related sectors.

Internet Society has published the nomination form online.

Here are their criteria for nominees:
Any individual who has played a key role in the conceptualization, building, and development of the Internet in any region/country will be considered for induction into the Internet Hall of Fame based on the influence and impact they’ve had on the Internet’s origins, growth, and evolution.

Other factors considered by the Internet Hall of Fame include the relevance and reach of a nominee’s contribution to the Internet, and the extent to which a nominee successfully took risks and challenged existing paradigms.

Further, the Internet Hall of Fame considers the originality, creativity, and innovation of a nominee’s contribution. In addition to those who have been more visible, the Internet Hall of Fame is seeking nominees who have made crucial, behind-the-scenes contributions.

The nominee’s work can include, but is not limited to, individuals who have played a key role in:

• Researching and/or building Internet infrastructure;
• Improving Internet access and/or functionality;
• Fostering growth of the Internet community; and
• Developing new Internet technologies and/or user interfaces that have had valuable and broad-reaching impacts on society.

I'm hoping to nominate someone - probably someone from my Canadian Who's Who list. But I can't decide who. Let me know below who you think should be nominated.

Nominations close February 13, 2012.

Monday, February 07, 2011

Internet Society Membership Drive

I've been a member of the Internet Society for a few years. They sponsored my participation in the Internet Governance Forum at Hyderabad, India. The Internet Society (ISOC) is a non-profit, international organization that helps develop and promote Internet standards and policy. They work actively with governments to ensure that the Internet remains free and open.

Here is a description of ISOC from their website:

The Internet Society is a cause-based organisation that works to ensure the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world. The Internet Society works with help from its members and Chapters to provide leadership in Internet related standards, education, and policy. As the Internet continues to evolve, both technically and politically, the Internet’s unprecedented success is due to a decentralized, open, multi-stakeholder model, which relies on processes and products that are local, bottom-up and accessible to users around the world. The Internet Society's key initiatives target the critical issues that affect all aspects of Internet development and growth. They embody the Internet Society philosophy that the Internet is for everyone and they provide the organization with a solid foundation from which to positively influence standards development, access, business practices, and government policies.

Although, there is not a national chapter for Canada or one for Ontario (Quebec is the only region with a chapter), ISOC does offer the opportunity to join for free as a "global member". I have wanted to help start an Ontario chapter for the past two years. As my research focus is increasingly moving away from policy and standards (for example web accessibility guidelines) and my professional and personal life is rather over-taxed at present, I have been hoping someone would lead the charge to start an Ontario chapter.

Currently, the Internet Society is hoping to recruit more members. For those who work in the Internet field or digital media, I believe it is important to join, as well as for those who are concerned about protecting the central role the Internet has in our lives. ISOC offers ten tips on why to join that note the collective and individual benefits of joining such as more powerfully influencing Canadian policy and having a personal role in important developments.

I would love to see more people join from Ontario as I hope this could propel a chapter formation here. Also, ISOC is offering tech gadgets for prizes (which I'll donate to a local charity in the unlikely event I win).

So please consider joining. Please run any questions or comments by me here or by email.

Join the Internet Society today, it's free!

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Why I Decided to Come to India After All

I’m in the conference centre in Hyderabad, India for the 3rd Internet Governance Forum. A few days ago, I was certain I would not be here. Several people told me I was crazy to come considering recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai. I did cancel my travel plans that would have had me spending a day in Mumbai only a couple days after the initial terrorist attacks (and as it turns out while some terrorists were still holding out in the hotels).

So why did I decide to come to India? Good question – I had pretty much decided not to come but then my wife was extra supportive and encouraging me to go, even though she’s probably more worried than I am. Even though I hate it when terrorists’ tactics are proven effective by people canceling plans or avoiding places, I personally do not feel that I need to wade into these volatile environments. But this was an opportunity of a lifetime.

Earlier this year, the Internet Society held a competition for people around the world to attend as honourary ambassadors. I was one of thirteen people from around the world who were chosen to attend and were sponsored. This was a significant honour for me so I really didn’t want to pass it up. It’s not every day one gets invited to attend a United Nations conference after all.

One incentive to come was a chance to visit India. As one who loves history, culture, and architecture it sure was an excellent chance to travel to a place that I probably wouldn’t be able to swing on my budget and with my young daughter in toe. The 35+ hours to get here, door to door, was so painful that this alone makes it almost not worth it. My daughter would have lasted about 5 hours of this trip. I did get a few hours to check out Hyderabad and like everyone always says it is indeed a land of contrasts – the tech headquarters here (Microsoft, Google) are huge, impressive modern buildings (as is the hotel, Ista, that I’m staying at) but the poverty is front and center as seen by the many roadside tents where families live.

The main reason I wanted to come here is that I really believe in not only the goals of the Internet Governance Forum. The main themes of the conference (and which I’ll be elaborating in ensuing blog posts) are how to help reach the next billion people to help them come online (this encompasses bridging digital divide, a multilingual Net issues, and accessibility), promoting cyber security and trust, managing critical internet resources (Net neutrality figures prominently here), and emerging issues.

Website accessibility, the topic of my upcoming master’s thesis, is a topic of many of the workshops and seminars here. I’m eagerly looking forward to hearing from experts in this field and hopefully gaining some insight for my research.

Another big reason I decided to come is that I really wanted the opportunity to meet others who feel passionately about the Internet in general and these issues in specific. This conference brings people from all around the world; 1500 – 2000 people are anticipated. Toronto has a thriving web community, but most of the events center around the Net as a marketing tool, and I find events dealing with the social value of the Net to be lacking. Upon my return to Canada, I’m hoping to help revive the Canadian chapter of the Internet Society – so if you’re interested please let me know.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Types of Internet Media

Every time I need to think of how communication is different on Internet media I keep needing to make a mental run-through of all the various distinct Internet media. So to save time next time, here is a list of Internet media. Please let me know if I missed something or included something that should be rolled up.

I'm defining media as a unique form of communication between humans, (so FTP is more of a file exchange than a communication medium). Some mediums blur the distinctions by merging or hosting other mediums.

Typology of Internet media:
  1. Website (includes publicly available websites, and private such as intranets & extranets )
  2. Mobile website (a website optimized for viewing on a handheld, mobile device)
  3. Internet telephony (i.e. Voice-over-Internet Protocol, such as Skype)
  4. Internet television (both television channels delivered by the Internet, such as the Bell Fibe service, or individual tv shows offered via the websites of channels)
  5. Email
  6. Instant messaging and chat (I might include Twitter here)
  7. Forums/message board (allows threaded text-based conversations)
  8. Streaming audio (includes podcasts & Internet radio)
  9. Streaming video (includes webcasts, podcasts, YouTube videos)
  10. Games (includes console-based and online-only)
  11. eBooks
Within mediums there are genres, so website would have some of the following genres:
  • social networking site
  • blog
  • e-commerce site
  • online gambling site
  • news
  • informational
  • wiki
I'm not sure I got this right and I found anyone else that has tried to categorize all Net things like this, so I'm curious what others have to say.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Why Internet communication is better than face-to-face, in some regards anyway

I have been thinking lately of how generally I prefer to communicate with everyone online, much better than face-to-face (F2F). Here are some reasons why the Internet is better than F2F.

The main advantage of Internet communications is that spatial and temporal barriers are removed, thus opening up communication that might not otherwise be possible or feasible. This is well documented in research, and personally I have been able to e-mail or comment on friends’ blogs or personal pages whom I would not be able to meet in person, or find the time to write. The asynchronous nature of many Internet connections also opens up the possibility of communicating at a time that is convenient, opposed to the hassles of finding mutually suitable times for a face-to-face get-together. I have some friends that I have to schedule a lunch with them 2 months in advance; this restriction does not apply online.

Another benefit of Internet communication is that there are studies to show that the lack of visual cues online has been found to lessen discrimination based on race, gender, social status, and social similarity and thus improve communication or even open otherwise closed channels. Online anonymity has also been found to allow people communicate online (e.g. sufferers of certain diseases, fans of embarrassing TV shows like Xena) than they would feel comfortable doing F2F (although this has also resulted in flaming and trolling).

Another factor is that some people with social inhibition are more able to connect and communicate online. Facebook researchers found the low social cost (i.e. low risk of public rejection) of connecting online did allow users to form relationships than would otherwise remained purely casual. Personally, I know many people that feel shy in F2F situations but feel liberated online and can communicate on forums, emails, etc. more openly.

Various researchers have hypothesized that Internet-based technology allows one to maintain significantly more ties than could be achieved exclusively through offline efforts. Again, I can back this up with my personal experience of being able to keep connected and updated with lots of friends, primarily through e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, and FriendFeed than I was ever able to before.

A main reason why I love Internet communication is that even though I live in a big city, in my offline life I cannot find people who want to discuss the topics I care passionately about. Online the opposite is true; there are too many places and people online that are already talking about things I’m interested in (e.g. Twitter, blogs, forums, etc.) than I could ever possibly follow. I've read studies and know people who reported finding kindred spirits online that they could connect regularly and meaningfully with not only about the topic at hand, but also about everything in their lives from miscarriages, divorces, weddings, & births.

I also think the Internet allows us to break some societal conventions or norms. Anonymity allows people to open up online or try on new identities. But when not anonymous, we can find a space to talk about other things than just polite conversation allows, whether that is heated political debates, religion, or other topics more heated than the weather or last night's game. Societal convention also says that one should not inflict trip pix or baby photos on one's friends in real life, yet the Internet has given a place to post them & let friends view them if they want - and it turns out that lots of friends do want to see them. This aspect of the Net has made deeper and more constant connections more feasible.

Finally, a reason that I love asynchronous Internet conversation is I feel infinitely more at ease than I do during F2F conversations. Online I can take the time to think about what I am saying or control things more.

I guess the truly last thing I find about Internet communication is that one can more readily say all they want to say despite its length! Not to mention, one can say what the want to say on their blog, for example, and actually find people (hopefully at least one or two people who aren't relations) that want to listen.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Negotiating Multifaceted Identity Online in Social Networking Websites

Our real-world identities can be multifaceted and contextually fragmented - we behave one way at work, and another when drinking with friends. Yet social-networking websites collapse “relationship types and contexts into the ubiquitous ‘Friend’” (Boyd, 2007, p.134). Thus one’s online social network friends, regardless of context (e.g. work, family, church, school) all receive, by default, the same information. This online flattening of offline relationships has progressed without adequate means to negotiate this experience. For example how to present one facet of personality, or persona, to one's friends vs. one's workplace colleagues. Some users have responded by replacing “cool” customizations with those more appropriate for business, thus sacrificing facets of identity to present an overall safe, sanitized persona (Boyd, 2007, p.143). New methods of encoding and decoding online identity/identities, whether new societal norms or technological solutions, are required to allow people to enjoy these websites and avoid clashes of real-world and online identities.

Many of these issues were documented by danah boyd in her study of the rise of Friendster, the first prominent social-networking website and inspiration for the more popular MySpace and Facebook. Friendster, boyd noted, by offering users a standard template to populate allows users the experience of “writing yourself into being” (Boyd, 2007, p.145) but within defined parameters. Yet truthfulness in these profiles has varied. Some users, boyd found, enjoyed exploring aspects of their identity through degrees of fiction; others assumed full truthfulness from those in their network (Boyd, 2007, p.150).

This unresolved tension continues to hound social-networking websites as seen by the recent Story2Oh! Facebook controversy. A Toronto writer, Jill Golick, created fictional characters and set up corresponding Facebook profiles, all labeled fictional (Golick, 2008a). These characters then sent friend requests to Toronto’s web community. While such a friend request allows one to view that person’s profile, some indiscriminately “friended,” missing the fiction label and then “didn’t realize till later that these were characters and not real people….The blurring of the lines between reality and fiction caused a lot of furor” (Golick, 2008b). Some responded by indicating feelings of betrayal and transgression of online norms; Facebook responded by deleting the accounts. Similar events were found by boyd in the “Fakester” controversy, highlighting that while profiles may allow for “performance of identity” (Boyd, 2007, p.141) all users are not yet accustomed to this.

Norms and technology are developing to address these issues. In March 2008, Facebook introduced the ability to group friends by user-defined type and designate what they can see (Gleit, 2008). While this resolves boyd’s issue of singular relationship types and collapsed context, this feature only allows users to remove details from view, it does not allow one to tailor online identity as one can in the real world. Offline, people can share certain photographs with friends and other sorts with family, but this feature either turns photographs on or off based on type. Still, technical features such as this and developing user norms, such as not friending strangers, begin to enable people to express multifaceted identity through a singular website.

References
Boyd, D. (2007). None of this is real: Identity and participation in Friendster. In Karaganis J. (Ed.), Structures of Participation in Digital Culture (pp. 88-110). New York: Social Science Research Council.

Gleit, N. (2008). More privacy options. The Facebook Blog. Retrieved May 11, 2008 from http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=11519877130

Golick, J. (2008a). Deleted from Facebook. Story2Oh.com. Retrieved May 09, 2008 from http://story2oh.com/2008/04/30/deleted-by-facebook

Golick, J. (2008b). I hear ya. Story2Oh.com. Retrieved May 09, 2008 from http://story2oh.com/2008/05/01/i-hear-ya/

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Oh CanCon! Should it stand on guard for Canadian Internet content?

This week, in my class, the topic of the America’s domination over global culture was debated. While it's often American movies, tv, & music that is most often discussed, there are clearly implications for the Internet. With only one of the top twenty websites visited by Canadians actually being Canadian (source: Alexa), perhaps it's time to consider regulations or incentives for Canadian online content?

Here's some background on the situation.

I think it's safe to say that American entertainment companies use some predatory practices (foreign dumping, block-booking, vertical integration) not to mention their irresistible cultural products. To protect a semblance of national culture, various countries have responded by enacting legislation requiring a certain amount of domestic content to be aired. In Canada, this legislation is Canadian Content Rules, known as CanCon.

CanCon remains controversial, yet as the authors of Mondo Canuck state "Despite opposition to CanCon, which persists even today, the fact remains that initially the system was like a shot of pure adrenaline to a national recoding industry which had barely registered a pulse". Certainly, many Canadian recording stars owe their success in a large measure to CanCon, and Canadian music listeners have certainly benefited from it.

CanCon has sparked controversies, such as its checklist approach that determines what is deemed "Canadian". A famous example of this was Bryan Adam's hit "Everything I Do," which wasn't considered Canadian as it was co-written by a Brit and recorded in London (see 1992 CBC interview with Adams on this controversy).

The film industry does not have to follow CanCon, although some argue it should. There are however, various grants and tax benefits that have over the years encouraged Canadian cinema. As a result of very generous tax benefits in 1979, Canada produced 50% more movies than Hollywood on per capita basis, according to the authors of Mondo Canuck. Out of this, came some of the worst films ever made here and some of the best (Atlantic City - artistically, and financially Porky's and Meatballs).

But checklists of what counts as Canadians can impede our sense of national pride in our cultural products, such as the recent controversy over the film "Juno", which while filmed in Canada, by a Canadian with two Canadian leads, would not have been considered Canadian for the Genie awards, as it was bankrolled by Americans.

To further indicate the problems with defining Canadian content, a classmate, Sherry, responded: "We are so permeated with American media, how do we determine and measure what Canadian content really is?" Truly, some content made in Canada by Canadians hasn't seemed particularly Canadian (e.g. Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda).

It seems an impossible task to define Canadian content, but I do think it is important for fostering Canadian artists and taking pride in their work. So I'd define what's Canadian as if it was made by a Canadian, it's Canadian.

So into this the CRTC, has recently been reconsidering its decade-old policy to not regulate Canada's Internet (read Toronto Star's March 22 article Can we police Canadian content on the Internet? ) with a full report due this month and public hearings to follow. This has come up now as the CRTC found there was "minimal investment in producing ancillary or new online broadcasting content".

I have seen good Canadian online content, but I certainly wouldn't say the industry is as healthy as Canadian music, literature or film. So what's the solution? Regulate the amount of Canadian content or offer incentives or subsidies?

I eagerly await the outcome of the CRTC's public hearings. In the meantime, please share what you think should be done. Regulate? Subsidize? Nothing?

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Second Dot Bomb To Hit Any Time Now

I’m reading a good book, dot.con by John Cassidy - see below to give it a read, on the heyday of dot coms and the Internet bubble of the late 1990s. The events described in the book seem to be happening again, with surreal valuations of Internet companies and hair brain online schemes coming out of the woodwork.

But the book has made me nostalgic for those glory days – the obligatory Fussball table, open and flowing bars, business meetings at Playdium, extravagant launch parties, expensive marketing campaigns, new technologies to learn every month, long hours and fat expense accounts.

While I’d like to think I was more level-headed than the others that got swept into the Internet insanity avalanche, I suppose my decision to go into the Internet field was influenced by rampant hyperbole in the media and business world.

At least I had good reason to go into the Net field. A friend at the time, however, quit her accountant career and took an Internet course to get into the then red-hot field (like many others she was back to her old career soon thereafter). For me though, I was working in dead-end jobs and had little luck putting my Film & Video degree to use. Still going into the Internet was rather crazy, as I didn’t have a computer, no email address, and had only been on the Net about 2 or 3 times before I decided to pursue a career in the field (I did work briefly for an Internet company earlier, by temping for Macromedia in their big launch of Dreamweaver). I almost went into eco-tourism instead as I loved travel so much. But I thought my media education and interest would be more suitable to the Internet. I also thought that television would be on the Net soon and my Film & Video degree would finally pay off!

After the dot bomb things kept chugging along and I thought there was much more sanity in the field. But the excitement over web 2.0 seemed to have history repeating itself again which is bad enough except that it’s happening again so soon!

Yes lately there’s been great reason for excitement (eg. social networking, participatory media, RSS, tagging, the semantic web, etc.).

But a news item today sums up the return to insanity. (As if the purchase price of Club Penguin wasn’t loopy enough, see my prior post on this.)

In MediaPost’s Just an Online Minute Wendy Davis describes the situation of Internet startup Eons. I hadn’t heard of it before, probably as it’s geared to baby boomers, but it was yet another social networking website. There are a gazillion already and really Facebook (& possibly MySpace) and LinkedIn, plus a handful of others are all that will ever be useful.

Eons, as recently as last March, received $22 million dollars plus another $10 million last year. Unsurprisingly, they have not delivered and the company is laying off one third of its staff.

Perhaps dot.con should be mandatory reading for anyone working or investing in the Net.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Incompatible back and forth, and certainly not stable

If I was ever tempted to think that the World Wide Web was a stable medium, my experiences today convinced me otherwise.

There are still many technical problems (not to mention usability issues) and users are often left struggling in the dark wondering why things don't work as expected or even not at all.

We launched a major online initiative today and had both backward and forward compatibility errors. Before I could be tempted to think the project was jinxed, my other online experiences continued to be plagued.

Problem #1
There were backward compatibility issues with a Flash intro that didn't work in version 7 of the player. It didn't give an error message or instruct the user to upgrade. Just didn't work.

Problem #2
The PDFs for the site didn't work in Adobe Reader 8 as it appears they were created in Acrobat 7 and didn't have full forward compatibility.

Problem #3
My del.icio.us feeds to syndicate my news and cool sites decided not to work, see vacant space on the left. Strangely, they work fine on MyYahoo, but not on my Google Reader or this Blogger blog (del.icio.us is owned by Yahoo and perhaps they cut off their main competitor Google and Blogger, which is owned by Google?)

Problem #4
I tried to invite a contact to join my LinkedIn three times. I would log in, prepare the invite, hit send, it would then lose my message and instruct me to log in again - repeat ad nauseum. Hope the person doesn't end up getting it three times by some fluke. (Three invites all slightly different, they'd think I want them as a contact just TOO much!)

Problem #5
I assumed that when the problem was solved for problem #1 I could send the fixed file live remotely from home. Nope, my VPN connection won't work. Nothing different since the last time I used it, and, naturally, the error message is cryptically useless.

Problem #6
Okay, this one is old, but it was so horrorific that I am bringing it up as a therapeutic purging. Last year, we launched another big online project and on the day we were committed to go live - an Internet backbone went down. The Net was down for the whole region, but we had to go live that day.

It's tempting to be lured into thinking that the various Internet media are stable as often things work quite well. It's thus easy to forget that there are still a lot of problems to overcome. Problems like users having too old (or in Adobe Reader's case, too new) set-ups, or weird crankiness in a network or server that a layperson would never be able to figure out, or interfaces that just aren't intuitive either through bad design or the lack of fully-established conventions, or sloppy code, or who knows what other mysteries lurk in cyberspace.

So many variables it makes problem solving such true misery, particularly when you can't replicate the problem and all you have to go on is the description of an inarticulate user.

Perhaps as I get older, even more cantankerous, and even less tolerant of these oh-so-many problems the Internet will be stable. But by then I certainly won't be.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Will New Fees Kill the Internet Radio Star?

A Forbes.com article yesterday, Will Web Radio Get Turned Off by Louis Hau, outlines new fees to be imposed by U.S. Copyright Royalty Board.

Internet radio stations will have their rates more than doubled for each song they play (from 8 to 19 cents). While some of the stations are now profitable, few can afford this level of increase.

Another fee that could be the death of some Internet radio sites, is that there will be a new fee of $500 per year per station a company runs. For sites like Pandora, who allow users to create their own individual, customized stations, this is disastrous.

While ad revenues have been growing steadily in this sector, there is still a lot of development going on. It does seem like these rates could cripple development, prevent new entrants, and/or put some out of business.

This topic has been near and dear to me lately, as I recently discovered a couple music sites that are now favourites.

Pandora

Pandora is a free music website that allows users to enter an artist or song that they like and Pandora plays songs similar to that style. The matching is based on the classification by a team of music experts, as part of the Music Genome Project, that have profiled ten thousand artists based on “melody, harmony, instrumentation, rhythm, vocals, lyrics ... and more - close to 400 attributes”.

Independent and new artists are given the same weight as the stars. The result is that you get to hear some new artists and new songs. I’ve already discovered a few new artists that I now love and learned that Queen Latifah can sing.

Listeners can rate songs giving them a thumbs up, which then helps guide your future offerings, or a thumbs down, which not only stops the song, but bars it from playing again on that station.

The downside of Pandora is that you don’t get to hear much of a mix, and after awhile it can be monotonous. But you can add songs and artists to the stations to spice them up and eventually end up with a fully personalized and eclectic station.

My favourite stations I created are:

Yahoo Music Videos

A couple weeks ago I was trying to hear that insipidly catchy “Grace Kelly” song and stumbled upon Yahoo Music Videos. It has a lot of videos, mostly popular music, that you can watch on demand.

Now that MTV & MuchMusic don’t actually play many videos any more, this was a blast from the past for me. I felt like I was reliving my youth - rushing home from school to see the only video show available “Toronto Rocks” with John Majhor.

While it was fun to see videos by the likes of the Pussycat Dolls, getting to see Thriller, Hungry Like the Wolf or Girls Just Wanna Have Fun again (for their kitsch appeal only, seriously) would be a real treat!

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Internext

The beginning of new year always brings some predictions for the future. Globe and Mail journalist Ivor Tossel gives his five predictions in his article "What's Next on the Net".

For the time-pressed, here are his five predictions:

1) The Internet will be everywhere
2. The Internet will know where you are.
3. The Internet you know is going to look pretty quaint
4. The Internet will look back at you. (widespread videoconferencing)
5. The Internet will get a little respect.