Geektastik

Computerworld’s Craig Mathias wrote a nice opinion piece criticizing the idea of free citywide WiFi access.

But mostly I objected to government getting involved in what should be the province of the private sector and the (admittedly flawed) competitive free market. Sure, it’s enticing to think that a wireless telecommunications service, and broadband at that, could be made available for free. But since base stations and network management systems and such are clearly not free, what we’re really talking about here is whether one group of residents (and usually visitors) should be forced to pay more in taxes or fees so that others can pay less or, if the system is truly free, nothing.

He also points out that no one expects other telecommunications services, like phone service, for free, so expecting WiFi to be free gets in the way of systems that should be universal but paid.

My own take is that there already are soooo many problems with how the FCC and other government agencies regulate regular broadcast airwaves. I see no problem, and in fact encourage, private businesses to offer a uniform and wide-reaching system of paid-for wireless Internet access that goes beyond the craptacular “hotspots” offered by the likes of T-Mobile et al.

The municipalities would be involved just like they’re already involved in broadcast media, but no more. They’re not service providers, and would make poor ones if forced into the role.

Why Is iPhone Better? Here’s My Story…
The point of the story is that despite being somewhat deficient in terms of hardware relative to some enterprise phones, this thing is designed to make my life easier. I have owned many smart phones, most of which ran Windows Mobile in one way, shape or form. I even had a “local restaurants” application specifically for my last smart phone that I used a few times. I was NEVER able to accomplish ANYTHING in 90 seconds. So, at this point I don’t care that EDGE is slow – I was able to do what I needed to do on the EDGE network in 90 seconds while waiting for a train to pass – I wasn’t able to do that with the fastest EVDO tetherable enterprise-class Smart Phone on the market.

Ok ok, I know I’ve been a little MIA recently, but what with the expanded business and new site and traveling, the blog has unfortunately suffered (along with my gym discipline, but that’s another story).

Anyway, Ajit Jaokar at Open Gardens has a great two-part article called Enterprise 2.0 ROI (part 1, part 2).

Basing his articles on Tim O’Reilley and McKinsey’s recent comments about Enterprise being the future of Web 2.0, Jaokar looks at what he calls the “ROI of Enterprise 2.0″ – the real payoffs and efficiencies of the Internet as a platform for enterprise.

The first part talks about the basic principles behind the idea, and quotes Dion Hinchcliffe’s summary of Office 2.0 vs Enterprise 2.0:
Office 2.0 represents the increasing use of browser-based software in the office, while Enterprise 2.0 is more Web 2.0-ish in that it specifically describes the use of freeform, emergent, social software to conduct collaboration and share knowledge.

The second part emphasizes the importance of the person/blogger over the technology/tool. Enterprise 2.0, he argues, is all about relationships rather than technologies like wikis.

He points to people like Robert Scoble as examples of the “rise of the corporate individual” and the “corporate fan base.”

Of course I agree that the human face is paramount, and I am definitely for the emphasis on relationships. But it shouldn’t be overlooked that tools like wikis and other web 2.0 technologies can facilitate the human relationships by encouraging and easing the conversation between the corporate individual and the corporate fan base.

Scoble’s Blog Business Conference next month will focus on this symbiotic relationship. I’ll be going; who else will be there?

Thoughts on this issue, or what you’re expecting at the conference?

The Order of the Science Scouts of Exemplary Repute and Above-Average Physique has a bunch of new badges. As such, I award myself the following, with badge descriptions followed by my reasons:

The “talking science” badge: Required for all members. Assumes the recipient conducts himself/herself in such a manner as to talk science whenever he/she gets the chance. Not easily fazed by looks of disinterest from friends of the act of “zoning out” by well-intentioned loved ones. — Duh, if I was capable of not talking about geeky science stuff, or of shutting up when everyone’s eyes are rolling out of their heads, I wouldn’t be geektastik, now would I?

The “I blog about science” badge: In which the recipient maintains a blog where at least a quarter of the material is about science. — Self-explanatory, no?

The “I may look like a scientist but I’m actually also a ninja” badge: Lethal when in combination with the “destroyer of quackery” badge. — Fact: The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

The “world’s foremost expert on an obscure subject” badge: In which the recipient is the leading expert in a field that few others share an interest in. — Okay, so it’s not scientific field, and I’m not a leader in it, but I did major in Comparative Literature, specializing in the literature of former French, Spanish, and British colonies in the Caribbean, all in original languages.

The “non-explainer” badge (LEVEL I): Where the recipient can no longer explain what they do to their parents. — I’m a “Technology & Communications Consultant.” Yeah.

Dave Ng is Director of the Advanced Molecular Biology Lab, the educational arm of University of British Columbia’s Michael Smith labs. He also edits the Science Creative Quarterly, the flagship publication of the O.O.T.S.S.O.E.R.A.A.A.P. (or simply, “the Science Scouts”).

UPDATE: I have been trying to format pictures of the actual badges, but my blog editor is being annoying. Anyway…

Ladies and gentlegeeks, I give you the Geekster Moleskine.

Read/Write Web has two posts today that deal with the content and personalization. The first is Alex Iskold’s look at the vertical expansion of social networks, which he prefaces with a distinction between generic networks (which “exist primarily to keep in touch”) and specialized networks (in which “people are brought together based on the specific common interest”). E.g. MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn vs. del.icio.us, Flickr, LibraryThing and Flixster.

The main advantage of a specialized network is that it can offer a better user experience. Because of its specialty its user interface can be more focused and rich… The disadvantage of specialized networks is that they are somewhat limited to their specialty.

Sramana Mitra then offers a look at Yahoo! Travel based on the Web 3.0 framework, coming to the conclusion that it’s “heavy on content, light on personalization.” The site integrates Flickr, allowing users to share their travel photos, but is otherwise lagging in community features, Mitra found. In addition, “there is no personalization based on travel styles…budget ranges, amenity requirements, etc.”

Paper travel guides have always provided this sort of segmentation information. However, websites have always the unique advantage of being able to provide better search and personalization facilities, which so far remains unaddressed. It is also Yahoo’s greatest opportunity for strong differentiation in a market landscape that is fast standardizing.

These articles raise the question about what users want from their online experience – breadth or depth? Facebook’s photo-sharing and event-planning features lag behind specialized sites, but the aggregation of features means Facebook’s larger membership use these features anyway. But Mitra suggests that greater success for Yahoo! Travel will come from increased personalization highly specific to users, rather than the “see how much we know about everything, relevant or not” approach.

So what is the real wave of the future, higher specialization or more aggregation?

Om Malik at GigaOM just posted about new software from FON that turns a Mac (Intel-based machines) or a Linux computer (preferably Ubuntu-based) into a FON spot.

FON is a share-your-Wi-Fi service company that announced a deal with Time Warner Cable earlier this week. Om goes on to discuss what you can and cannot share, and some alternatives to FON including Whisher, which launched at DEMO, and others.

The issue this raises for me, though, is whether you should be allowed to share your Wi-Fi connection with whomever you please. Copyright laws currently prevent bars, for example, from showing a pay-per-view boxing match on a bunch of TVs without paying special (and exorbitant) fees, even if there’s no cover charge at that bar. But I can invite a bunch of friends over to my house to watch the same boxing match
, and HBO probably isn’t going to send the lawyers.

People aren’t charging for FON spots (that I know). Does it relate to scale, then? Does Wi-Fi sharing only become and issue when I have a connection powerful enough to rival, say, a T-Mobile Hot Spot? Or should I be able to share my legally purchased internet connection with whomever I please?

Among the maelstrom of criticism in the wake of Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick, the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein offered up this pearl (get it?) of wisdom in his recent column:

But now, precisely because of its success, it’s fair to ask if Google should be barred from furthering its dominance through acquisitions or collaborations…

There may never have been a Google without the government’s antitrust suit that prevented Microsoft from crushing upstart rivals. By the same principle, isn’t it time to begin restraining Google to increase the odds another Google will come along?

Wait, wait, let me get this straight: you root for a company that grows organically and is successful for a lot of good reasons, and manages to (mostly) “not be evil”…but only up to a point. Then they should voluntarily stop growing, especially by acquiring highly successful companies like YouTube and DoubleClick with a “gusher of profits [enabling them] to outbid rivals.”

For serious?

Beyond the obvious “I only liked that indie band until they were popular” reverse snobbery, I share Paul Kedrosky’s view:

If Microsoft could have crushed Google it would have, and the DoJ’s antitrust suit didn’t do a damn thing to stop it. Google simply out-innovated Microsoft, fair and square.

Booyakasha.