Blogging is a game of putting yourself out there, sharing your views with the world.

Then came Twitter. As much as I was a skeptic at first, Twitter really has become the next level in the evolution of online presence. It’s a slightly wild, 140 character extension of self, random thoughts, location and links.

And yet less that 2 months after the rise of Twitter, we see the Webcam technology of Web 1.0 meet the narcissism of Web 2.0, an always on stream of activity, and often lack thereof. If justin.tv bought the world of web cams to Web 2.0, ustream could become the poster child of a new movement of 20 somethings who are too old or too uncaring to remember the likes of Jenicam.

Is too much ever enough, or just too much?

Is the narcissystem the way of the future?

The poster kids of Web 2.0, Chris Pirillo and Robert Scoble have lead the way. Pirillo’s live streams are actually fairly interesting, Scoble’s streams of him in a car aren’t really my thing. Interestingly though in a historical sense is that the tech of the Truman Show is now available to the masses, at least those with generous bandwidth plans, particularly with their mobile (cell) providers.

Matthew Ingram has some good points, but I’m not sure he looks deeply enough at the overflow of information this all leads to. I’ve enjoyed watching some of Pirillo’s live stuff, but imagine if 20 other interesting people were doing the same thing? How then could I manage to watch them all? Imagine that in 3-6 months time ustream is the new YouTube, that thousands, tens of thousands are streaming parts, sometimes all of their day. What then?

I’ve always argued the text is the ultimate form of communication, because it allows dissemination to many easily and in a more manageable form. I love the idea of Podcasting, but I’ know that it’s far more limited than text because it takes far longer to consume. Always on video is harder again. Where as I can consume multiple podcasts, and thousands of blogs, it’s hard to consume more than a handful of always on streams, and certainly more so in terms of time, when Pirillo or Justin are at their best, I’m often asleep (12 hours ahead of US EST at the moment).

Question though is would I give it a try? Watch this space. The logistics are difficult, particularly mobile, given that always on data (via 3G) in Australia is expensive, but the narcissist in me is certainly tempted. Perhaps I can become another number in the too much is never enough equation.

Originally posted on April 16, 2007 @ 2:39 am

Web 2.0 guru..and the once credible Tim O’Reilly has followed up on his threats to unleash weapons of mass stupidity on the world, posting live once and for all a draft copy of his “Bloggers Code of Conduct” that he’s hoping to impose voluntarily on over 200 million bloggers world wide, then probably by force in countries stupid enough to think this is all a good idea (and yes, Australia will probably be top of that list, it is the Nanny State after all).

Now some people suggested I was a little tough on O’Reilly in my March 29 post on the subject. To those people I say, once again, bollocks, because you haven’t read this stuff.

*901AM HEALTH WARNING: DO NOT READ ON A FULL STOMACH*

Just when you thought the concept of a bloggers code of conduct was a running joke, Tim O’Reilly delivers the actual punchline. Try some of this hippie shit on for size:

“We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.”

Oh yeah, censorship has such a wonderful track record in history for fostering personal expression. BTW who defines personal expression and constructive conversation?

We are committed to the “Civility Enforced” standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we’ll delete comments that contain it.

Unacceptable to who? A pro George W Bush comment is as an unacceptable post at Kos as a 2 guys rimming is on Michelle Malkin. Is Tim O’Reilly judge, jury and executioner?

It goes on to say that we won’t tolerate unacceptable behavior, defined as

– is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
– is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
– infringes upon a copyright or trademark
– violates an obligation of confidentiality
– violates the privacy of others

So that’s just about EVERY single blog post covered in the above points (well at least the last 2 points). Of course this post is probably covered in 1 + 2 :-)

But get this, the blogging code is conduct is all about civility, but apparently it’s civility defined by Tim O’Reilly because we can lynch others, as long as they were uncivil first:

When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

Yep, truth be told it’s really more like a set of club rules, you’re with Tim or you’re against him, and if you’re against him you can and will be subject to mob rule lest you be lynched by them for non compliance with The Borgs O’Reilly’s rules.

You can read the whole thing here, and if you’re really keen, you get to display badges on your site as well. Note to Krug, if these become compulsory, we’ll need the dynamite one for 901am ;-)

I’ll conclude in saying this: those who think that a blogging code of conduct is the antidote to death threats and misogyny have about as much hope of success as I’ve got of space walking on Jupiter next year, or Tim O’Reilly has of ever being taken seriously again by anyone except some rabid feminists and professional victims. Civility is subjective, and controlling what people say and do on blogs can only be a recipe for the decline of the medium and the introduction of totalitarianism online, outcomes none of us want nor desire.

Originally posted on April 9, 2007 @ 2:25 am

If you were ever looking for evidence that Web 2.0 is a bubble because its leading players live in a fantasy land, a world were reality and Venture Capital rarely meet, much like the players in Web 1.0 land did, let me introduce Paul Graham from Y Combinator who thinks Microsoft is dead.

If Microsoft is dead then I’m the Queen of England and I hereby demand that you all bow before me and call me “Your Highness”.

Graham’s reasoning?

1. Google killed Microsoft
2. Ajax
3. Broadband Internet
4. Apple

Now try this quote on for size:

“The last nail in the coffin came, of all places, from Apple. Thanks to OS X, Apple has come back from the dead in a way that is extremely rare in technology. [2] Their victory is so complete that I’m now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows. Nearly all the people we fund at Y Combinator use Apple laptops. It was the same in the audience at startup school. All the computer people use Macs or Linux now. Windows is for grandmas, like Macs used to be in the 90s. So not only does the desktop no longer matter, no one who cares about computers uses Microsoft’s anyway.”

Firstly, as a Windows user, my immediate message to Mr Graham: f*ck you.

Secondly, lets step out of fantasy land and take a look at the real world, the one in which Graham quite clearly doesn’t live.

According to PC World April 6, Apple’s marketshare: 6.08%. Oh yeah, I nearly forgot, it declined in March.

Now that’s not to take away from the Mac, it’s clearly a good product, however over 9 out of 10 people use Windows. Does this sound like Apple has killed Windows? Graham thinks it does, but he probably believes in faires at the bottom of the garden as well…that and that 9 out of 10 people are grandmas.

Micorsoft is alive and mostly well. Has it clearly failed in a range of endevours? absolutely, Microsoft’s internet strategy sucks and most people will take that for a given. Zune? do most people even know what a Zune is? probably not. Was the Vista development program a shambles? yes.

But take a look past this: Windows still powers most computers, at nearly monopoly levels. Windows dominates non-console gaming (try playing the latest game on a Mac). The XBox 360 is a huge success, and in 2-3 years time may be in a duopoly market with Nintendo. Office, despite the threat of online alternatives, still powers along, and certainly in the real world has nothing to fear in the next couple of years at least. Microsoft hardware (keyboards etc) must sell pretty well because you can’t walk into a store and not see them. Developer choice? most, nearly all programs are written to run on the Windows platform first and foremost, and whilst there is a pick up in Mac development, Windows software development continues to thrive…conversely if it was slowing this would be a sign of a move away from the platform, simply there isn’t.

I’m sure I could list a pile of other areas that Microsoft thrives that aren’t internet or Zune related, but surely this is enough.

Microsoft is alive and kicking and has many years left in the marketplace. Has it passed its glory days? possibly, but there’s a world of difference between a mature company that’s passed its peak and one that is dead or dying.

Originally posted on April 8, 2007 @ 12:08 am