But is content king?  If you look at the most successful brands and companies, I don’t think so.  It depends partly on how you define what a content company is:

• Google: doesn’t own, generate or create the majority of its content.  It seeks it out, takes a copy and indexes it
• Facebook: doesn’t own, generate or create content.  It provides tools for creating it
• Twitter: doesn’t own, generate or create content.  It provides a tool for creating it
• Microsoft: doesn’t own, generate or create content (on the whole, especially the profit-generating unts of Windows and Office).  It provides tools for generating it
• Apple: doesn’t own, generate or create content (on the whole).  Again, its profit-generating units are those that participate in revenue from other people’s content

… and so on.  There is a pattern, at least in the digital giants, for companies that make or provide tools or platforms to be the most valuable ones.

For example, out of the top 10 sites on Alexa’s global traffic list, only 2 could be said to be content…

… and from Interbrand’s best global brand list, only Disney sneaks in at number 10 with a real content pitch.

So maybe content can create kings (for Google et al would be nothing without it, arguably), but it isn’t a king itself.

Reading = interpreting drawings
Writing in symbols or pictures to communicate messages started some 70,000 years ago they reckon, with the first proven examples about  7,000BC.  An example of such writing from the “Tartaria Tablets“, dating from 5300 BC:

So at that stage reading was about cartoons, pretty much…

Reading = interpreting symbols
Symbols (otherwise called glyphs) that stand for something abstract – like letters, then emerged around 3000BC.  The “Vinca Symbols” are one of the first steps towards what we know today as an alphabet:

Phonetic writing (where characters represent sounds, which in turn represent names for things) then evolved from tablets (oh yes, the iPad of its day) to books to newspapers to magazines.  Through rock to papyrus to paper, from printing press to colour laser.

Reading = text + image + video
But letters aren’t enough.  Reading today means getting informtion from a screen full of text, images and video.  Ebooks aside (more about that in my next post), that’s what the current generation means reading.

NEAR FUTURE: Reading = interacting
Even today’s state-of-the art reading (the internet) is lean-forward and stare, with the occasional click (or finger swipe) to navigate around content.  We like to think of it as interactive, but really its static.  It may be targeted or personalized, but usually barely so. 

For the first step towards truly interactive content, and the next phase of writing and reading, take a look at the Microsoft Courier demo below.  Apart from making Apple’s iHype (iPad) seem like a brick, it feels to me that this is the dawn of Personal.

(http://www.viddler.com/simple_on_site/dec196af)  This will change reading forever.

Reading = dead?
Let’s not forget reading is just a way of getting information into our brains.

The problems with text (specifically our Roman alphabet) are:

• Too many languages, too much translation effort.  We all travel to much to not share a language
• Text doesn’t  convey tone/intent/emotion/color
• Text is slow to absorb and inefficient
• Spelling is clumsy (like txt spk, which iznt gr8, u no)

 Text, images, audio and video wil merge – into something new.  Something more efficient.  “Reading” will be what slow-minded people of the past did.

Communication will happen in its most efficient possible way (which has always be the case) – likely directly into our brains in a format perfectly suited to our neurons.

Reading, as we know it, will be dead.  Even the written word may fall by the wayside.

Wikipedia defines realtime as “when things respond to events as they occur“.  Well, I respond to events as they occur to me, but sometimes hours or days late…   Dictionary.com defines it as “of or pertaining to applications in which the computer must respond as rapidly as required by the user or necessitated by the process being controlled.”  Hm.  Well – if the user required a response only the next day, would that still be realtime?  Selecting “shutdown” on my PC shuts the PC down in about 5 minutes, which when I’ve walked away from the PC is as rapidly as required, but is hardly realtime.

It seems like the realtime I thought I knew is actually some concept which spans almost any sort of delay.  My definition would be something much closer to “simultaneous” or “directly after”. In other words, within a short enough time-period that an average observer would say that the result/response happened right after the cause. 

So if I click a mouse button to select something on screen, I expect that something to respond immediately.

And what is immediate?  Well, as an example in tests of human reaction time (often by catching a falling ruler between finger tips), the average human reaction time tends to be in the range of 0.2 seconds, or 200 milliseconds.  So it might be fair to say that anything that happens within that time period would be pretty immediate, or without perceptible delay.

So given that definition of realtime, what is ACTUALLY realtime?

- Twitter is mainly not as most updates are actually read out-of-sync
- SMS and email are mosty not, for the same reason
- Communicating by talking IS generally realtime
- Google’s search is barely realtime, if at all – it’s just very recent
- The feedback we get from machines can be realtime – from clicking on things, to turning the steering wheel, to turning on a light….

Actually, thinking through the options – there’s not much in life that is actually realtime…

So, 5bn people aren’t internet users, versus 1.7bn who are (numbers courtesy of World Internet Stats).  A significant majority of the world’s current population who wouldn’t know a tweet from a poke, let alone who are actively using the internet for any purpose whatsoever.

Next, let’s assume that really wired internet users are members of one of a couple of key sites: Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter.  Sure, we could add MySpace, Orkut and so on into the mix, but it’s fairly obvious that the crossover between the different sites is going to be heavy – i.e. most Twitter users will have a facebook account, listen to spotify, whatever whatever.  Another high-tech infographic for your enlightenment:

(The twitter number I’ve derived from various sources, the other figures are from the sites’ own published stats)

Finally, here are a couple of other indicative statistics to keep in mind:

• The median number of tweets per twitter user is 1.  The vast majority of twitter users have bouts of occasional activity, and either give up/stop or take long periods off.  Only a few could probably be classified as very active – maybe less than 1 million?
• Even in the UK 10 million people still don’t have an internet connection.  That means 1/6th of the country who couldn’t even access it if they felt they wanted to.  And of the rest, my wager would be another 30-40million are very light users.

Obviously I’m not saying any of this to try and claim the “internet” is dead or broken or flawed.  The fact facebook has 300m accounts is hugely impressive, and a feat not achieved by any business before that quickly.   In fact, I’m saying the opposite: I’m underlining the huge potential still wrapped up in its growth, despite few people in our worlds talking about that growth, and despite the temptation to assume that everyone is equally tech savvy.

I’m fully aware that those with businesses exposed to BRIC countries know all this – and are building their businesses based on this potential growth.  But I’m also confronted daily with a significant section of the web-culture in the UK/US (including me) who can take a fully-wired society for granted.

Back in 1995 when I started my first company (a web agency) I thought then that maybe I was too late…!  Fact is, we’re still all very early to the game.

Who cares???

I wrote a while ago about the Palm Pre (now available in the UK) unifying messaging.   It makes sense – all your messages to me are as one.   

The thing is, I don’t care how your message arrives.  If I’m at my work PC, sure a Skype message is handy, it’s right there.  In a meeting?  Email is pretty good.  On a train with just my Blackberry – well, any mobile message works.   But really, whether to message me in LinkedIn, Twitter, email - it doesn’t matter, it just makes your and my life harder working out which one to use.  We’re supposed to be in a new bright era of unparalleled communications - but, it’s actually a mess. 

Twitter?  Handy when I have Tweetdeck open.  And crazy when I get alerted to new messages by email (talk about duplication).  Can I be bothered to install twitter clients on my Blackberry so I have yet another format of message to read?  Is a tweet any more useful than a Skype IM?  Do I remember whether you told me about some new great thing via MSN rather than email?  No, no and no!

Sure, there are different ways you might want to message – just to me, just to our group of friends/interest group, or to the world including me.   But that doesn’t need 10 different platforms, 10 different interfaces, 10 apps on my iPhone (disclaimer: I don’t  have an iPhone, this guy outlines the reasons why pretty well).   It just needs a simple setting connected to the message: like a “purpose” or “audience” label.

We’re running a real risk of losing out on the benefits of realtime communication by getting caught up in new brands that merely provide a way of sending messages (I’m looking at you, Twitter), rather than ways of getting that message to me in the most appropriate, useful, immediate way. 

It’s a little bit like providing gas to my house in pipes that are colourful, light up, have cute names, and make their journey via London’s top landmarks.  I don’t care – I just want the gas that comes out of the end, and feeds my boiler and oven.  Even more than that, I just want the heating it enables, and the food that comes out of the oven.  So, even if the gas itself is replaced by some new energy source, I’d be just as happy.

It’s the message that counts, not the medium.

These days it’s being touted as, amongst other things, the reason for the downfall of the newspaper industry.   As in the table below, only ONE of the UK national papers (the Daily Star, more of a celeb-paper than a newspaper) is up year-on-year in terms of circulation, and some are falling by as much as 15%. 

So what does “information wants to be free” actually mean?  As far as I can tell, the raw data that is the news (i.e. what’s happened) isn’t something the general public are any more willing to pay for.  As long as there are ways to subsidize the collection (or recycling) of news online, some or all of it will be offered free, and therefore no-one will be willing to pay for any of it. 

Some commentators bite back with comparisons like “Information doesn’t want to be free any more than gasoline wants to be free” – which is patently nonsense.   If I could find a business model to make gasoline free, gasoline would be free, almost overnight, everwhere. For instance, if I when filling my car up I watched 5 ads, filled out a long personal questionnaire, and did my weekly online shopping with an advertiser provider – there’s my free gasoline, job done.

The problem is in part that information covers a huge array of things: from “what time is it?” to “which stock should I buy” – and a whole complicated spectrum in-between.  And no-one can draw a line to say where the charging should begin.

The standard response of newspapers is that they don’t actually present the news – they present a mix of news, analysis, and “premium” news such as financial information or sports results, and so on.   It’s a form of entertainment.  Here’s my take on that:

• I reject the “premium” notion, as all news suffers from the same free-effect: if someone somewhere is willing to offer it for free, everyone everywhere expects to get it for free.  Even the FT online has only got around 117,000 paying subscribers around the world
• Analysis indicates that someone (or some people) who are smart have spent (chargeable) time processing the news, and coming up with useful views, slants and summaries - that we ourselves couldn’t or wouldn’t want to do.  It might be valid, but then 1billion blogs, including this one, do the analysis piece (if you can call it that in my case) and give it away.  Citizen journalists take the photos (more quickly).  It may not be as high quality – but then neither is the video on YouTube, and look where that got it
• The entertainmentpiece is probably the piece the Daily Star has got right – light on the news, heavy on entertaining, light and untroubling content

So what can the newspapers actually do?

1. Put up a “pay wall” so high that people actually turn back to cheaper print: As in the Newport Daily News (http://www.newsweek.com/id/214607).   I think this is a crazyand short-term idea.  In fact a pay wall of any kind is a crazy idea.  The common sentiment is that if Murdoch does it, everyone will have to do it.  But that’s bizarre thinking.  If Murdoch and everyone else puts up a pay wall, I’m launching a free newspaper, and boy am I going to get a lot of traffic.

2. Find smarter ways of monetising content – contextual ads are okay, but tighter links into other ways that consumers spend online is smarter.  This is my favorite approach.  Newspapers still (just) have a great mixture of brand, loyalty, customers and quality editorial staff  – and can churn out the content to support the revenue models to keep the industry alive.

3. Forget chasing the “next big charging thing”like ereaders.  Ereaders will very soon (if Apple has its way, by next year) be always-on web terminals.  Same story, same argument, and same free

4. Create entertainment products, like the Daily Star.  That seems to work, still.   But that may in part be because the audience of the Daily Star has yet to become as fully web-enabled, and in time too that advantage will erode

5. Realise that free means “free to the consumer”, not “completely without revenue”

In conclusion, I’m on the “information wants to be free” side, but absolutely don’t believe that means that there won’t be revenue models or a place for what we today know as newspapers.  In fact, as information power-houses, they’re really well positioned to take advantage of digital.  If only they’d just focus more on that, and less on lamenting the demise of paper and ink.

People have started talking about a new search engine. 

Granted, it isn’t with the same “HAVE YOU SEEN HOW GREAT THIS IS?” enthusiasm that started Google’s viral growth.  It’s more of a “I kind of like the front page images”, or “you know, the results aren’t too bad” groundswell.  Microsoft, compete.com and various other are claiming good growth, and the graph I like to show every so often (which includes cuil.com and wolframalpha.com) is a good look for them (As predicted, both of the others are now on a very large downturn)

Then, something even more interesting happened, for me: I chose to do a search on Bing.com instead of Google.  And I got better results.  Yes, better results.

Okay, they were only better for the first page, and “better” is a subjective measure here, but that’s how Google caught on – by getting the first 5 results better, with less spam and less irrelevance.  Sure, Bing is subject to less “gaming” than Google is, and that might just be the explanation.  But I get the feeling that something, just a little something interesting is happening here.  It’s no revolution yet (which is a significant shame), but there’s an outside chance it’s the beginnings of one.

Great photography on the home page combined with interesting facts is fun, sure.  And good search results are crucial, that’s a given.  But MS needs to up the ante, they’ve got an opportunity now where the incumbent is feeling a bit tired and staid despite their incredible efforts to innovate.  And Microsoft could just, at a long shot, grab some market share back.  Here’s some freebie tips, Microsoft:

1. Target the home page images so they’re relevant to me 
2. Get rid of the in-context popups next to search results
3. Break out of the Google-style search results listings – a link and two lines of text isn’t very innovative
4. Given that most people (79%) click on results 1-3, make these results richer, with more information
5. What’s with the white space (on the right as below)?

Finally, to follow up on my predictions for Wolframalpha and Cuil, as they are the only other substantial pretenders from the “new” school of search.  It is a shame that they didn’t make it, but it does underline the difficulty of the task:

Firstly, I hope they don’t do a Cuil, for their sake.  Cuil’s growth graph (sic) is below:

Secondly, they’re obviously not a search engine in the traditional sense.  Putting them up against Google doesn’t actually mean much, as there is currently little comparision in what the two sites do.  Their example searches (Eb major scale, Doppler shift 300Hz, 40gal primer) demonstrate that their target market (or at least the market they are likely to attract) isn’t the same – it’s a much smaller subset of scientific, mathematical or academic audiences.   In addition, none (or few?) searches lead to any outside results.  Wolfram is clearly trying to present “knowledge”, so perhaps in their eyes that’s the whole point – they are not actually a Google competitor at all.

Thirdly, there is a “Google can do this too” risk.  Google does a great job of additional, simple, knowledge-based tasks.  It knows that if you search for “25 GBP in USD” or “twenty five pounds in dollars” you want the value of 25 British pounds in US Dollars.   Wolfram does the same, and if you wait a while, you get a historical graph and a table that for some reason shows you the UK pound against the Swiss France, Chinese Yuan and Norwegian Kroner (but nothing else).  Then at the bottom of the page you get the following message:

That’s not a very mass-market friendly message – which I think sort of summarizes the WolframAlpha issue.  It’s too rarified, and its neat tricks (some of which are, without a doubt, neat), are of appeal to a very small subsection of the market.   Are they just really some other tools (like a dictionary, financial information and science facts) with a new front end? Cuil’s selling point (indexing more than Google) wasn’t a benefit to the mass-market either – and their search results didn’t compete in terms of usefulness (or user-friendliness) with Google.

For most “normal” searches, WolframAlpha responds with “Wolfram|Alpha isn’t sure what to do with your input David Tort Droid / 7 Eleven mp3 album “.   Appart from the fact that most people won’t understand what “input” means in this context, this does mean most of the audience will switch off, and not come back.  It’ll be interesting to see if WA can (or will) change quickly enough to keep the PR momentum going – or if it will become a niche provider to mathematicians, chemists and those who want some neatly-formatted knowledge from various sources, brought together in one site.

I think realtime reporting IS the future, and dashboards that show live, pushed information are going to be ever more ubiquitous.  Hardly any exist right now, but Sprint as part of its “now” marketing campaign has put together a great live dashboard over at http://now.sprint.com/widget/

In addition to more common widgets from World Population to “top words being used online”, there are a bunch more, such as “911 calls being made” to “sticky notes being produced” to “transplants today”.  Some of the more amusing ones are:

- A “push now” button, which (predictably) does nothing, but reports that 66,713 other people have clicked it
- “You, now”, which takes your webcam feed to show you, now
- A “habitable planets” counter

While you’re browsing all of that, a female voiceover provides more realtime data, such as  ”The earth will travel 18 miles between right now… and now”

Genius, and here’s hoping more useful versions come along soon to gadgets near me.

The recent rise-and-rise of Spotify indicates one thing to me: the liberation of content.  What do I mean by that?  I mean owning digital stuff on “hard” physical media that we can reach out and touch, and put in our bags, is on the way out.

Actually owning the hard drive that the data is stored on, or the DVD/Blue-Ray/CD/SD will be very early2000′s.   A friend of mine, not long out of college, has never, and will probably never, buy a CD or a DVD.  I still buy DVDs, but only because the alternative (movies-on-demand) doesn’t always offer the movies I actually want to see.  When I get home and unpack the disc, it’s a pain to actually get it up and running (made worse by having lost the DVD remote control).  I hate it, and the moment someone releases a competent iTunes for movies (aside from Sky, which I can’t get where I am), I’ll buy it.

So, my predictions are:

• Spotify will do well until iTunes “liberates” their music
• Music, Movies and Images will (and are) be the first content to be stored remotely to the user
• Blue-Ray was a (very expensive and late) last-step in circular spinning discs
• Cloud computing WILL take off, although storage for some time will be with “trusted” providers rather than just “out there somewhere”
• The change will take longer than we hope, but less time than we expect (answers on a postcard if that makes sense)