Generally these days, when we think of virtualisation, we think of it in the context of IT infrastructure. But the notion of virtualisation goes far beyond servers and storage, and has profound cultural and economic ramifications. We’re becoming increasingly disassociated from our physical environments, and in many cases, I don’t think we realise it.

The symptoms of this disassociation can be very explicit. Most recently, two Korean parents were sentenced after letting their baby daughter starve to death while they busied themselves playing online games. They neglected the real world, while immersing themselves in a virtual one.

Most discussions of those who live too much online focus on the obvious issues: gaming addition, a preoccupation with cybersex, or an unhealthy obsession with Facebook. It’s easy to point out that many of us speak to more people on Facebook in a day than we speak to in real life. All of these are well-made points, but they’re only part of a broader issue.

The pervasive nature of virtualisation also affects our economy and society in broader ways. Our supply chains are so virtual that we can switch suppliers thousands of milles away in an instant. The virtualisation of our housing by interpreting it in terms of credit default swaps led us to forget how much they were really worth, and when someone realised that, it tanked the economy.

Tech can bring us wonderful benefits. It enables me to speak to my children and see and hear them, even when I am in a different city. I can pick the brains of a large community of extremely smart people, without leaving my chair. And every time I turn on my Mac, I’m bathed in new ideas. It’s the most intellectually stimulating place on the planet.

But in acknowledging all that, we must also acknowledge the downsides. Virtualisation involves the abstraction of the logical from the physical. In that sense, it naturally tends to alienate us from our physical environments, and with that, comes a sense that we have forgotten how to live in the moment. I worry that younger generations in particular, as plugged-in as they are, will lose this.

Eventually I think the pendulum will swing back to a point where we rediscover the value of the physical. But in the meantime, I hope that in the meantime, an over-reliance on technology at the expense of engagement with our environment won’t leave us spiritually bankrupt.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Thieves strike in virtual world (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Antisocial Networking? (lockergnome.com)
• 13% of Online Consumers Buy Virtual Goods (marketingvox.com)
• Virtual Furniture Stolen From Habbo Hotel Users (shoppingblog.com)
• Baby Girl Dies While Parents Raised Virtual Child in Online Game (english.pravda.ru)
• Gaming curfew for South Koreans (news.bbc.co.uk)
• LifeCams: The Next Best Thing to Being There (newswire.ca)

It isn’t often that a technology company breathes out the anger and breathes in the love, but that’s exactly what Adobe did – at least on the surface – with Apple the other week. The firm ran an ad on the popular online blog Engadget, along with a statement [PDF] in the Wall Street Journal, telling the world just how much it ‘hearts’ those piloting the Cupertino Death Star. What on earth inspired it to do that?

 The underlying text gives us some insights.

What we don’t love is anybody taking away your freedom to choose what you create, how you create it and what you experience on the web.

Oh dear.

In case you haven’t been following, Adobe is upset at Apple for not supporting its Flash multimedia technology on its latest device, the iPad.

 The iPad is the most sought-after tablet since Moses came down the mountain with a present from the Big Guy.

Actually, we could run for quite a while with this analogy. Steve Jobs is something of a god-like figure at Apple. Back in 1985, Jobs resigned in what amounted to a corporate crucifixion, after the board ousted him from the company. 

Then, in 1997, in a kind of second coming, Apple bought him back to revitalise the company, and he did it in style. He resurrected Apple from a firm with a confusing plethora of mediocre products to one with a pure, piercing design vision. He took the firm from losses of roughly $1bn in 1997 to profits of over $8bn on revenues of $43bn last year. No wonder the world listens to him, especially when he makes the odd infrequent posting on the Apple web site, such us his Thoughts on Flash (aka the Book of Jobs, chapter 1, verse 1).

Jobs explains in that post why Apple won’t allow Flash on the iPad or the iPhone. In short, he says that it isn’t open, that HTML 5 (the alternative, as-yet unratified standard that Apple has adopted) supports the majority of web-based video, that Flash is woefully insecure, that it drains battery life, and that it doesn’t support the touch-based interface of which Apple has become so proud. All of this is true. In particular, the reliability and security issues of the Flash player are well documented, and there have been several zero-day security flaws within Adobe’s Flash player in the past year.

The problem for Adobe is that the iPad is a very significant product. We were sceptical when it first appeared. It didn’t support Flash, which still litters large numbers of web sites. It didn’t have a camera. There was no multi-tasking. It seemed, in short, like an iPod Touch on steroids. Then, we got to play with one. 

It’s a more significant product than we thought. The large format screen, combined with the instant-on functionality, and the ability to point and swipe using the multi-touch interface, creates a new computing experience. It separates the productive mode of computing – the mode where you write, as I am now, or create a spreadsheet, or design a graphic – from the consumptive mode. The latter is the mode where you absorb information from the web and interact with applications and web sites without trying to crank out work.

 The iPad recasts this consumptive model of interacting with the web and with local applications as a ’sit back’ experience, rather than a ’sit forward’ one.

The difference between the two shouldn’t be underestimated. Until now, we have consumed content online in a ’sit forward’ model that puts us at odds with the device we’re using. Perching ourselves on a chair, or balancing a notebook on our lap on the sofa and fumbling with a mouse or trackpad isn’t the ideal way to surf the web and watch video. But holding something like an electronic notepad in the crook of your arm while lounging in an armchair and pointing directly at the screen with your finger is very conducive.

 Marry that experience with the native Cocoa software framework in OS X, and you get some stunning results, particularly when creating applications to present magazines and newspapers.

Publications such as Time, Vanity Fair, the Financial Times and Wired are already offering their publications as Cocoa-based applications for the iPad, and they change the reading experience dramatically enough to make the hardware platform an important development.

The iPad isn’t perfect, but it’s a stunning start, especially considering the largely ineffectual attempt that Microsoft made with tablet computing in 2002. And it’s the start of a new model for consuming content that could represent a ray of hope for the ailing print publishing sector. For publishers, the chance to redefine interfaces for the consumption of information from the ground up is a liberating experience. It could represent the beginning a swing back toward quality in content that the online world has needed for a while. Citizen journalism and crowdsourcing most definitely have their place, but since Web 2.0 first appeared, we have largely ignored the curatorial element that used to define quality in information. The iPad and other products that will undoubtedly follow might just kindle its resurgence.

That’s why Adobe should be worried. Flash was supposed to be the presentation technology that allowed content publishers to communicate with audiences in new and exciting ways. The problem is that the hardware and operating system platform is an intimate part of that communication. Unluckily for Adobe, the hardware and operating system company that finally got it right is an old partner that grew away from it over the years, to the point where it doesn’t respect Adobe’s key web multimedia product and doesn’t want the code in its back yard.

For all these reasons, Adobe stands at a crucial juncture in its history. Fanboy adulation aside, the iPad is hugely significant. And with Apple not on its side, Adobe will need all the friends that it can get.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Adobe Loves Apple… Or Do They? (geeksaresexy.net)
• Adobe Does a PDF Reader for Android (technologizer.com)
• Adobe announces HTML5 compatibility (rev2.org)
• Adobe makes ‘love’ not war in dispute with Apple (sfgate.com)
• Adobe makes ‘love’ not war in dispute with Apple (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Apple, Adobe and Openness: Let’s Get Real (mobileopportunity.blogspot.com)
• Apple Wins Ground in Fight Over Flash [Voices] (voices.allthingsd.com)
• Adobe Strikes Back, Sort of (technologizer.com)
• Adobe announces angst-laden iPad software effort (news.cnet.com)
• Summary Box: Adobe, Apple dispute escalates (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Sometimes we get the opportunity to stand back from our most pressing work commitments, and gaze across the technology landscape at the changing Internet. We are frequently told that social media is a work in progress, and is still its infant phase. So let us ponder where it may go in the coming years. What follows is idle future pondering, scenarios almost. Please do not take the following as a forecast.

Twitter will not last without a radical reinvention

The increasing openness between networks – LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter – will increase. Status updates on one will be seamlessly available to all, and also embedded in Microsoft Office applications, in collaboration tools, with SMS and so on. Status will be your thoughts, your retweets and @’s and also your car’s GPS location, and your appliances’ status (you’re washing machine will let you know when the cycle is complete). In fact the ability to display status updates will be as common a function as voice: completely commoditised.

Imagine a future Facebook interface which selects your real friends, the people you have interacted with on Twitter (or the like), or that have used common hashtags. Powerful algorithms will serve up only the status and conversations you are likely to find interesting. So what value in having an army of followers that is not listening to you? Will those that are currently trying to greedily acquire social capital now find their efforts were in vain?

I believe the effect of this evolution in social media interfaces (not the networks behind them) will help to cut down a lot of the noise.  In terms of which social media applications will dominate, the winning environment will be the one with the best usability and the best distribution because being a walled garden isn’t going to last.

Junk content will get worse before it gets better

Ever wonder what happens when you pay “writers” $1 for a 1000 word? It ends up as a How-To article on websites funded by Google Adsense revenues.  Many (not all) of these sites operate without any accountability whatsoever. What’s wrong with this? People are paid a pittance to plagiarise, cut corners or simply write with fake authority about subjects they know absolutely nothing about. Hundreds of millions of pages of junk content is clogging up Google. While bedroom publishers can build an economic model based on Adsense, don’t expect any self restraint.

This is not to say that How-To sites are the only ones manipulating or exploiting dubious online content to gain Adsense revenue. There are many technology sites doing this also, grabbing articles about popular brands and scurrilously twisting the meaning into something sensational. The best of the Adsense-funded sites are enthusiasts with not enough time to check facts; the worst simply don’t care at all about veracity. Their only interest is traffic because now they have a direct correlation between views and cents.

Eventually we will stop reading and the noise will quieten down

Looking further ahead – 10 years for instance – and the verbal diarrhoea generated by UGC and copy factories will be on the wane. As more and more of the content we will view becomes video, audio and spoken-word menus, our reliance on scanning stories for what we want to know will dissipate. Natural language-based search (sometimes called the semantic web) will make it easier for us to go direct to the information we want. Intelligent agents will learn our habits and interests and will interoperate with these search tools to ensure that each search is really, really targeted. And the widespread deployment of touchscreen interfaces – in work PCs, the living room TV, in-car computer and the home control panel – will gradually break our century-old connection to the keyboard. Intelligent speech, search, profiling and interfaces could combine to end the rule of the Word on the Internet

So which of these scenarios could come true? What other futures for media/social media can you envision?

A new report from the UN warns that the environmental dangers of e-waste is set to explode with the increasing use of PCs, mobile phones and consumer gadgetry worldwide. It says that unless countries  take action to collect and recycle e-waste, many developing countries will be left with (even bigger) mountains of hazardous toxic e-waste. The report predicts that e-waste from discarded mobile phones will be seven times higher in 2020 compared to 2007, and 18 times higher in India. Two to four times as many computers will be dumped in South Africa and China, and five times as many in India. China already produces 2.3 million tonnes of e-waste domestically and remains a major dumping ground for developed countries despite having banned e-waste imports. How to deal with this waste is a growing problem, and the report acknowledges that simply transferring existing recycling methods from more developed countries is unlikely to work.

Existing controls for e-waste recycling are already weak, as demonstrated by a Greenpeace investigation that followed a TV from the UK to Nigeria where it is dumped or the materials recycled using less than safe methods. With the poorest being involved in trying to extract materials such as lead, cadmium and mercury e-waste, Greenpeace say its up to the manufacturers of this equipment to stop using toxic chemicals in its manufacture.

So how did social media fare in 2009, and what can we look forward to in 2010? If Facebook could be considered a bell-weather for social media, then 2009 was an important year, because it broke through 300 million users and became cash-flow positive for the first time. Although this of course doesn’t mean that it is profitable – yet.

Analyst Gartner reckons that Facebook will actually strengthen its position in the future, because it will help different social networks operate with mechanisms such as Facebook Connect. In fact, Gartner believes that interoperability will be the most important trend in social networks over the next two years.

All business sectors embraced social media in 2009. Look at newspapers; criticised by Gartner in early 2009, the vast majority of newspaper sites now have social media widgets to help their readers share information. The Telegraph, for example, has a ‘retweet’ button, which handily counts the number of times readers have retweeted its articles.

Away from the mainstream, social media turned up in all sorts of places. It aimed to stop the spread of swine flu, got jurors into trouble in court and even saw an innocent man hauled down the police station to be questioned about terrorism offenses.

So what for next year? Well Forrester’s Josh Bernoff believes that 2010 is the year when marketers will focus less on fuzzy social media metrics and look for proper measureable marketing metrics. Getting followers and friends is all very well, but if businesses don’t use these networks or connections for any obvious end, then the money is wasted. In fact it can be counterproductive if the connections get bored or disillusioned with the enterprise’s business.

What do you think?

In the mainstream media, there is still far too much rubbish, lies and misinformation about technology. Too many pundits who fail to question what they are being told.

There was a classic example on Radio 4’s Today Programme  - a discussion on why 3G service in the UK is so disappointing and patchy. While Peter Cochrane, one time CTO of BT, did make the occassional relevant point, such as why O2 has a poor network***, he also blamed poor 3G network coverage on clustering. Apparently kids sit around coffee shops, simultaneously watching the same video on their individual mobiles. This, apparently, is the reason for our collectively poor service experience. I’ll leave you to make your own conclusions about that. Check out the interview here at 7:13 on Friday 15 Jan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm

But it got me thinking about all the recieved wisdom about technology, all the rubbish masquerading as fact.

One of those is country league tables for broadband speeds. It may be interesting to know where the UK is – 26th apparently – but does this mean that we are really way down the list of broadband competitiveness, or indeed if broadband competitiveness has any baring on the digital economy? Does the relative position of where we a country is in the league table mean that somehow that its internet users are less evolved, that with 5mbps they do not operate on the same level of conciousness of citizens graced by 50mbps? Or does it mean that those with higher speed, more reliable connections simply are recipients of even more mass media channelled downwards through these fat pipes.

I love my fast broadband, I genuinely like the experience of BT Vision’s IPTV, and I regularly use BBC iPlayer and download games to my PS3, I use Spotify and spend huge sums on TV and music on iTunes. But will i be disappointed if in two or three years this isn’t a 50mbps or 1gbps connection?

My current 16mbps pipe is a conduit to mass media. Of course, that’s not so say that my internet experience is limited to this – quite the contrary, much of my working life is spent researching online, and I buy online in preference to visiting stores – but this does not need require a constant race for increased broadband access speeds. The impact of high speeds means that much of my Internet experience is now a sit-back rather than sit-forward experience. I watch, listen and play much more now than read and browse. Any rich media I want, it’s on demand. And i can’t help thinking its a little addictive, and that i’m spending less time discovering and learning. So tell me now – what does broadband competiveness means to the digital economy? It means more supine people, able to consume media in more ways, more often. Hardly enlightened! So why do writers, consultants and politicians continue to bang on about the need for broadband competitiveness without thinking about what it means?

Footnote:

***O2’s lower GSM spectrum band – 900Mhz – means it had quite large cell sizes originally. The high spectrum of 3G – 2100Mhz – needs smaller cells sizes, and therefore more of them. O2 is still in the process of trying to acquire additional cell sites rather than using just the GSM sites it already has, a process known as infill. This may have been fine if it wasnt for the boom in mobile apps and content created by the iPhone, which has taken O2 by surprise. The shear volume of data traffic generated by apps and content has highlighted another weak point – backhaul. Even when there is sufficient wireless capacity, many cell sites do not have sufficient capacity to bring the traffic back to the core network. That’s why as an iPhone user you are offered free access to BT Openzones – its cheaper for O2 in the short term to pay BT to backhual its apps and content over WiFi. More backhaul is being provisioning but at the moment, it can’t keep pace with demand.