Stardust Global Ventures

Everybody is all up in arms over facebook places. Why? Confusion!

Let’s answer a couple of questions those of you who have never used location based services may have.

First of all if you’re using your computer, facebook places will not be told where you are or what you are doing. It doesn’t work that way.

Second, if you don’t use facebook on your phone you have no worries. Facebook places can’t possibly know with no input where you are or what you are doing.

Third, even if you do use facebook on your mobile device you still have to access the places tab and tell it where you are. For instance, when I am out and about in the world using facebook on my phone I have to open up the application and then manually open places and then type in where I am and it has to recognize that as a place or I have to tell it that where I am is the location of, for example, Lorenzo’s pizza. If I don’t tell it anything, it has no knowledge. GPS still has to be activated and linked with facebook in order for it to have any idea where you are.

The hype over facebook not being trusted is a whole other issue. I definitely understand there is little reason to trust facebook because they’ve certainly not done anything to garner trust. They’ve allowed your information to be public in spite of the steps you may believe you have taken to keep your privacy locked down. But location based services really are not smart. At least not right now. All of them, facebook included give you controls and you then set the privacy to whatever you choose. If you have facebook and don’t use it on your mobile device you have not one thing to fear. You don’t have to mess with your settings at all and it won’t matter one iota. You are as safe as you were before Places came to be.

EDIT: My friend Dameone Welch-Abernathy pointed out the one thing I forgot to mention. If you’re still really freaked out about all this, the one thing that guarantees you are not checked in is if you go to your settings and change other peoples ability to check you in where they are. Seriously though unless you have really skanky friends, they probably wouldn’t if they knew you didn’t want them too.

The old bait and switch.

This morning I was pointed to a link at Sysomos Blog . They ask the question, “Is Twitter really about lots of followers?” Fascinating since they don’t answer that question, they simply suppose it is, and explain how to make your twitter stream appealing to the masses.

Personally I vacillate a bit, but unless you are working for a company, building a company, trying to reach ‘the masses’, so to speak, I don’t happen to think attempting to reach millions of people and have a million+ followers on twitter is a goal. And, this article, while not totally off the mark, certainly begs the question ‘why’? Why is it important to be interesting enough to garner a bunch of new followers? Why does it matter at all how many followers you have?

Think for a minute about the Kevin Costner movie, Field of Dreams. If you build it, they will come, or if you tweet authentically people will follow – but it’s all about your goal, isn’t it? Does it matter for you if you don’t meet the industry ‘standard’ for number of followers? Why are we all expected to race toward a number that someone has set out there as important to reach, especially if we aren’t marketers. Or are we?

Are we marketers?

To be fair, all of us to a certain extent are marketers. We may not be marketing a big name product but we do market ourselves. The struggle, though, is that every second person on twitter is telling us how they have the answer to getting more followers, or some other ridiculous thing, and we get confused.

Let’s think about what really matters to us.

Are you a mouthpiece for a company, either your own or someone else’s? Is your goal to achieve a large audience so that your message is heard and possibly the reason someone makes a decision? If so then your numbers mean something different than the average person’s. Still, we need to remember there is a difference between broadcasting and engaging. This distinction is really getting muddied.

Dunbar’s Number

Well known anthropologist, Robin Dunbar theorized the number 150 as a mean number for processing ability in group size. The actual number will vary between 100 and 230, but 150 is what we can expect to be able to have in our network and still feel connection with. Others have posited this number is too low, with more recent numbers coming from a study of the US that suggests a mean of 230 with a high of 290.

Any way you slice it, there is a limit to cognition. These numbers are meant to provide explanation for how large a group can work in consort without conflict. In other words, there is a limit to the number of people we can positively impact.  There is no gaming the system, and there isn’t a great deal of difference in socio-economic/intelligence quotient.

What do you need to know?

Let’s assume you have a large network and it is necessary. What you need to know is that the larger your network, the less percentage of engagement there will be. As it grows you will become more like a megaphone and less like a conversationalist. The reciprocation will be lost and just as in the past with movie star idol worship, you will stop being a person and become a commodity. Own it, or get out of it but know what you’re getting when you go for those big counts. Don’t get me wrong, you will still have conversations but the actual numbers of people you will become personally involved with and stay personally involved with will diminish.

What’s your goal?

What you want may depend on what you’re doing. If you’re using twitter for business you have an entirely different goal than someone who is simply trying to stay connected. Understanding the difference is the key. Don’t be fooled. You are important and deserve a rich network full of people of your choosing. Whatever you do be considerate of those you connect with and keep your eye on the prize. The prize is what you want to gain from the involvement.

Today is July 4th, 2010. Independence Day for those of you who are American or those who know anything about the history of the United States. Independence of what? Hm…that’s not really in debate, but this day and what it means has given me pause. Why? Because I’m about to embark on a new path that leaves me decidedly not independent, or does it? Let’s think about this.
Ken and I have been partnered for nearly 3 years. After these years of partnership we have finally decided to legalize ‘us’ as a couple. We have the marriage license, have a minister, our attendants/witnesses are ready to arrive for the big day. What about my 3 year long independence? Does a ceremony mean independence is no longer possible? Am I now to be absorbed or will I remain independent and a separate entity inside a partnership?  What is Independence?

Webster’s dictionary defines independence like this: 1 : the quality or state of being independent .

When you look up independent, here is what you get: 1 : not dependent: as a (1) : not subject to control by others : self-governing (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore> b (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one’s opinions or for guidance in conduct

Independence means I have the right and ability to choose what I stand for, what I’d like to do and who I’d like to do it with. Independence means my opinions will still be my own, I will not have to give up what I believe or think for anyone else.

What independence doesn’t mean is that the past no longer exists or that we relinquish all of who we were prior. Nor does it mean we become whole only inside the marriage. It simply provides a point of reference for what we stand for. Isn’t that what independence day in America is? I stand for me, I support my family and I support my soon to be husband. I remain Independent.

Happy Independence Day, friends and colleagues.

We hope you will join us in thought: Thursday, July 22nd, 2010 at 4pm pdt as we celebrate our Independence as a couple. Media will follow. (We are the first couple in technology after all)

The last few days I’ve seen several posts talking abut how Skype is now going to run rampant through the enterprise world. While some posts were from people I know and respect, those folks are simply off the mark.

I know we love Skype. I love Skype. For personal use. But as an enterprise architect with thirty years experience (in the large enterprise), it’s not going in my network. And ongoing discussions with my colleagues in network and security fields confirm Skype isn’t showing up in their networks either. The common response remains “not on my watch.”

The popular opinion that Skype will take over the enterprise is widely held, but I’d call it an urban myth. Popular because we love Skype. Popular because we love free. The notion is particularly popular among entrepreneurs and startup visionaries. In their business it does make good sense. But they aren’t designing, operating, maintaining or securing an enterprise business network. Many of them have never worked in that environment, and simply don’t grasp the ramifications.

There isn’t one single reason. This isn’t a problem that one change in Skype will fix.

First and foremost, the heritage of Skype will always be Kazaa. The Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) of every enterprise is going to remember that for a long time. It isn’t just P2P, it’s the DNA Skype was formed from. We’re three generations of CISOs away from embracing the core of Skype and forgetting the heritage.

Second, there are zero business controls. None. For enterprise business to adopt Skype, the whole supernode architecture will have to change dramatically. Clients will have to be pointed at a specific supernode or set of supernodes. And the client can’t ever be promoted or escalated into a supernode. In essence, the supernode of today will have to be more like a PBX with configuration and management controls that don’t exist today. And the client will have to be revamped to provide controls that also don’t exist.

Third, the encryption deployed in Skype positively precludes it from enterprise adoption. Key escrow doesn’t exist. The algorithm is a black box. Enterprise business can’t buy a magic black box. HIPAA, SOX, ITAR, and a host of other regulations require audit and configuration controls that simply don’t exist. Some organization must either have and document or submit to third party key management systems that Skype  doesn’t use, support, or from all I’ve seen, even acknowledge.

There are several more sound business reasons, but I won’t prattle on endlessly. I think I’ve made my point.

Skype is a renegade telco. As consumers, we love that. We’re ebullient about it. But praise gone wild sounds like technologists deluding themselves into thinking an enterprise that isn’t using Skype is being foolhardy. The opposite is true. An enterprise business has to protect shareholder value and make sound business choices about technology.

There are two phrases that come to mind. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL) and you get what you pay for. Both are applicable to enterprise adoption of Skype.

Enterprise business simply can’t afford Skype, at free, or at any price in its current design. The enterprise value proposition simply isn’t there, no matter how much many of my friends and colleagues might wish it.

Don’t mistake the enterprise passing on Skype for being backwards or slighting VoIP. VoIP is big and growing in the enterprise, although not quite as quickly as industry pundits proclaim. But it’s growing globally and will continue to accelerate in deployment.

Skype,  on the other hand, is at least 4-5 technology generations from being the right fit for enterprise business. And to get there will require Skype hiring the right people, and listening to the real-world requirements of the enterprise from people who design, operate, maintain and secure those large networks. I haven’t heard anyone in that space say they’ve had any discussions with Skype. And none of the leading architects, designers and developers of real enterprise scale voice services have been in the “just moved to Skype” news that I’ve seen.

I’ll preface this by stating the obvious. I’ve yet to drink the koolaid, but I do have an opinion.

I’ve been reading all the glowing warm fuzzies from many colleagues and friends proclaiming Skype’s new 3G call support as perhaps the greatest innovation from mankind since Jonas Salk gave us a vaccine for polio. Or something akin to that.

I’m more critical. I’m also more grounded in enterprise business than most of the folks I’ve read effusive praise from. Then again, Skype over WiFi from a mobile is barely, mildly interesting, if nearly useless IMHO. I’ve made two mobile Skype test calls since switching to the iPhone a few months ago. They were ok. They were phone calls. They worked. I have no reason to make more.

I’ll grant that allowing Skype to run in multitasking mode on the iPhone could make it mildly more interesting. Again, mildly IMHO. A Skype phone that has to be front and center in a mobile computer (what the iPhone really is) is an impediment to productivity, not an aid.

But, I’m working to keep an open mind here. I really am. So people who buy the most expensive, top-of-the-line phone, and pay for unlimited data, can’t afford enough minutes to make a phone call? Or do they call a high volume of minutes overseas? I never run over the minutes I pay for. The rollover bank is full of more. But I can understand the need for Skype for international calling.

What I don’t understand is what percentage of Skype users see this as so necessary. What percentage has to have this capability over 3G because they’re never at their computers? Sure, I know a few business people who live on international travel and would find this quite helpful. That they’re in a position to afford the calls at going rates doesn’t matter. They want them free on an all-you-can-eat data plan. Ok, I get that.

What percentage of Skype’s user base is this service aimed at? Not my jet-setter colleagues and friends who live in frequent flier clubs and spend their time hopping from conference to dinner to conference to meetup. I’m talking about everyman – the user that made Skype the behemoth it believes itself to be.

I just looked at Skype and according to my client, there are currently 12,665,667 people online. 12 million people, and I’m guessing that a miniscule percentage of those people are mobile. And a miniscule percentage need 3g HD Voice on a cell phone.

So where’s the beef?

Oh wait, I know my friends and colleagues will jump up to say “but have you heard it?” Did you hear that amazing HD quality?  On that I have two thoughts. One backed by facts and the reality of the telecom world. The other is just my opinion.

It’s a fact that callers won’t pay for audio quality. Ask Sprint how those “You can hear a pin drop” ads are doing. I can tell you the pin drop on stage in the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City is far more effective and impressive. If callers cared about call quality, the PSTN with it’s wired landlines wouldn’t be in a death spiral as users go for portability, mobility and ubiquity. We won’t buy audio quality and we’ve proven that with 140 years of  telecommunications in North American. Buying patterns don’t lie.

As for my opinion, let me ask a question – how do you spend your time on the phone? Mine is spent in two ways. I spend a bit of time on phone calls with people I know – customers, colleagues, family and friends. None of us ever have issue with the fidelity of a call. I also spend an inordinate amount of time on conference calls.

If you’re in conference call hell, do you give a rabbit’s fart about getting better audio quality? Be honest. If you’re on a computer, this 3g smokescreen isn’t a factor. You’re doing email and other work while you’re on the call. And if you’re mobile, you’re driving, or doing something else as well.

Again, where’s the beef? Improved audio quality during conference calls is somewhat  akin to my dentist playing nicer music during a root canal. I’d prefer to change the experience in a more compelling way.

Sure you can tell me the SILK codec is wonderful and we’re early adopters and this is a taste of the future. Maybe, but I don’t think it’s a 3G future. I think it’s perhaps 4G version 2.0 at best before most callers will notice or care.

On the other hand, what problem is it solving? More 3G footprint? Better coverage? Reduced cost? Options? I don’t think so.

Skype 3G HD voice calling is a solution without a problem. It’s hype too far ahead of the curve. it’s a proof of concept without a market. And to me, that makes it just a tad boring.

Skype has been an innovator and disruptor. Note I said “has been” in the past tense. This isn’t terribly innovative. It isn’t the least bit disruptive. It is the sound of a bell ringing. It’s the bell heralding Skype as Telco 2.0. Not AT&T. Not Verizon. Not Qwest. Not BT. Not Telstra. Skype is the first to become Telco 2.0.

That may be a good thing, and it may not. Your mileage may vary. But don’t mistake it for innovative disruption of an industry that’s still ripe for real reinvention. And real reinvention will send all the carriers scurrying for safe ground.

Just got through reading one of Robert Scoble’s opinion pieces on privacy. He makes some good points but more than that, it made me consider just what it is that most of us really mean when we talk about privacy. Have a look at his post and then let’s talk. http://scobleizer.com/2010/05/08/much-ado-about-privacy-on-facebook-are-we-protesting-too-much/

I don’t necessarily always agree with Robert but he definitely makes me think. I don’t think a locked down website is what most people want from Facebook. I know that’s not what I want. It is what everyone says they want, but maybe we should ask ourselves to really consider that. I think we want something else entirely.

You all know I’m female. Like it or not females are addressed by a certain segment of the world population differently than males are. While it doesn’t happen often, I have certainly had my share of requests for friendship by people who send a message telling me I’m ‘hot’ or asking for my IM so they can contact me directly. Usually they want me to use Yahoo, which sort of tells me something must be in yahoo I am not privy to because while I have a yahoo account for Flickr, I do not use yahoo.

So with these experiences, and a long term account on Facebook as well as a long term life online, it caused me to really think about what I would like on the web regarding privacy.

I want control of who has the ability to communicate with me. That’s all. I want people to treat their online neighbors as they would their next door neighbors and not expect they have the right to write derogatory things on their ‘walls’ or send mail that is inappropriate. I don’t want strange men or women to publicly hit on me, I do not want them to come to my place of business, ie email, linked in messages, blog, or wherever else i may be conducting business to ‘call me out’ like a high school bully. I expect to be treated on my public spaces the way I would were we in the same physical space. With dignity and respect. I think typing has emboldened us for some reason and I think we should step back and really consider when we all got the right to be mean and insensitive to one another.

I have recently had to block someone on Facebook. I blocked them because they were sending messages I don’t appreciate receiving. It’s not that I care if they see my profile, I only choose to not receive messages from them because they apparently struggle with the common courtesy I talked about above.

Since I’m writing this on my iPhone, I’ll end now. But think about it. Is it really privacy or simply some measure of control that has been missing from online life?

A while back Tom Foremski wrote a post called – Dirty Little Secrets: Social Media Is Terrible at Promoting Products.

I have thought about that and he’s right. Social media promotes social media, or to take it deeper, Social media is what companies use to promote themselves. But no one is successfully promoting a product with social media. What social media is doing is enabling communication.

Are Brands social? I don’t think so. We pay attention to brands because of cultivated credibility. People brands may be social, but typically by the time they reach recognizable brand status they are not nearly as social because they are too busy and bombarded, so people brands find the other people like them, and are social there. It no longer matters that they aren’t social because they have built enough credibility that WOM takes over and becomes all that matters. Even bad word of mouth rarely impacts them. Most treat that as sour grapes.

As a people brand grows, does social shifting happen where they no longer have to engage because the people who built and helped them now do all the ‘social’ for them? Is it asynchronous – where you, the brand, no longer have to be involved? I believe this to be the case.

Is the assumption that by having 100k + followers that you have then achieved such a state of brand identity you are no longer required to engage? How then do we maintain credibility? We don’t expect the products to jump off the market shelves at us as we walk through a store, why then should a people brand expect and get unconditional devotion? Do they now have whuffie, or karma to spare and other people perpetuate their brand for us?

I’d like to not confuse a Brand with Engagement. Engagement happens between people looking for something, be it friendship, products, or information, and those providing what we’re looking for. The best engagers are not the brands we already identify. Those brands have all become part of the old broadcast media mold. No, the best engagers are people who haven’t yet arrived. Hmmm, I wonder if that’s an argument for high turnover in social media? I think I’ll save that for another post.

Who of you have not heard some major brand tell you, “We listen and we respond”, only to ask a question and either get nothing in response, or get the canned response that they will respond as soon as possible but due to the massive number of requests it may take a while? Is this what we want from engagement? Can we even call this engagement? I think this is LAME!

What we want from engagement is a front facing contact, someone who is representative of the brand, not the brand, who will take the time to help us out. We don’t want someone identified as a brand because as soon as we identify a person as a brand, they have reached a status that defeats the purpose of the front facing person. A brand simply doesn’t have enough to give to that many people. Certainly not the engagement piece.

Brian Solis recently wrote the book, Engage: The complete guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web. I haven’t personally read this book, in part because I have not had an opportunity, but there is another piece to it. I don’t think Brian engages well, except with those in his immediate universe, and I find it incredibly difficult to get excited enough to buy a book that is supposed to teach engagement from someone who is now his own brand. Certainly Brian is successful, you really can’t argue that, but why is he successful when he doesn’t eat his own dogfood? I believe Brian is successful because he has reached that brand status that many wish to reach, and yet so few ever truly achieve. But reaching that status now means he is incapable of being a person and truly engaging the way most social media people engage – which illustrates my point.

This isn’t a piece on Brian, and I’d rather not make it about him which is why I’m only linking to his book, not to him on a personal level. He is merely an example of the big picture I’m trying to paint, certainly not the only example, just a good one.

Once upon a time most Brands paid attention, asking questions about how they could do better, or what they should do differently, or even how to make your experience better. Once they get to the royalty stage, the only thing that shakes a brand up is a need to combat bad press, in other words the need to defend themselves.

You are certainly capable of making up your own mind about all this. I just had some thoughts, and where better to put them than here?

On a final note I’ll end with something I saw on twitter just moments before posting this. Practice what you preach, better yet, don’t preach. Just practice!

Makes sense, don’t you think? If you aren’t living it, walking the walk so to speak, at some point people will notice.

Technorati Tags: Tom Foremski, Sheryl Breuker, Brian Solis, Personal Brand, Engagement,

From time to time, I’ve read tweets from @ajleon. Tonight I followed and subscribed to his because he said something that’s one of the key messages many of us have been talking about for a long time. He just said it with a a story that resonated.

First go read A Tale of Two Starbucks. Go ahead and do it now. It will open a new window and you can come back. We’ll talk briefly about the lesson.

That’s important. Think of it as the 11th commandment. And it cuts in more than one direction.

We’re all active in social media and many people talk about managing our personal brands. The truth goes far deeper.

You own your brand. You own your employer’s brand. You own your client’s brand.

Your employees also own your brand. Your consultants, partners, marketing and PR agencies own your brand too.

I read a number of people talking about businesses controlling social media. So many of the so-called experts out there to day are glib and easy with pronouncements that corporate control of social media is bordering on evil.

Earlier we watched an old movie called Identity Theft. It was the tale of a young woman’s experience with having her identity stolen and her reputation destroyed.

In AJ’s story, Starbuck’s identity, their brand, was given willingly to a woman who ruined it. Ruined their brand. Fortunately another Starbuck’s employee may have saved that reputation for AJ.

A tale of two Starbuck’s may be a tale of two messages. One positive, one negative.

It begs a question of all the social media experts out there. You know, you people who know it all and pronoucegood vs. evil. You solo entrepreneurs who’ve never actually worked for a large business, but have all the answers.

Do you protect your identity information? Are you cautious about identity theft?

Would you advise your business client to leap right out in harms way and allow all employees….de facto custodians of their identity and brand without seriously considering policies and the ramifications? I know many of you espouse just that.

I say to businesses, be circumspect in running your business. Be smart.

Many posts I’ve read lately, events that have taken place and online conversations led me to consider this again. It feels like a good time to remind myself, and I share this self-reminder with you all.

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.

These are the things I learned:

• Share everything.
• Play fair.
• Don’t hit people.
• Put things back where you found them.
• Clean up your own mess.
• Don’t take things that aren’t yours.
• Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody.
• Wash your hands before you eat.
• Flush.
• Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
• Live a balanced life – learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
• Take a nap every afternoon.
• When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
• Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
• Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup – they all die. So do we.
• And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned – the biggest word of all – LOOK.

Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.

Take any one of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or your work or government or your world and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it would be if we all – the whole world – had cookies and milk at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap. Or if all governments had as a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess.

And it is still true, no matter how old you are, when you go out in the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.

[From All I Really Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten by Robert Fulghum.  http://www.robertfulghum.com/ ]

The “experts” whoever they are, can’t teach us any more about the basic principles of good conduct and civil behavior. They can explain the tools, but we already have the basics.

Many of you have read or seen the interviews I did about the Chile earthquake. I thought I’d tell you in my words what happened and then I’d like to share some thoughts on what social media really is from my perspective.

Saturday, February 27th, 2010 I awoke and got a cup of coffee. It’s the first thing on my agenda after a quick stop at the washroom. I had a few slurps and then went to the office to get phones. This is a common routine for Ken and I. Coffee then phones.

After getting phones, I look to see how many emails and messages there are, clearing them from my phone as I go. Then I typically open tweetdeck. Tweetdeck is the twitter client I use most often on my iphone. Once I have looked at twitter I head to facebook, because while I have a facebook app on my phone it doesn’t show me my pokes and my goal as a rule is to clear up anything that is an action item. Pokes are action items.

Saturday began like any other day, but I got stuck at tweetdeck. Both Ken and I noticed a number of tweets regarding an earthquake in Chile. My brother’s wife is there so our ears perked. We started searching google for news, looking at trending topics on twitter and in general seeking any information about the status of the people in Chile.

Once we saw the magnitude of the earthquake, 8.8 is HUGE, we started wondering if we should contact my brother to find out if he heard anything. I decided to attempt to call Chile to see if maybe all was ok in Santiago, which is where Maria was, and of course couldn’t get through. Call failed. Call failed many times and by now I was getting nervous. I looked at Ken and asked if he thought I should call my brother. We agreed I should.

I woke my brother up from a sound sleep to give him horrible news. An earthquake had occurred and we had tried to reach his wife and couldn’t get through. He said he would start trying. He was so distraught! There is nothing like having to share with a family member bad news. Really bad news. My heart went out to him but I believed it was better he know what happened than to wake and hear it elsewhere.

My brother and I quickly got off the phone with each other so he could start his long vigil while trying to find out what had happened to Maria. In the meantime, I too went to work to see if I could find some answers.

I can’t tell you how often I have been asked what hashtags are and how to use them. I have certainly used them for basic searches before this, but they became a lifeline.

Quickie def. of hashtags: A hashtag uses the hash symbol [pound sign] on your keyboard to draw attention to a specific topic or word.

When I was looking at the trending topics I quickly saw patterns. #Chile was big, #chileearthquake was too. #terremotochile was the biggest one at the beginning of my search so there I went, to http://search.twitter.com/search?q=terremotochile
I noticed a lot of people had many other hashtags so back on twitter I started posting random tweets, at first with no hashtags, moving to hashtags.

I honed my tweets and eventually started getting responses from people until the final response that really was a game changer for us. This one, from @jpcoderch:

We soon worked out the details and he went to work in Chile trying to call my sister in law. It took approximately two hours until he finally got through to her. Maria sent a message back with the code word twinkie, a pet name she uses for my brother so we would know it was really her.

The rest is really history. The interviews I did with the BBC as well as CBS Miami and even the conversation I had with a person from MSNBC which led to a story on their blog, that’s all easy enough to discover and share and it has been shared enough that I do not feel compelled to again.

What hasn’t really been talked about, though each of the news stations attempted to put their own spin on it, is the value in social media. I’m not talking about the communication potential or the way we might all find our next job, but the life altering value I have personally experienced. It also changed perceptions for me.

Prior to this incident, I had relationships with a few fairly well known web-celebs. Do you know only a handful of our moderately well known friends communicated any interest in what was happening or offered on any level to put the word out, and none of them, unless pointed to our situation offered support of any sort? Does this surprise you? I was not surprised, but it did give me pause to consider who we align ourselves with and what value are they in our lives if when something that really matters happens they aren’t even be in the audience as silent support. How engaged is that? I’ll save that for a later post.

Is social media important? Yes. Is it really important? Yes! Social media empowers it’s users to find their own information, to seek out people and ideas to enhance their lives, and provides opportunity to gain perspective. Prior to now, we were fed our ideals, socialized by big media, and brainwashed into believing all was as we were told. The innovators of the world didn’t buy into it and created tools that we can all use today to find what the real truth is. It is also much more as our story clearly demonstrates. It is an organic connection to the whole planet that allows us to see there is more than just us.

My thoughts have been building. I am in the process of writing a much more detailed post about engagement and social web celebs. For now, let me just say thank you to all who helped us and encouraged us through an incredibly trying and frightening time. We were very lucky to have the tools we have to be able to get to a result that was ultimately a gift. We found our family member alive and safe.

We hope all whose paths crossed ours during the awful Chile earthquake have had the kind of outcome we had, and for those who did not – our hearts grieve with you for all you have lost.

Technorati Tags: #terremotochile, #Chile, #earthquake

We suffer from a bad case of technological obesity. I know the is the perfect time to go with “a fat man gets onto a plane” but that’s not where I’m headed at all. Actually my train of thoughts was triggered by an encounter with Notes. Yes, I use Notes every day. It’s one of the most unsatisying experiences of my day. But this encounter, like many others, was positively draining. No I’m not going to elaborate. If you’ve used Notes, you’re already nodding your head; if not, count your blessings.

Glut and gluttony have made people in the US fat and lazy. It’s a problem impacting the health of our children. Information glut coupled with technology are suffering serious obesity problems and the business enterprise is,today plagued with obesity, clogged arteries, hypertension and general poor health. Lean and mean can only describe the smallest percentage. Enterprise business has become a middle age fat man.

Our emerging technologies are, in some ways like homeopathic medicine and healthy living. Service Oriented Architectures leverage cloud concepts to eat light in the corporate information buffet. Mobile solutions encourage exercise for the corporate mind, working outside the lines of the cubicle farm.

Today’s technologies in communications, broadband, mobility, cloud computing and the like offer a holistic life style for a healthy enterprise. An enterprise that can sustain a healthy lifestyle, making the most of each day.

I’ll be writing more on these thoughts in the weeks ahead. In my work as an enterprise architect defining next generation services and networks, I’m writing enterprise prescriptions for healthy living. I guess…the doctor is in.

Caveat: This is Ken’s opinion and post about Google Buzz. Sheryl and I have pretty different opinions and experiences. Don’t infer that she agrees with anything said here.

Last week the buzz hit the Internet to a flurry of very mixed reactions. My own reactions have been pretty mixed thus far too. Mostly the Buzz feels like a rug burn, but I want to be open about it and really give it a fair chance. I really really want to give it a fair chance.

Then there’s this:

Excuse me? Is Schmidt channeling Jerry Yang and leading Google to be the next Yahoo? Take a hundred days Eric. You can afford it. Get out of the way and let your team fix the damage. The worst thing an exec can do is pour gas on a fire, and you sound like a kid with a gas can and a book of matches. Go have a long conversation with Jyri Engestrom. By conversation, I mean go ask him what you should do, shut the hell up and listen. Take notes. Then get out of the way.

Up until today Schmidt was a long way from my list of executives in dire need of a smack with a clue-by-four. But he fought and clawed his way onto the list. Yes, one of these days, I’ll disclose who’s on the list and why. If you’ve followed for any length of time, you already know some.

Where was I? Oh yeah…Buzz. I’m left with questions. No answers. Ideas. No warm fuzzies. I see possibility. I see ego. I see the GOOG in a new light, and it’s not pretty. I could wax sarcastic about doing no evil. I could compare the sly and underhanded way Microsloth makes users de facto beta testers. I could point out how Google made a move to out Microsoft the big M by doing so openly, with a brash attitude. I could.

But that would take effort. Like Buzz, it would take more effort than any return could deliver today. I’ll save it for another time when I’ll get more out of it. And I’m saving Buzz until some time when I’ll get more out of it. More return for all the draining work it takes. Maybe. But really I’ll just step back and wait for some indication that the voices of reason, like Jyri, have been heard and somebody down at the Googleplex has done something really smart.

Creating and unleashing Buzz just because the technology made it possible does not creating a winning solution. For me, today, Buzz isn’t as big a flop as Wave, but it’s all fizzle, no sizzle. I’m putting Buzz in the hold file as something to dabble with when I’m very bored.

I’ve been busy this morning, but reading peripherally the twitstorm about user counts of tweets sent and inflated numbers. Mine currently shows I’ve tweeted 55,553 times. I know reality to be more like 18.5K, and I’m a heavier user than most Twitter accounts.

I haven’t researched this deeply. I’m not inclined to. As an enterprise architect and strategist, guiding business decisions, I can simply react. Twitter as a business tool or infrastructure element simply doesn’t exist.

We’ve all read how important Twitter is to business, although we mostly wonder if that’s true.  We may be just making it up as we go. I’ll admit that, while many won’t. But let me follow through with my thought.

If’ I’m in business and using Twitter, I want metrics. ROI. WIIFM – What’s in it for me is the biggest metric of all.

The dirty little secret of Twitter ROI and metrics is that today everyone of them is bullshit. Statistically inaccurate whimsy, fantasy and lies. Anyone who tells you otherwise should not get a piece of paper from you that says “pay to the order of.” Remember that.

If however, I am a business using Twitter, the tightest measure I’m going to track will be average return per tweet. It will be valid when it can be tracked. However, if Twitter stats inflate my numbers, Twitter invalidates itself as a tool. If my perception is that I make 4 cents on each tweet at 15K tweets, and suddenly the stats say I’ve done 60K tweets, I no longer know what Twitter’s value is. Or maybe I do. Maybe the value just went to zero, or even negative.

Twitter’s cavalier attitude about issues like this has been widely seen over three years. As they said in the  Twitter support forums, “this bug is a low priority issue because it does not prevent users from fully using Twitter. We do not expect to have this issue fixed in the immediate future for this reason.” You might read that to say “we don’t really believe we’re business capable infrastructure and neither should you.” That’s how I read it.

Think Twitter’s for business? Think again. For some business yes, but for many, it isn’t even on the radar scope. For good reason.

Is Twitter social? Absolutely
Is Twitter fun? Much of the time.
Is Twitter for business? Maybe
Is Twitter infrastructure you can either rely or measure? Not a snowball’s chance today.

Is it a technology issue? Not really. it’s a management issue. Twitter management wants to be core infrastructure at the vital level without putting in the work to earn it. They want a gimme. A pass.

I won’t give them a pass for business enterprises I advise and counsel. Play straight and call them the way they are.

For some readers, this post will feel like scraping the asphalt, then rubbing rock salt in the wound. If it feels that way, you might want to get used to the feeling. It’s here to stay.

I’ve written about communications technologies for many years, from every angle. But that isn’t all I do. While I’ve worked in small startups, unlike many of my colleagues, I’m deeply entrenched in enterprise architecture at the Fortune 100 mindset too. I see things from more than one angle. Working as the advising technical architect to a very forward-thinking CTO of one such company, my views of the enterprise embrace new technologies like cloud computing, mobility, netbooks and the iPad in different ways. Hanging with my enterprise architecture colleagues sometimes heightens the chasm I see between emerging technologies and reality. Hence, this rant.

Enterprise 2.0 is bandied about far too often these days and I want to debunk it. Enterprise 2.0 is the Johnny come lately, gotta get on Web 2.0, geez we’re so current mantra that’s overly popular in some circles today. So let’s be clear. Web 2.0 is dead. It’s last decade. It was nothing but fantasy to begin with. Web 2.0 is PR spin for keeping current with technology. Keeping current with technology isn’t forward thinking. It won’t future proof your business. Keeping current is not rocking the boat while you’re motionless in calm water.

The real next generation enterprise never uses the phrase Enterprise 2.0. They’re too busy building the next generation. They’re impatient. They’re agile. They’re looking to run major project initiatives with a lean team of a handful of people, re-architecting global networks in shortened time frames. And they’re succeeding. They’re doing more, more quickly with a team of 6-8 people than they used to do with project work teams of 40 or 50. And they’re improving the bottom line while they do it.

This isn’t the enterprise where your daddy worked for 30 years. And neither will you.

This next generation enterprise is a lean and mean behemoth. Sounds like a contradiction, but it isn’t. It’s made up of a hundred thousand people. Not employees. Contractors. Oh sure, there are maybe a thousand core employees, but the new enterprise doesn’t lease or own office space. They contract with cottage workers around the world. They know timeshifting and placeshifting work to where the talent is leads to lower CapEx, lower OpEx, higher margins, and more profitable business. They know the best and brightest aren’t interested in moving to BFE to work on some boring account-focused project. These people want 12 projects at once. They are nimble, intelligent, proactive and aggressive.

This new enterprise understands cloud computing for what it really is – yet another buzz phrase that means something or nothing different to everyone, but has some key values at its core.

• The data center can be anywhere or everywhere. It doesn’t even have to exist. The data center can be web services connected to a server here with a database there. Anywhere.
• People can be anywhere and everywhere. And they are. They don’t have to work for you permanently. They just need to give you the right slices of their time and talent.
• The cloud can be anywhere. It is. It isn’t a cloud. It’s a network of clouds. It’s the Internet – a network of networks. It’s the same story we’ve been selling for 30 years, but it’s real.

Cloud computing is not about putting data centers in the cloud really. It’s not about putting services in the cloud either. It’s about the ubiquitous access of the cloud. I can get to the cloud from any device, any time, wherever I choose to work. That, my friend is cloud computing. Access to anything and everything. And that’s the real power behind openness. Not risking your data, but enabling the people who need access to have access. Cloud computing isn’t about the core of the cloud, but the access to the ends, wherever they may be.

Often the ends will and do exist inside the cloud. That’s what makes them most accessible.

In this new enterprise, things like this will happen:

That’s what Lotus Notes replication might look like on an iPad. Say what? Yeah Notes on the iPad. Or iPhone. Or netbook. Or anything that you use to access the cloud. From anywhere. Any time.

How? The cloud baby. It’s in the cloud. It’s called desktop virtualization and it’s spreading across those old enterprises in prototypes, beta tests and early implementations right now. Sure you hear about server virtualization, and it’s a big deal. A really big deal. It’s the green initiative those enterprises are talking about. But you know what? They don’t care about green, they care about money. And for a big enterprise with multiple data centers that green is the color of money. They’re reducing electricity costs by millions with server virtualization.

Desktop virtualization is green money colored too. No longer will the enterprise sign a master agreement to buy new laptops every 3 years from Dell, HP or anyone else. Why? They don’t need to. They won’t have to. Businesses hate that relationship and this is a profitable way out. It’s as green as a thousand dollar bill. A shipping container full of them.

There’s another green effect in play. Employees require real estate. In the old enterprise, they have to have a place to go. It’s where check boxes get checked. Attendance. Tardiness. Vacation. The old enterprise, The dying enterprise. The model that’s quietly starting to fade.

The new enterprise employees are mostly teleworkers, but even that term holds less meaning. Mobile solutions deliver cloud connectivity to the resources. Today’s teleworker may spend several hours a day at a coffee shop. IM, SMS, VoIP telephony, online video provide more than just alternatives to cubicles and travel for meetings. Today’s worker is either a digital immigrant or digital native. For us it’s the preferred method of work. It’s incentive. It makes a job more appealing. It’s so very now.

For the aging worker, it’s not an invitation to leave. It’s an invitation and incentive to keep working. Companies are finding this truism every day. They call it retention of institutional knowledge. It’s a powerful, valuable tool in hanging on to the older workers who know the business details because they helped build it from the ground up over the past 30 years.

Where do these virtual workers go if they don’t have a cubicle to call their very own? Home. Starbuck’s. Portugal. Ireland. The beach. An island. Any place they like. Where they are doesn’t matter. Place shifting lets them be wherever they like. I say virtual workers because teleworkers don’t need to be employees. They can be contractors. Many are. Many more than you probably think. Pick a number. Think higher. Higher. You’re close. But it’s a growing number and the pace of adoption for this approach is accelerating.

Desktop virtualization will lead to the desktop being whatever the enterprise chooses for tools. The workstation? Whatever that contracted employee chooses to use, or within some supported set anyway.

Enterprise 2.0 as a Web 2.0 carryover? It’s not dead. It was never born. It’s just spin doctor hype from enterprises trying to gain some attention and hang on to relevance. There are many of these. BUT, there are many enterprises that are well into the migration toward the real future. In The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler laid out the vision of the electronic cottage back in 1980. Toffler looked at early personal computers and saw into the future. That future is here, and our electronic cottage today may be as small as a Blackberry or iPhone. The choice of personal computing tool is filled with options.

As for employer, who do you work for really? Your father’s company? Your employer? Do you go report in every day to your cubicle just so they can verify you’re still alive? I work for me. For my family. I work to make our life better. That might mean long hours, many projects, bureaucracy and BS. But it doesn’t have to mean imprisonment in an 8×8 cell so a supervisor can watch me to make sure I’m still breathing.

More and more, the power of business, from very small companies to the biggest global enterprise is the value of human resources. The staff. The talent. The brains. The engineers, sales pros, writers, designers, relationship managers who really fuel the stream of money. Not employees, but people who receive value in pay for providing value. The value proposition of permanent staff employees is changing. The equation is changing. The balance of power is changing.

It’s happening right now. Every day. In more major enterprises than you probably think. Why do I think this? I live there, and I’m helping make it happen. I’m changing the world of work for me, and by extension for you. Get ready.

Something to keep in mind when reading this, I didn’t do a technical review. If you want that, you’ll have to wait for Ken to write something. These are personal experiences and feelings from a pseudo geek.

You’re probably aware of the queries both Ken and I have thrown out about iPhone stuff. We’ve been such strong proponents of RIM, I’m pretty sure most of you can’t fathom us switching sides. We didn’t, at least not exactly.

We got iPhones.

I know, that’s got to be the big shock of the year. So how come I said we didn’t switch sides? To switch sides implies we are no longer rooting for the other team, and no longer view them as quality and that simply isn’t the case.

We took a little road trip this last weekend and our friend Dameon, aka @phoneboy called while we were in transit. Something I thought about while talking to Dameon was how much I still loved my Blackberry. My Blackberry Bold found a new home with my son who swears it’s the best phone ever – that coming off the Nokia 5800 Xpressmusic phone which we loaned him a year ago and he LOVED.

What I loved about my Blackberry.

Both the Blackberry curve and bold are impressive devices. They thread messages wonderfully, their messaging service works almost flawlessly, to send both text and mms is super simple, and the apps for basics like twitter and facebook work better than their native platforms work most of the time.

I also loved typing on Blackberry. Typing on a qwerty keyboard is so much easier than a non qwerty, and when I say that I mean it beats hands down my use of the iPhone. If I had to say one thing would make me think twice again it would be that feature, or lack of a feature that could cause me to rethink.

The Blackberry messenger service was incredible. The iPhone may have over 100k apps but nothing I have found touches what Blackberry messenger could do, from basic messaging, one on one, to group messages, as well as file and picture transfers I simply don’t see anything in iPhone that comes close.

Multi tasking is yet another feature the Blackberry does well. With the Bold I was able to have multiple applications running at the same time, and did. I could have a call up, apps running, all while web browsing, something I’ll talk about later.

There are a few apps on the Blackberry that I miss but the truth is, if I were to shift back to that device I would miss some apps from the iPhone. Still, worth a real mention here is an app that I used in beta called socialscope. There has not been another mobile app that remotely functions the way socialscope does. That one app is a struggle and why it took me a while to buy the tweetie app on iPhone, something I wish I hadn’t purchased because I don’t find it better than anything else on iPhone that’s free. I remember hearing how fabulous it is and all I can say is, those who said that never had socialscope. ‘Nuff said.

Now web browsing. If all you’ve ever had is basic browsing like those non-smart phones offer, the Blackberry browser wouldn’t seem bad at all. I know because that is all I ever had pre Blackberry. However, once you have experienced other types of browsing you quickly see that RIM has a lot of catching up to do in order to provide a comparable experience. I’m not sure they can, actually. It’s unfortunate because so many things about the blackberry are actually superior to the iPhone. The appstore and browser make all the difference in the world. So let’s talk about that.

Experiencing the iPhone.

Many of you know that about a year ago Ken and I both got an ipod touch. Why that matters is because getting an iphone meant we already had a clue how to use it. Using the iPhone isn’t quite like using other phones or pda’s. It simply behaves differently, has a unique interface, which ultimately anyone can use because you don’t have to tell someone what to do to use it, it’s incredibly intuitive. It functions and works so easily and that is one of the great things about it.

We spent a year using ipods yet were pretty hesitant to get an iphone. There wasn’t any one straw that broke this camels back, it was many things.

First, while we don’t much care for the typing experience on iphone, something I’m sure we will eventually not have is a keyboard. Certainly not in the way we have them in current iteration of computer systems. I think touch, and ultimately voice will be our interface. We both think it likely.

Second, we are growing more and more mobile. Down sizing if you will. We want a device we can use in more ways than just to text or im and talk on the phone. Certainly I was able to watch youtube on my Blackberry, but if you put the Blackberry screen next to the iphone screen you can quickly see that there’s much better ability to see things on the iphone. I don’t have to squint as much and that is a big deal as I rarely have my glasses. Ken wears bifocals which also makes the iphone much more user friendly!

Third, the browser. There is not enough white space to talk about how brilliant the browsing experience is on the iphone. I LOVE the browser so much! It is the BEST browser on any mobile device I have ever used, and I have used several. I like that you in essence get tabbed browsing, and so far I haven’t found a limit to the number of windows I can open.

I love the ability to both pinch the screen to make it smaller or bigger, depending on need. The way I can scroll so seamlessly across a page not optimized for mobile browsers.

I don’t like the way my messages are threaded in the message box. It has made it impossible to respond to pokes much of the time. If I get a poke from someone and immediately following get a message, the message can be addressed, the poke can not.

I also don’t like that I literally have 3 different inboxes for mail. They all fall in the mail section but are separated there into 3 different boxes. It is more tedious and  I don’t care for it but it’s certainly doable.

The appstore, that’s incredible. If you’ve tried to use an appstore for any other platform you can appreciate a simple click and install process and how nice that would be. Blackberry appstore would like to be good but it isn’t. It’s a real pain.

Itunes on the other hand makes everything awful. I do NOT like itunes. Now, I will grant you that maybe I don’t use it to it’s best advantage, so that could be user failure. But many people I talk to despise the itunes interface and I wish it wasn’t so annoyingly cluttered, or processor intensive. I also wish there were better directions for how to prevent your non DRM’d media from becoming owned by itunes. I know how to do it should I need to, but it is a non-intuitive process. Funny how all the rest of the things about the iphone just work on an intuitive basis but not itunes. Not sure what happened there but someone clearly dropped the ball.

The sum of the total…

I wish I could tell you all that I wouldn’t change back, but that wouldn’t be fair. I probably would in the right circumstances. But for now, I’m an iPhone user and it’s not that bad. It’s not perfect, but I’m still learning. I’m sure I’ll have more to say as time goes by. I’ve only had it for a couple of weeks and I have a lot to learn.