Framtiden nu

Today Ericsson Labs is launching Async Voice, a communication tool built from the ground up using internet standards.

This is how they describe the thinking behind the application:

Much of the communication happening online today is asynchronous, meaning that the user is in control of when and how to communicate. You can reply to a chat message, a Facebook wall-post or a received SMS whenever you feel like it. The added flexibility of asynchronous communication together with instant notifications, i.e. the “real-time web”, allows for simple yet powerful communication

What if you would combine the richness of voice together with the simplicity and flexibility of asynchronous communication? Introducing: “Async Voice”

I really can’t explain in words how it works, so go try it yourself (and then come back).

Async voice is part of a trend where we constantly find new ways to communicate. We can send text messages, tweet, do status updates, send facebook messages, e-mail someone, or phone them. The interesting thing about this is that whenever we find a new way of communicating it almost always finds users. So I think the lesson to be learnt is that we are only at the start of innovation in the communication space.

I am amazed of how Twitter just keeps growing and growing. I think Twitter is semi-fun and has it uses but truth to be told I never got hooked on it. But at least I pretend to understand what Twitter is all about. I can see why it has become popular and understand under which circumstances it is a useful tool.

But many companies are using Twitter in a way that distracts me and adds to the Twitter-noise and makes me un-follow them.

Two things we need to get straight:

1) Excessive use of hashtags
Yes it is fun to hashtag posts. It is a way to have your say in a discussion on a particular subject. But there is no reason to believe that you will be easier to find just because you put hashtags in your tweets for no reason.

WRONG way of using hashtags:Oh please Obopay, just stop it! If I wanted to find Tweets about Obopay or STAR Network I will search for those terms, not those terms with a hashtag.

Another example in the same vein:

Honestly, I can’t even begin to decipher tweets where every other word is a hashtag.

And finally, a good example of hashtags:

2) Sparking off-topic discussion

Getting retweets, comments and likes has become the social currency that we use. In the race to more retweets companies will start discussions that are completely off-topic. Here is an example from Powermat (otherwise a cool product):

Really Powermat? REALLY? Why would I want to discuss MTV music videos with a company that produces electrical charging systems?

What other Twitter annoyances do you have?

I have to hand it to you Bob, I write my comments on your book, I mail you and you respond to some random person on the internet. Impressed.

Now, this leads me to an open question about discussions on the internet that I have been pondering. Do I respond? Bear with me while I explain my train of thoughts.

There is an old picture floating around on the net that sums up my thoughts on having arguments over the internet. I won’t include it here since I think it is a bit harsh, so I will just link to it. Go ahead, click the link, I’m waiting. (drums fingers against tabletop). There, back now?

So, what is this picture trying to tell us? Arguments are best made when you can see each other. Just look at how quickly the comments turn into nonsense on sites like Slashdot and TechCrunch. I have to admit that full-on flamewars are starting to become more and more uncommon. Maybe we are slowly starting to learn how to argue over the Internet?

But I digresss. My real concern is this: in many newspapers (except The Economist which I will get to in a minute) I often see this happening:

• Newspaper publishes an editorial on a controversial subject
• Person figuring in the editorial sends in a reply to the editorial
• The newspaper publishes the received reply together with their reply to the reply!

See the problem here? The newspaper always wins! They get the final say. I’ve even see this go on several cycles where the newspaper receives a reply to their reply which they then in turn reply to. The Economist’s staff, as the classy english gentlemen that they are,  handle it much more graciously:

• The Economist publishes an editorial
• Person figuring in the editorial sends in a reply
• The economist publishes the reply and trusts that the reader is intelligent enough to read the original article and the reply and make up their own mind on who is right.

How does this apply to the aforementioned comment on this blog? Well, if I reply I get the feeling that the discussion will go on until I get the final say. Note that I wont necessarily have won the argument, but since this is my blog I obviously have a lot more stamina in writing on it than anyone who comments.

Maybe it would be more gracious of me to let comments stand unanswered and thereby letting readers make up their minds themselves?

What do you think?

Those of us who have been in the mobile industry for a (too) long time remember the advent of video calling some five years ago. What a failed launch that was.

But suddenly I am excited again now that Apple is re-launching videocalling.  Maybe that is just because I like technologies that seem like they are from the future and want to be excited by videocalling. Or maybe I am just a big Apple fanboy.

Source: Apple PR. The man in the picture is not related to the text. But he looks like a really nice guy.

But to be fair, videocalling á la Telia and Tre in 2005 had some key differences to the videocalling that Apple is launching.

The first difference is that Apple requires you to be connected over Wi-Fi, 3G is not supported. This might seem like a problem at first but in reality I think it is a fair limitation. There really is no use-case for videocalling someone that is out and about (except special cases like people using sign-language). I use video with Skype alot when I am out travelling. Sitting in a hotel room and using video adds something to the conversation instead of being a distraction. And judging from the Apple promotional videos, this seems to be the use-case they are targeting.

The second important feature of FaceTime is that you can switch to video during a normal call. That also makes sense. I remember trying to do videocalls five years ago, a common use case was that you were talking to someone and they wanted to show you something and suddenly you wanted to have video. But then you had to hang up and make a videocall which cost five times as much as a normal call. Which you were to lazy to do.

The only thing that worries me is that mobile operator may be forced make changes in their network to support the feature, at least it sounds like that in this post. That would delay any launch outside of the US significantly.

So, what do you think, do you see yourself using FaceTime?

The Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, was recently interview at Allthingsdigital (D8), a conference run by journalist Walt Mossberg from Wall Street Journal. Today I watched the short snippets of video put online from the interview. And I have got to hand it to Steve – he is a really, really nice guy. He is not just a great speaker, but also someone that has put alot of thought into what he says.

Throughtout the interviews he is very honest and open in his answers. How many Fortune 500 CEO:s would be this open to the press with the past and current mistakes of their companies?

But what impresses me the most about Steve is that he seems to be a really, really good guy. The type of person that we need more of.  Steve is trying to create products people love and make the world a better place with the help of technology.  How many CEOs can claim that they have the mantra  “make the world a better place” on top of their agenda?

I am just reading “Foundation and Earth” by Isaac Asimov and have to say how impressed I am by Assimov as an author. Although “Foundation and Earth” is not his best book it reminds me what a great author Asimov is.

Source: Wikipedia. Note: Don’t click on the link. The wikipedia page contains spoliers.

The original Foundation-series is an amazing piece of work and is as relevant as ever. Let me explain why.

The central theme in the series is the struggle between viewing mankind as individuals versus seeing mankind as a giant anthill or beehive. With the transformation of media that is happening right now, both when it comes to how information spreads (in realtime) and who spreads it (anyone), I believe we are taking a small step from isolated individuals towards a giant anthill. Just look at Wikipedia, without knowing it thousands of us have created the world’s (arguably) best encylopedia, just like ants that slowly put in small straws without knowing that the final result will be an anthill.

Some might find the thought of comparing mankind to an anthill saddening. But I actually find it encouraging. Maybe our society is heading towards a goal too difficult for us to comprehend and every little straw that we put in leads us towards that goal?

What do you think, an encouraging thought or a sad thought?