The Basement Like a blog, only interesting.

What Foursquare Could Learn from Marco Polo

It's no great secret that I don't get Foursquare. At least not for me. While I readily admit that I find the societal phenomenon that is Foursquare to be interesting, (like my friend Holly Wall) I just don't care if people know where I am or not. The truth is I feel it probably gives me an advantage if people don't know where I am. I even think it's a little disturbing that some people do want to have their location known all the time. I mean the whole idea of Foursquare is, like most social media, more than a little narcissistic. Each Foursquare participant proudly posts their location because, at some level, they believe that the knowledge of their geospatial relationship to the world revolving around them is of invaluable interest to someone, likely everyone.  In the words of Abby Wambaugh,

Foursquare is just another example of how social MEdia is all about ME. "I'M HERE! COME SEE ME HERE! I'M HERE AND YOU'RE NOT INVITED"

That said, Foursquare does have it's appeal. While I don't really care if people know where I am, I occasionally do want to know where other people are, but not those people - you know, the ones that update Foursquare all the time.  (As an aside, I've developed a theory - the amount people care where you is is inversely proportional to the frequency at which you update Foursquare.) The problem with Foursquare is that the model focuses on the POSTING of location, not the utility of using that information. This begs the age old question, if a tree becomes the Mayor of the forest but no one's following it on Twitter to read about it, does it make a sound?  The reality, most of the time , is no one cares that you are at Kip's Big Boy... again. Unless, of course, they do.

As a tool to fuel narcissism, Foursquare works great - it amplifies the dilution that the world is somehow interested in the insignificant minutia of one's otherwise pathetic life. But as tool to inform one about the location of people whom they want to locate? You know, something of actual utility? In my opinion, it falls short - explicitly because Foursquare focuses on the narcissism of the poster.

So this got me thinking today. Remember playing that game "Marco Polo" in the swimming pool as a kid? One person closes their eyes and yells "Marco?" and all the other kids yell "Polo" revealing their location. Then the Marco-yeller, with eyes still closed, then tries to tag the Polo-yellers. Now this model of geo location makes sense to me. The Marco-yeller needs to know everyone else's location so he or she sends out a general request.

Now, image the same game except the kid with his eye closed yells "Polo" over and over again. The other kids go about their day because they don't see the value of Foursquare, and frankly find the kid with his eye closed to be annoying. I don't know about you, but this seems like a significantly less fun game to me.

So what I think Foursquare needs - or a competitor - needs to develop is a Marco Polo feature.  I run an app on my iPhone and press the "Marco" button. Everyone on my friends list gets a text asking them to yell "Polo" by running an app on their phone that posts their location. I then wait a few minutes and see a current list of all my friends who want to be found at that moment. The system could be smart enough to realize when someone has checked-in (either as a "Polo" or just because) within some time frame - say 30 minutes - and not send the text (limiting the maximum number of text received to one per 30 minutes or whatever). If I have a lot of friend and they all yell "Marco" a lot it would get annoying - but that's a good thing because it forces people to keep their networks small and meaningful.  Another good thing about this model is that the system prompts you at the precise moment when someone cares where you are - so you only check in when that information is actually valuable to a real person - not just the anonymous Foursquare-o-verse of whatever it's called.

I think there's some interesting potential here and Will Buthod agrees (from Twitter):

@wbuthod: @mattgalloway Ooh, cool! you could play all sorts of cool games, like "Stalker Pong", or "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend Roulette"!

@wbuthod: @mattgalloway Actually, it's not a bad idea. As a SM tool *and* as a minimalist lifeline for "helicopter parents".

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend Roulette!?!? Finally we're talking social media with real purpose. I'm guessing someone's already doing this but I haven't yet seen it. If it did come about, I might just give it a try.

Stop Whining About Openness, Loser.

My good friend Abby Waumbaugh (@abbyannette) pointed out an interesting post by Andrew Swenson (@wordpost) about the iPad and "openness" and future of broadcasting.  Andrew was riffing on themes presented by the great Doc Searls on same.  Andrews focus was really more on the openness as it applied to content creators but it prompted me to write on something I've been thinking about for a while now and since Abby bugs me about not posting to my blog more frequently than anyone else, I figured now was as good of time as any.

With all due respect to Doc Searls and Andrew Swenson, whining about the lack "openness" of Apple is frivolous, counterproductive, and ultimately ineffective. And while I won't use the overused phase "misses the point" I will say that that whining about the "closedness" of a single vertically oriented vendor ignores the larger reality of the internet.  Furthermore, I think that if we're looking for a bugaboo, our attention would better be spent on the ongoing fight over Net Neutrality than on Apple - especially if "openness" is the priority...but I digress. (Abby has since weighed in on Net Neutrality!)

At the core of this albeit well intentioned but misdirected argument is an underlying confusion that, in my opinion, plagues the modern American collective conscious: namely the confusion of rights and entitlements.  The right to free speech, for example, ensures that we as individuals may spread our ideas with whatever means we have at our disposal without being impeded by the government, or other individuals. However, this right doesn't entitle us access to the means - that is our own responsibility. Nor does our own right of free speak entitle us to violate the rights of others. If the locally owned newspaper doesn't want to run my story or editorial, that's not a violation of my right - I can start my own paper, or blog, or whatever - but I'm not entitled to space in their media.

As Andrews points out in his post, there are Apple lovers and haters - both groups we all try to distance ourselves from as we attempt to present our seemingly objective viewpoints. The reality is that (just as in politics) we all have our leanings. I, for one, am definitely an Apple fan - but not a fanboy. There are days when I can see that Mr. Jobs isn't wearing any clothes and I have no issue with saying as much. However, I'm also a big fan of openness.  I've been a passionate Linux user and advocate both personally and professionally since 1995.  And while I'm a fan of openness, just like with Apple, I'm not a fanboy. As an advocate of openness, it's important to realize that sometimes openness is not the best answer. As with anything in life, you need to understand the questions before you start providing answers. Rarely are there any absolutes.

So here it is...

We have the right to provide and support openness,
but we are not entitled to receive it. This is the essence of freedom.

Now to be clear, I don't think either Doc Searls or Andrew Swenson are advocating that we require Apple to be open. To do so would strip Apple of its freedom to choice its own business model. Instead, I think their arguments (at least Doc Searls') are intended to persuade their readers to reject the Apple iPad/iPhone/iPod ecosystem in the name of openness.  However, there are lots of more extreme folks out there that demand Apple act differently. Of course this is to no avail but I find the notion troubling - the idea that we, as individuals, should be able to dictate shoulds and shouldn'ts to another individual or business entity based on personal ideology. If you want a company like Apple except more open, then shut up and build it. (Of course, I support your right to whine incessantly, but understand that this doesn't entitle you to listeners.)

I think this right vs. entitlement issue is an important, if somewhat esoteric, one but my bigger, more pragmatic issue with the openness whiners is their utter lack of recognition that in the case of Apple and it's products, closed kicks open's ass.  Furthermore, Apple's closed approach has been a significant factor in decreasing the influence and power of (arguably more closed-mided) companies like Microsoft  and Adobe, as well as supporting and accelerating many, many open sourced initiatives and movements.

Today, Apple computer products (desktop and laptops) are the preferred development machine of many open source developers. This is because without the closed nature of the hardware platform, and the focused marketing and product design that is provided by a large vertically oriented vendor like Apple, no one can seem to reliably run non-Microsoft operating systems on the latest and greatest laptop hardware in a scalable and affordable way. For mainstream users (and developers that want to focus on development instead of patching their Linux installation) Linux has failed on the desktop. Hardware vendors understandably cater to Microsoft making it difficult for Linux to gain a foot hold. And with the infighting between Linux distributions and the forking of projects that inevitably happen in open source ecosystems, combined with the lack of a single consumer facing marketing effort Linux will never gain significant mainstream adoption. I love Linux, but this is the reality kids.

So the next best alternative, IMO, is an explicitly non-Microsoft hardware vendor to create and market a viable alternative.  For many developers a "viable" alternative means a "real" operating system and by moving to BSD Unix based OS X, Apple did just that.  While their desktop and laptop hardware is closed, OS X itself is Unix and affords all of the same (functional) benefits of other Unix variants and Linux. Many open source projects and tools (Apache, Perl, etc.) are included in the OS X distribution.  OS X is standards based and interoperate seamlessly with Linux servers.

The big complaint with OS X is that people think they should be entitled to run OS X on other hardware.  Apple disagrees and so do I. First off, it's Apple's business and they should have the freedom to close their ecosystem if they want. Secondly, the legendary stability of Apple products is largely due to their closed architecture. By limiting the hardware on which their software will run, Apple can better ensure reliability and consistency of the user experience. Part of Apple's brand strategy is creating products that are more reliable than the competition and controlling hardware is one way they accomplish this. Microsoft, in contract, has tremendous problems with stability and reliability largely because they allow their software to be run on arbitrary hardware. Linux has less of a stability problem but is limited by driver support or only partial access to hardware features dramatically decreasing usability and the quality of user experience. It is precisely because of Apples closed philosophy that we've seen a decrease in both Microsoft's market share on the desktop and influence in the market. By embracing Unix and open standards on a closed hardware system, Apple is empowering open efforts not diminishing them.

Think back to the state of mp3's before the iPod.  Mp3 and file based digital music in general were little more than an obscure geek obsession. There were a handful of hardware mp3 manufacturers (remember Diamond Rio?) but no significant presence in the market and absolutely no legitimate interest from the recording industry. It was Apple with it's closed ecosystem of players, music management software and online store (complete with recording industry support) that legitimized and launched the digital music revolution in the mainstream. Apple could have used their power to try to stifle the mp3 standard but they did not. In fact they embraced mp3 and build a CD ripper into iTunes that, as an option, encoded in mp3 for interoperability. As we all know now, the iPod was and is enormously successful and today defined the mp3 player market. We should be thankful for Apple because it took a single vertically oriented company with a focused marketing effort for mainstream adoption of the mp3 player.

A recent non-Apple example of this phenomenon is Amazon's Kindle. Ebooks have struggled for years only to have Amazon define, legitimize and own the market almost overnight by creating a complete , closed ecosystem.

Folks that lean towards being an Apple hater and/or are openness zealots will counter these example by saying that all of these things were (and still are) possible with the use of open source products and projects. There are more features available, the cost is often free (at least for software), and you have access to source, etc. And they're right - but few if any of those products ever experience mainstream adoption.  And most of these product require a lot of "tinkering" which precludes them as a viable option for most mainstream users. (A notable exception is FireFox.) The moral here is that mainstream adoption almost always requires a champion with a profit motive, a good business model and great strategic communications.

So fast forward to today and the iPad. I've summed up my thoughts on why I've chosen to bet my future on the iPad in a previous post so I won't rehash that diatribe.  What I will do though is ask this question:

What threat does iPad really pose to the notion of openness?

In my opinion, none. No one is mandating iPad. Steve Jobs will be the first to tell you that Apple product are not for everyone and if you don't like them you should use something else...something more open if you like. Unlike Microsoft who has a well deserved reputation of trying to break compatibility with non-Microsoft products as a means to artificially dominate the marketplace, Apple has a strong and visible commitment to standards and interoperability. Apple is a proponent of HTML5 as an example. Apple also uses open standards for calendaring and email. Apple has been able to attract tens of thousands of new software developers to their ecosystem creating a disruptive force in the traditional balance of power in the software industry.  Lots of open source components are being leveraged in iPhone/iPad development and lots of folks are using Linux, PHP, Ruby, etc. to back these applications up from across the internet.

By driving touch computing with a strong vision, good development tools, and stable, well-configured, consistent (and yes closed) hardware, Apple is moving the bar further and faster that any crowd source open effort could ever hope to. As a developer, sure you have to accept some constraints in order to play, and you don't have a say in those constraints but once you decide to take the red pill you get to jump on the truck and travel at Apple-speed. What you get in return is the confidence that your users will have a very consistent and reliable user experience - a pretty easy trade off for me. And as far as constraints go, there's aren't many, really. Sure we can rattle off the big ones quickly - multitasking (coming this summer), tethering, direct to user distribution, usb support, etc - but somehow folks have written over 185,000 apps in less than 2 years generating hundreds of millions in revenue despite these crippling unreasonable limitations. The reality is that all developers are limited to constraint with any platform with which they work - some hard, some soft - with Apple folks just seem to like to bitch about constraints that they think could be technically eliminated, are opposed to philosophically or just plain don't like.  Apple believe that just because you can do something it doesn't mean that you should. Ironically, their strong commitment to simplicity by design is a key to their ongoing success despite much public criticism that they're product should include this feature or that. The iPod, for example, was harshly criticized for lacking features that competitive products had (such as voice recorders and FM receivers) as it simultaneously dominated the mp3 player market.

Perhaps it's this dominance that the open ness whiners fear. As Andrew highlighted Doc Searls poses the question:

"Do we want the Internet to be broadcasting 2.0 — run by a few content companies and their allied distributors?"

Of course we don't. Do I think think that Apple and iPad have the potential to achieve this? Absolutely not. I do think iPad will be successful. Wildly even. In fact, more so now that I own one. But to think that the success of iPad will eclipse the entirety of the internet is simply naive.  What Apple has done with their iPod/iPhone ecosystem is to force content providers (traditional & large as well as young & small) to consider online delivery in way that Napster and Bit Torrent never could. Hulu.com, for example, is largely the broadcast industries response to iTunes.  Hulu, of course, is providing content through a custom desktop app, the browser and (reportedly soon) an iPad app.  Hulu, by design, intentionally circumvents the need for iTunes in distribution of content - a need that would not have existed without Apple's closed ecosystem. One driving argument for openness is choice. In my view, a near functional equivalent for true openness with regards to choice is a plethora of closed alternatives from which to choose. The reality is we have dozens of internet based content on demand solutions - Tivo, Roku, local cable providers, Boxee, NetFlix, YouTube, etc - many of these available in some form on iPhone/iPod/iPad.  The secret to success of Broadcast 2.0 is to recognize the multimodal nature of the viewer and to capitalize on as many channels as possible (or rather as many as are effective).  For a content creator, to ignore a consumer device that will likely sell 8 to 10 million units in 2010 would be stupid. It would be equally stupid to stop publishing in every other non-iPad channel - and surprise, surprise - none of them are that stupid.

It's the numbers that Doc Searls seems to overlook.. He tells us "...with the iPad they feel they have a technology that best marries the splashy look and size of a full-page print ad with the cool interactive features of a digital ad… " And they are right but there's more to their reasoning. It's not just because the tech is hip (indeed there are open projects that can technically do much of what the iPad can on lower cost hardware), but it's also about adoption and market size. There is no other single device that provides the same level of control of content and presentation that will be in the hands of so many users. Sure content creators can develop for the web - and they are - to reach everyone else's hodge-podge device (JooJoo, Android, etc.) but because there is no consistency in hardware and user experience across this eclectic collection of devices, there's not enough profit potential in developing specifically for any one.  Without any champions, open products like Android and even closed source products like Windows Mobile are too inconsistent and under-adopted to support the readership volumes necessary for profitability by mainstream content providers. Conversely, if Apple allowed their iPhone OS to be run on the cheapest hunk of silicon and glass China can produce then Apple's profit motive would disappear along with their high standard for user experience. The argument for openness is always that it will improve quality but in this case it's simply not true - not in a market driven society.  Fortunately or unfortunately, openness looses.

To be fair, closeness looses sometimes too. The trick is to find the right balance and I think Apple is doing just that.

Since I first started writing this post, Andrew and I have had a great discussion about related stuff back on his blog, so be sure to check that out too.

Everyone Loves a Good Smackdown

This past weekend I participated in the most amazing event ever – Startup Weekend Tulsa.  I plan to write more about the experience soon, but here's the gist – about 45 strangers got together, formed 5 teams and created 5 startup companies over the course of about 54 hours. It's the kind of thing that is really hard to explain without experiencing it, so for now I hope you can just take my word for it – it was a mind blowing experience. I was absolutely amazed at the quality and volume of ideas, product and collaboration from Oklahoma's aspiring entrepreneurs!

So here's the deal – as part of Global Entrepreneur Week, nine other cities (Atlanta, Bay Area, Boise, Cleveland, Dallas, Lexington, London, Los Angeles and New York) either have had this past weekend or will have next weekend their own Startup Weekend event.

A company called Twilio has decided that it'd be fun to see which of these 10 cities has the maddest entrepreneurial kung fu. So they're sponsoring a contest to see who can produce the coolest startup that integrated with their telephony services.

My team created a project called Menu-O-Matic. Menu-O-Matic is a tool to enable small to medium sized restaurants to improve their online presence by putting their menus online in both a web optimized and mobile device optimized format.  Through the magic of Twilio, Menu-O-Matic can also read you the menu over the phone – you know, so you don't have a wreck trying to read the menu on your iPhone while driving.

You can see a typical Menu-O-Matic menu here:

Silly Deli Menu (Sample Menu-O-Matic menu)

And you can have the menu read to you with Twilio by dialing:

1-877-490-4909 and dial restaurant code 36#

Pretty cool, huh?

So why am I telling you this?  Bottom line – I think it would be so cool to have Tulsa, Oklahoma crush the likes of the Bay Area, LA, Dallas and New York and I need your help to do it.

Specifically there're three things you can do to make the big city folks look silly:

1.) Tweet about @menuomatic's awesome use of @twilio technology.
2.) Post comments about how cool you think Menu-O-Matic is on Twilio's contest page
3.) If you have a blog or are a media type, write about us.

Thanks everybody!

If someone gives you roses, you should be pissed off.

I hope you're planning on coming to Oklahoma's first ever Ignite event at the Blue Dome Diner in downtown Tulsa this Thursday, September 17, 2009.  The Ignite Tulsa event is also doubling at a Tulsa Tweetup. If you're coming you'll want to RSVP here.  It's a free event and should be a awesome time with some really interesting speakers.  I'll be speaking as well as lots of other hep cats. As a teaser, here's my cover slide. Hope to see you there!