1. Things to Watch in 2011

    A 100-item laundry list of predictions of what will be popular in tech for the year 2011. There are some interesting trends emerging. Many items in that list are predicting a significant trend of technologies merging and going mainstream. Take for example Facebook’s growing ability to provide value to retail/e-commerce industry (big reason for Facebook enormous valuation at $50billion), e-book/tablet industry branching out to deliver education content and smarter (adaptive) learning environment, combination of growth in mobile devices and dead-simple blogging platforms increasing number of people blogging/journaling, growing area of physical goods being connected to each other and tracked…. etc. 

    I am especially fascinated by the acceleration of interaction among different platforms that are taking advantage of each other’s strengths (Facebook + Bing + NYT + JCPenney + Foursquare + Groupon + Hunch). Slowly everything online is becoming personal and even the good ol’ offline world is becoming simpler to navigate and decide via technologies that connect people to their peers who are not there physically but have left a digital mark (ie review, check-in). We’re already seeing a ton of things changing how we experience them: from what articles you read online, to what music you listen to, what t-shirt or book you decide to buy in-store or online, which restaurant you pick for dinner and even how you research/browse information online.

    Emergence of these hybrid services will make our world look more and more like a futuristic movie. A word of caution: while I have a fairly open view on privacy, the possibility that at some point the government will command ability to monitor every single step you take in this blurred universe of physical and virtual worlds, can make crime almost impossible - a clear hint at Minority Report. Not that crime is a good thing, but wouldn’t trying to prevent 100% of it results in death of free will? Even in George Orwell’s 1984 there was a way to avoid being constantly tracked by the “big brother”.  

    Overall, I see two interesting themes starting to really take off: 

    1. Technology will accelerate the speed at which it allows us to modify real-world experience (ie. virtual mirrors that let you preview items that may not even be there in the physical world) and it will be done with unimaginable levels of personalization, which leads to the second point ->
    2. The gap between physical and digital is narrowing - 3D printing will allow to make physical goods faster, easier and cheaper. Also, we buy physical world experiences and goods through digital marketplaces like Amazon and Groupon. Or alternatively we use real world money to buy virtual good on domains like SecondeLife and Zynga’s games. 

    Closing thought: when many think that all has been discovered, invented and achieved, we’re only beginning to see the possibilities, the tip of the iceberg. 

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  2. What you see here is not a map of the world based on political borders - it’s a visualization of friend connections among a random sample of Facebook’s users. It’s beautiful and amazing how our friendships replicate our physical world. 

    What you see here is not a map of the world based on political borders - it’s a visualization of friend connections among a random sample of Facebook’s users. It’s beautiful and amazing how our friendships replicate our physical world. 

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  3. colorlines: “Mr Waldman is right to suggest that today’s Republican alarm and Democratic light-heartedness are partisan phenomena. But one is no sillier than the other. The majority of Democrats who saw government as a threat in 2007 were right to do so, and nothing truly significant has changed since then. Likewise, the overwhelming majority of Republicans who were at ease with the state in 2007 were profoundly misguided; one wishes they had been roused from their oblivious slumber for better reasons. The Gallup graph is truly troubling because it shows us that each party’s base of supporters is more or less blind to government’s threat to freedom when their favoured team is in power. Which is to say, their dogged partisan team-spiritedness keeps Americans from unifying to perceive and combat very real threats to their liberties and lives.” (via Partisan bias: The danger of the partisan mind | The Economist)

    colorlines:

    “Mr Waldman is right to suggest that today’s Republican alarm and Democratic light-heartedness are partisan phenomena. But one is no sillier than the other. The majority of Democrats who saw government as a threat in 2007 were right to do so, and nothing truly significant has changed since then. Likewise, the overwhelming majority of Republicans who were at ease with the state in 2007 were profoundly misguided; one wishes they had been roused from their oblivious slumber for better reasons. The Gallup graph is truly troubling because it shows us that each party’s base of supporters is more or less blind to government’s threat to freedom when their favoured team is in power. Which is to say, their dogged partisan team-spiritedness keeps Americans from unifying to perceive and combat very real threats to their liberties and lives.” (via Partisan bias: The danger of the partisan mind | The Economist)

  4. The Flock of Business(wo)men to Politics

    Here’s a solid statement regarding all the hype of business people trying to bring their management skills, order and rationality to politics. 

    The best way to inject the virtues of business into public life is not to draft in a few ex-bosses—even outstanding ones like Ms Whitman—but to introduce as much choice and competition as possible into the public sector.

    (Source: economist.com)

  5. Competition will keep internet neutral

    A recent article from the Economist argues that competition could save internet from becoming fragmented, but not in America where there’s not enough competition. 

    What about the risk that operators will fragment the internet by erecting new road-blocks or toll booths? In theory, competition between providers of internet access should prevent this from happening. Any broadband provider that tries to block particular sites or services, for example, will quickly lose customers to rival firms—provided there are plenty of them.

    I think this only works if the benefit of keeping a customer are greater than the “toll prices” that internet providers could be collecting from large companies.

    What do you think? 

    (Source: economist.com)