Monday, March 31, 2008

Technology is a catalyst for improving life

The wisdom in “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” also applies to “Technology is in the experience of the recipient.” Arthur C. Clark maintained that “Technology is indistinguishable from magic.” R. Buckminster Fuller’s position was that “Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons”. Albert Einstein said that “Technology has exceeded our humanity.” Generation X and Y express their opinion through the words “Technology is cool.” Like beauty, technology has as many meanings as there are lives on this earth.

This diversity in meaning has existed forever for every thing that has improved human life. While many early scriptures presented “Fire” as a representation of the Almighty or as a gift from the Almighty to mankind, mankind values fire for the heat it provides and the creativity it has unleashed. Over the years, we have figured out how to use fire for comfort, for increasing our food supply by cooking before eating, for keeping predators at bay and even for disposing all traces of what we dislike and like. Fire was a hot technology many eons ago but is not on our technology radar today because its benefits are widely available and as a result, our creative attention has shifted away from fire.

Life, however, poses different challenges in different parts of the world. In much of the developed world, electricity has almost gained the status of a human right. In the developing and rural world where electricity is a rare and uncertain commodity but whose potential to improve life is accepted, creative minds are focused on electrification technologies. In a similar vein, as technologies that defined the manufacturing age loose attention of minds in the West, they are front-and-center in local creative minds in China and India because of their potential to improve local lives through industrialization.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Trust is key for Technology Monetization

We humans are a careful and trusting but community-loving lot. We are willing to share our wants with others we trust and, if we can do so anonymously, we are willing to share with Madison Avenue.

While it is against our nature to hang a public notice outside our home, just look at what we are doing on the Internet. We search on the Internet believing we are anonymous when in fact the search provider knows what we are searching for and is storing that information. Also, believing that everything we type and upload is protected we share our most private details and desires with friends on a Social Networking website that we trust when it promises to follow our wishes regarding community and privacy.

Simply stated, we are volunteering all the very same information that Madison Avenue wants to create a timely snapshot of each of us. We are the trusting type and believe that the recipients of our trust do care enough to deserve our trust.

Facebook’s recent adventure with its Beacon Project is an example of how we react if trust is violated. Facebook’s attempt to monetize its technology investments by sharing online purchase histories without maintaining individual anonymity infuriated everyone including persons who received histories.

On the other hand, Google is successful at continuing to cultivate our confidence that every search is anonymous and has cleverly leveraged our search topic as fodder for Madison Avenue’s hunger. Such creative middlemen with squeaky-clean reputations are worth their weight in gold to Madison Avenue as evidenced by Google’s revenues. It is no stretch of the imagination that Google’s revenues are expected to continue to grow as it enters new markets, if Google's behaviour continues to show that Google cares about how it uses personal information.

In short, Google has figured out that trust (how personal information is used) is fundamental to monetizing investments in technology. Is it any wonder then that Microsoft now wants to buy Yahoo for a princely sum as the only way to monetize Internet investments?

Wednesday, August 6, 1997

Chat, Not Words

(First printed in the August 6, 1997 issue of LAwNMoWer Clippings, the monthly newsletter of the Los Angeles New Media Roundtable)

Full text is in process of being uploaded. Thank you

Wednesday, March 26, 1997

Old Wine, New Bottle

(First printed in the March 26, 1997 issue of LAwNMoWer Clippings, the monthly newsletter of the Los Angeles New Media Roundtable)

As a child, I was fascinated by the story of a genie who would bring a magic carpet that could whisk me anywhere I wanted to go in the universe. While on this carpet, I could even travel into the past and go visit the future. Some three years ago, the opposite happened. Instead of a carpet taking me where I wanted to go, the genie brought the universe to me. The genie had replaced the carpet with this thing called on-line.

The carpet ride had been fueled just by my imagination. The on-line ride, however, required me to to buy computers and modems and peck at this thing called a keyboard. The genie was even craftier. He convinced many that I would substitute the product of my imagination with this thing called content. He said to them that content could be anything they wanted it to be. They could even imagine it for me. He said I wouldn't mind.

For a while I thought this content was real cooooool. At a nickel a minute, I spent hours enjoying this cool content. But soon, I had progressed to waaay-coool, while they were still stuck in cool. I got tired of waiting for the cool stuff to appear and began to hate how they had structured and organized this thing they called content. They gave me a book (with buttons), or a TV show (more buttons), or a movie (more buttons, of course) or plain writing (with buttons they call hyperlinks). I was spending more time figuring out how they wanted me to proceed rather than getting what I wanted. Either I got too much or I got too little.

Everyone agrees with me when I say that writing an article for a newsletter is different from writing a movie script or a TV serial. Everyone also agrees with me that nobody has figured out how to really write for this thing called on-line.

My experience with the magic carpet holds three clues for on-line content:
  • My trips were always complete. When I saw a fight between the slaves and the lions, I saw it to the end. I never jumped to see the pedigree of the lion or the weight of the slave in the middle of a fight. I consider links in the text as totally unnecessary. All links should be footnotes. And can't I ask for and get a story only or a story with links?
  • My trips were always fast. I didn't wait minutes to see, with my eyes closed, pictures that were 32-bit color at 35 frames a second. I think I saw the pictures without worrying about the color. The context made the picture for me. Why cannot I focus that part of the screen that I want to look at closer? Why can I not get thumbnails to keep the on-line process up-to-speed with my thinking speed?
  • My trips always included me in a major role. I was the king, the knight or the crafty mouse. And, of course, I always won. I have never found an on-line experience that was truly participatory in the sense.

Where is the Chaplin or the Griffith of on-line when I really want and need him? I am willing to let others imagine for me, but I haven't found anyone worthy of this trust. I want my imagination back.

-----Ajay Bhatla is developing online strategies for Citicorp

Thursday, September 21, 1995

Fuel for Electronic Commerce: Buyers Who Define Products

(First printed in the September 21, 1995 issue of LAwNMoWer Clippings, the monthly newsletter of the Los Angeles New Media Roundtable)

Full text is in process of being uploaded. Thank you

Thursday, July 13, 1995

The Clock is Ticking

(First printed in the July 13, 1995 issue of LAwNMoWer Clippings, the monthly newsletter of the Los Angeles New Media Roundtable)

Full text is in process of being uploaded. Thank you