Paul Walsh, the Irish Opportunist

This post was inspired by a debate taking place on the Mobile Monday London forum. It has never been this easy to predict mobile. It has become increasingly easy since the first release of MMS (picture messaging) in 2002, which almost revolutised how users consumed content on mobile phones.

We have some historical data to go from when trying to predict the next few years of Mobile - in terms of connection speeds to help mass adoption of Mobile Web anyway.

Trying to predict mobile in 2015 is a little too far for my liking. I’d have to lay on a bed and dream about something so far stretched that most would probably laugh at. Some of my greatest failures include not having the balls to execute ideas because of colleagues laughing at them - such as charging hotels and restaurants for online advertising. Long story which I won’t bore you with. Instead, I’ll bore you with another story about connection speeds. For the sake of the record, I’m not bragging - it’s easy to say you had ideas, it’s another to execute them.

Some historical data which may help.

During the early days of the Web I remember writing modem strings to help get the best out of 1200bps modems. Before that I was using them to download interest rates from a bank in Paris to a bank in Dublin - all I knew was that some machine made noise and it all just happened.

We were delighted to eventually see the delivery of 33.6k modems after having 28.8k for so long. We were told by BT that it was *technically impossible* to get anything faster down a phone line. Then, one day, BT came back and said “hey, we’ve managed to squeeze 56k by reducing the line noise”.

1200bps to 56k happened between 1995 (roughly) and 1997. That’s just 2 years.

In 2002 the rollout of Broadband helped to achieve a major spike in users on the Web. I wasn’t involved in that, but some of my friends were, and still are.

So, it took about 5 years to make a huge jump in speed to help accelerate mass adoption of the Web. If we consider that the growth in mobile technology (and possibly technology in general) today is just twice that of Internet technology during the mid to late 90’s, we should see a major spike in mass adoption for mobile web in about 2 to 3 years. This argument is boosted in my opinion, by our generation’s knowledge and experience and the newer generation’s expectations.

Explaining the benefits/possibilities of the Web during the early days was much more difficult than it is to explain the benefits/possibilities of accessing the Web via a mobile today.

The future is bright, the future is not Orange or any other Operator. If this isn’t realised soon, Operators will end up like AOL - i.e. going out of business holding onto old business models

There’s a rumour going around Apple releasing the new iPhone with a built-in SIM. If this were true, it would prohibit customers from swapping with other SIMs, like MAXroam for example - to avail of cheap roaming charges. For me, it would mean the end of my live video streaming with Qik on the Nokia N95. I don’t just swap SIMs, I also swap phones to avail of different features. So, the impact would have been quite significant for a lot of people. So severe, it would have stopped me from opting for the free upgrade in July when it hits the UK market.

The good news is that the rumour is not true. I’ve taken the image, which clearly shows the SIM tray, from the official Apple Web site.

In short, I love Apple products. I hate Apple corporate attitude.

Why I love Apple products

mobileme, Apple’s rebrand of .mac is truly remarkable. It appitmises epitomizes everything about its products. They just work. They’re extremely easy to use and interoperability between each product is seamless. (mobileme is a simple way to keep your office/home computers and iPhone synchronized all of the time.)

Check out the video demo of mobileme not only for insight to the service, but for the best explanation of ‘the cloud’ I have ever seen.

Why I hate Apple corporate attitude

Steve Clayton summed it up beautifully on Twitter by saying

if I go work for Apple this would be our last convesation. only one steve allowed to talk at Apple and it’s a 1 way convo! Check out his original message on Twitter.

This is extremely uncharacteristic of Steve. Every presentation I’ve seen him deliver includes plenty of Apple and Google slides. In fact, he uses Apple iTunes as a way of explaining in plain English, what the long tail means. Have you ever witnessed employees at either Apple or Google say anything positive about Microsoft, let alone use its products in a presentation to demonstrate a point.

Firstly, there are no missing features in the new iPhone. Well, as far as Apple is concerned anyway. They haven’t done anything different to any other handset vendor - how else are they to encourage consumers to buy the next release and the next and then the next… Nokia is actually the worst offender in my opinion. When has Nokia for example, ever released a device with everything you ever wanted - without the need to auction one of your internal organs to buy one. Which brings me onto my next point, how can anyone have anything negative to say about the new pricing structure? It’s free on certain tariffs. I think the same skeptics want everything for free in life and forget that every other vendor charge through the nose for high end devices.

It’s ridiculous (embarrassing even) to hear an audience applaud Steve Jobs announce a flush socket for a headset. It’s something that should have come in the first release. Get a life.

I’m a loyal customer of Apple but it’s just one (of the smallest) players on the field. It might be a George Best of our industry, but it’s still one player. I’m looking forward to the rest of the vendors playing catch-up to help encourage mainstream adoption of Web enabled phones at a reasonable price.

Regarding an improvement to the development community ecosystem I’ve been reading on the Mobile Monday email list - I don’t see a major change - major change occurred with the release of the first iPhone. For some reason, most people need to see a screen shot before they’ll believe what’s coming. The first iPhone changed the development community’s perception with respect to ‘how’ consumers will consume content. I remember when the *vast majority* of public comment from the mobile development community on mobile Web for example, was “it will never happen anytime soon, long live WAP’”. That was up to the actual release of the iPhone. After which, the comments were “it’s too expensive”, “it’s too slow”…

It’s not rocket science. Nor does it take a fortune teller to see that mobile technology is not only changing at incredible speed, but that the speed at which change occurs, is also gaining momentum all the time. Hope that last sentence makes sense Furthermore, connection speeds are improving, pricing is coming down and the interface is improving. So, nothing different to the landscape changes we witnessed on the Web during the mid 90’s.

I’m delighted to see a new 3G enabled iPhone, as mine, which currently supports EDGE (slower connection speed) only works satisfactorily when there’s an EDGE connection available. Without one, the connection speed is either too slow to download email or browse the Web, or it dies altogether. The new version is also more supportive of the development community. This means you won’t have to unlock your phone to download non-Apple applications. Check out Twinkle if you’re a Twitter user - it’s fantastic. The downside is that we’re going to see Apple-specific applications, meaning developers have yet another non-standard device that needs to be ported.

It’s time to change the copyright law.

According to Jemima Kiss

Viacom’s $1bn lawsuit against popular video sharing site YouTube has escalated further, with parent company Google filing court papers in the US claiming the case could threaten the free exchange of online information.

Read more about what Jemima thinks on her blog.

I say ‘bullshit’ to Google. The only thing the lawsuit threatens is Google’s advertising revenue. Google is an advertising company, generating revenue from placing advertisements around other people’s content. Search results contain the title and description of each Web site. None of that content belongs to Google. Google doesn’t particularly care about search, per say. It cares about generating revenue by selling search keywords to the highest bidder. Ok, there’s a little intelligence in there to ensure some relevance is considered - but not a lot. Certainly not enough to make search trustworthy or relevant.

So, it came as no surprise to me, that Satan would do the same with YouTube. Viacom has every right to sue Google. It’s about time it got a taste of what Microsoft has to live with every year.

For a slightly less anger-led opinion, I’ve published below, a post I wrote on Segala’s blog on March 19th, 2007.

After writing the post below, the project coordinator for ACAP left the following comment

ACAP is entirely committed to the principle that we will not reinvent anything unnecessarily. On the other hand, until we have completed our requirements work, it would be entirely inappropriate for us to commit to use any particular technical solution. POWDER was already on our radar, and will continue to be so.

I met them shortly afterwards and felt like they were going to do what Google told them to do, irrespective of the fact that current technologies may provide the right solution. Yes. It sounds dumb to me too. It really frustrates me to hear about technologies and standards being introduced on the back of what one company wants, just because of its size.

Original post, dated March 19th, 2007

I received an email from Paul Miller of Talis yesterday (he obviously doesn’t stop working either!), bringing to my attention, an article in the Independent about the saga between Viacom and Google. Paul has written a blog post about this also.

Viacom, owner of Paramount, studios and MTV says that Google has breached its copyright 1.5 billion times by allowing YouTube users to share video clips. And the outcome of the $1bn lawsuit may have a knock on effect for newspapers and blogs. So, newspapers such as the Guardian and Independent and bloggers such as TechCrunch, Robert Scoble, ReadWrite/Web and Vecosys better watch the outcome of this lawsuit.

Make sure you read beyond the quote as I go on to talk about *the* solution to this problem.

According to the Independent (original article)

The case, which accuses Google’s YouTube video-sharing site of building “a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others’ creative works”, has the potential to redefine how content is used on the internet. “If it goes to court, this will be the biggest case since Napster [the music-sharing website shut down by litigation in 2002],” says Edgar Forbes, senior lecturer in media law and intellectual property at Bournemouth University.

[snip]

Bloggers and websites increasingly use newspaper articles to attract users, provoke debate and sell advertising on their sites. “This is a big issue,” says Larry Kilman of the World Association of Newspapers. “If a company like Google is using content and selling advertisements around it, that is of concern to many newspapers and publishers.” The association, with partners including the global news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP), Macmillan Publishers and Independent News & Media (parent group of The Independent on Sunday), is working to create an international protocol to regulate online use of newspaper content.

The Automated Content Access Protocol (Acap) would let owners of published content communicate permission information automatically in a form recognised by internet search engines. This would allow legitimate online users to comply easily and quickly with copyright law. Lawyers say such an international standard would be immensely useful. But making it work requires absolute clarity about what is protected by copyright and how it can be enforced.

Paul M. brought this to my attention because of the ACAP (Automated Content Access Protocol) connection. What ACAP is looking to achieve is exactly the type of use case that we have in mind for Content Labels .

In fact, I discussed this particular use case with Philip Hallam-Baker, Chief Scientist at VeriSign over dinner last year. Philip told me of their proposed (and very propritary) solution with Microsoft before the launch of IE7. I remember saying that what VeriSign could do to combat Phishing for $800 per certificate, Segala could do for $8 using Content Labels <g>

Jemima Kiss wrote an article about Content Labels, covering some of the major use cases in the Guardian today. Perhaps Jemima will write about Segala’s proposed solution for ACAP soon…

According to Acap’s homepage

ACAP will enable the providers of all types of content published on the World Wide Web to communicate permissions information (relating to access and use of that content) in a form that can be automatically recognized and interpreted, so that business partners can systematically comply with the publishers’ policies. In the first instance, ACAP will provide a framework that will allow any publisher, large or small, to express access and use policies in a language that search engines’ robot “spiders” can be taught to understand. It is anticipated that, in future, the scope of ACAP will be extended to other business relationships and other media types.

As a result, it will be possible for publishers to make more content available to users through the search engines, and to continue to innovate in the development of business models for network publishing.

I hope they’re not spending too much time and money on developing a new ’standard’ for which there is a solution already, a solution that is going to be the standard for labelling content on the Web (and potentially for mobile and TV). In short, Content Labels does exactly what ACAP want to achieve.

Known within the W3C as POWDER (Protocol for Web Description Resources), Content Labels is moving onto a full recommendation track. This means our Content Labels are set to become the standard method for content classification on the Web. The W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) is responsible for creating standards such as HTML and WAI Guidelines. This helps to ensure that our method of labelling content is (beyond) scalable and importantly free or low in cost.

Furthermore, Content Labels (I mean POWDER, sorry, I can’t get used to the new name), will be proposed as a replacement for PICS. PICS is the old/out dated W3C recommendation still in use by Internet Explorer for Site Advisor.

I came up with the idea of contentlabel.org to help organisations like ACAP adopt a system for its own code of conduct almost immediately and seamlessly. It also helps industry create new codes of conduct for which Content Labels will be created, as reported by the Guardian.

There are too many proprietary technologies and so-called standards looking to achieve the same goal. I’m not saying for a second that this is what ACAP is trying to do, but let’s not create another standard if it’s not necessary please. In fact, I’ve already been introduced (by email) to ACAP’s project coordinator and technical project manager and look forward to hearing from them.

I’ll write a separate post which looks at all the current attempts at enabling more trust on the Web using ‘a’ standard. For now, I must catch a train into an Internet People event.