What's After Google?

It all made me think, though, that storage and searchability are huge battlefronts in the future of 'net culture. In the world of search, Google is inadequate and even if it were adequate it doesn't make sense to give it so much power. My guess is that there will be, there should be eventual search engine models that work in different ways. Maybe even search engines that mirror our various perspectives a little bit. Either that, or materials will be grouped and archived in places that make them easier to search in a more specific and nuanced and efficient way than the Google page-rank system.

Over the course of the semester, we've spent a great deal of time looking at Google, its model and its implications. However, in the end, we only really scratched the surface of what Google is and what it could be. The above quote, from one of Colin's posts earlier this week, made me wonder what exactly is going to challenge Google to really innovate? Is anything going to or will Google become the next Microsoft, become complacent, put out second rate products content to only change minor issues until they really drop a true bomb and are forced to reassess?

It's fairly obvious that Google has figured out how to maximize the internet better than just about anyone else. If you think this isn't true, I'd like for you to explain to me how Google continues to put out products that people flock to (i.e. Gmail, Wave, Earth, Maps, etc.) almost compulsively. Watching the fervor over Google Wave invites has become almost comical. As soon as someone lets others know that they have an allotment, people immediately jump at the opportunity. I'm not even sure if these people who want a Wave invite even know what they're getting into or what they'll use Wave for. They just want to be a part of the excitement of the new cutting edge Google product. I'm probably as guilty as others when it comes to this but in my defense, I've been spending some serious time figuring out what Wave can do to help make my life easier.

I remember the craziness that followed the release of Windows 95. Midnight openings, lines out the store, general insanity. That was for an OS, something that a lower end computer user might not be able to fully understand the differences between A and B. For the cool concept programs that Google is slinging around, it's no wonder that the nerds and techies are losing their shits. The question is whether Google can keep it up.

If not, what happens? Ultimately, someone or something is going to have to come along and light a fire under Google by putting out a superior product that excites users. Microsoft is trying this with Bing with mixed results. Alexa has got it as the 20th most popular site on the web right now, which given it short lifespan thus far, is pretty impressive. Yet, who are these people that use it? Outside of it's initial release, during which commercials were everywhere, I haven't had a single conversation with someone where they've even mentioned Bing, much less suggested I use it. Microsoft advertises Bing as being the first "decision engine", suggesting that Bing can make choices for you. It's an interesting idea but I don't really see how it's being implemented on the site. Bing's searches are roughly the same as Google's and their search results pages are alittle more cluttered. I'm not sure whether it's just my being used to Google or what, but I'd much rather continue to use that as opposed to making the jump.

Still, the idea of a "decision engine" seems like a step in the right direction. Even the most adept Google searchers have moments of frustration trying to find the info you desire. There is a lot of stuff out there and it can be tough going at times. With a search that helps to point you towards sites that it'll think you'll like, it could eliminate a number of headaches. However, given the uproar earlier this year about cookies, how that site would know your browsing habits is a tough question, one that I don't have the answer to. I suppose that a search engine could link into a social network, given the user's permission, and determine interests that way but once again, I'm not sure I want to be searching for information and only being given what I already have an interest in, back.

This is why I'm not a computer programmer and it's why I would have failed during the .com boom. I don't have enough foresight to predict the future or think of the next biggest thing. I'd like to think that when something comes down the pipe, I can identify them but to think it up from scratch, that's a different story.

What do you think comes after Google (something will)? Maybe that isn't the best way to phrase the question since nothing has come "after" Microsoft seeing as how the big M is still rocking. Perhaps the better way to ask it is, what will out-Google Google? Who'll one up the kings of the internet as this still relatively young technology continues to grow?

Reddit Vs. Digg

I was looking over Reddit today, a site that I had heard of but never really utilized, primarily because I'm typically at Digg for this type of thing. It seems as if both sites accomplish roughly the same task of allowing users to vote for news/articles that are deemed most newsworthy. Without having an in-depth view of everything that Reddit offers, Digg initially strikes me as the more efficient option of the two. While Digg is certainly not flawless, it's design and execution seems more carefully considered, resulting in a cleaner, easier to pick up and use site. Reddit's homepage is so overloaded with text that it is a bit daunting. In fact, I think the style of the site may limit whatever substance is behind it.

I love the idea behind both. I like the idea of a news source aggregating stories based on how other users like myself feel about them, as opposed to an editor high in the structure of a newspaper. Its a Journalistic socialism. But, if pushed, I'd much rather head to Digg than Reddit.

What Now? My Role?

3. What role do I see MYSELF playing, possibly even as a content creator?

Once again, I'm not sure. Will I continue to contribute to social networks like Twitter and Facebook? Sure, because I like to think that I'm at least an infinitesimal portion of the conversation. Does that make me a content creator? In a sense, I guess it does. Does it make me an important content creator? Absolutely not. I'm psyched if 20 people read something I post or write. Kevin Rose's tweets are read by 1.1 million people. Not bad for a guy who helped create a website.

I think I get Twitter and how to use it. Does that mean that I use it to my best ability? Probably not. I'm willing and excited to learn how to, which is something I think people need to realize. Some of these apps and services are fairly innovative and original. We're not all going to pick them up instantly with a full understanding on how to use them to maximize our life. Does that learning curve mean that we should just shut them all out and ignore them? I'd like to hope not. Written text was once a foreign, even ridiculous concept. I'm glad that some of the more intelligent people in society decided to take the time to master it and subsequently, teach that mastery to others. People have scoffed at new technologies throughout time. The people who don't are those who end up making a difference. I don't mean to place myself in the latter group, far from it. I'm as much of a follower as anyone else. Twitter was founded in 2006. I joined in late 2008, making me two years late to the party, well past the fashionable limit. But I'd rather be late than not attending.

Who am I looking towards to lead the way? Leo Laporte and friends aren't a bad place to start. Neither are the folks at Revision 3 (there is a great deal of overlap between the two). They present accessible information while also discussing the most cutting edge techs. Most of them were on Twitter, with a solid understanding of what it is and it's potential well before much of the population. Laporte's crew is a huge group of industry insiders, journalists and up and coming developers. The discussions are informative and entertaining, if you're into that type of thing. Many of them have utilized UStream well before people knew what it was. These guys have been and continue to be on the cutting edge of content produced specifically for the 'net. There is no reason to think that they'll stop. While the live broadcasts leave a bit to be desired from a visual standpoint, the content is excellent.

What Now? Consumption Habits?

2. What are MY content consumption habits, at that point?

Not sure. I'm guessing that I'll still rely on blogs a great deal. I like the idea of blogging and there is a plethora of legit bloggers producing really excellent work. I have no reason to think that blogs will suddenly cease to interest me. Cover your eyes and ears blog-haters but maybe blogs are going to be the newspapers of my generation? They're not going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm ok with being entirely online. With the advent of internet TV, both in original and syndicated content, I'm wondering if everything won't come from the 'net? Windows 7 is heavily emphasizing home networks as something even the most tech-handicapped (this was found on the Official WindowsVideos channel) can create/use/maximize them. Now, we can link together our computer, gaming system, Blu-Ray player, television and stereo into one large network, streaming video and audio both ways to every device in our house, with all of the content coming from the net. Cable TV should be bracing themselves for a big change.

In undergrad, having not the money to subscribe, the time or energy to walk across campus to my tiny mailbox to pick up a stack of paper with day-old-news, I made the jump to an almost all-online news consumption habit a few years ago. I can't remember the last time I sat down with a mainstream paper to read about the news. In the past couple of years, almost all of my news consumption is online as even the slowest newspapers have finally begun to realize that this internet thing may be for real and as a result, have digitized their content for internet reading. While I can enjoy and sympathize with the nostalgia for the good ol' days of newsprint, I'm not sure its continued existence is as important as some of the Armageddon forecasters seem to think it is. Journalism will be ok without newspapers: there are enough journalists that care deeply enough about their craft and jobs that they'll figure out a way to make it work and even the most skeptical folks will come around eventually.

I am guessing that I'll be using mobile devices a great deal more to consume my news. As smartphones continue to evolve and tablets become more prominent, mobile users will be in heaven. You'll be able to consume your news wherever you go. Even now, you can watch live sports on the go with the correct subscription. This idea of mobile content is where we're headed. It's nice to sit at your computer watching streaming video. It'll be cooler to do it while walking down the street.

What Now? What Comes After Newspapers?

Going off of Colin's prompt, there are three things that need to be addressed in the wake of newspapers demise:

1. What do YOU see in [their] place?

2. What are YOUR content consumption habits, at that point?

3. What role do you see yourself playing, possibly even as a content creator?

I'll take them one at a time:

1. What do I see in [their] place?

Blogs, Social Networks, News Aggregators, Tech still TDB.

For starters, I get as much of my news from blogs today as I do from more traditional news outlets. In fact, anything cultural, I'll get from a variety of blogs that I've rounded up and read regularly. Film, Music, TV, etc. are all better covered by bloggers and internet only journalists than they are by any mainstream newspaper (NY Times Film section aside. AO, you're the man! But I actually think your internet-only material is better than some of your print stuff, brilliant!) The news is quicker and more personal (After art is best covered from a subjective opinion. There is nothing worse than objective art coverage). As film critics get the ax across the country, the blogosphere is filling with film writing that is really excellent: informative, insightful and passionate.

Social Networks already have cemented themselves as invaluable tools for news coverage. All you Twitter haters need look no further than the Iran Elections and the Mumbai terrorist attacks for the reason why Twitter must exist. At a time when, in Iran, the government had widespread censorship over what could be reported about the uprisings surrounding the elections, leaving, in the process, the mainstream press in the dark, Twitterers across the country became THE source for news. What followed was a tremendous amount of unfiltered, unedited information revealing the real truths behind what was happening. Combined with grainy, pixelated YouTube videos, these brave activists/citizen journalists risked their own lives to shed light on the ugly conditions of a country fighting to reclaim itself.

There is no reason to think that Twitter has seen it's peak or even, it's entire potential. This is a service that will continue to mature and evolve. The Twitter train is leaving the station and you can either choose to acknowledge its growing importance and get on board or get run over. It's not stopping once it's fully on its way. I'm not sure that Facebook will have the same importance as a news source. As the more innovative Twitter has grown in popularity and importance, Facebook has merely copied it. The new news feeds are directly modeled on Twitter's platform and as long as Facebook continues to focus on useless, time wasting apps like Mafia Wars and Social Interview rather than truly innovating as a worthy news platform, it'll stay as a nice way to stay in touch with friends but nothing else. I'm a fan of Facebook for what it does but it isn't Twitter and doesn't have the same level of excitement surrounding its potential.

News Aggregators have already established themselves as a vital and fun portion of the 'net. As newspapers bite the dust, they'll only continue to grow in importance. Rather than having to wade through pages of stories one isn't interested in (which may actually be a good thing), one can search for a single news item and get a range of coverage (which may actually be a better thing). No longer is someone forced to rely on just the Courant's (or AP's) coverage of an item. Now, you can see more coverage than anyone could possibly know what to deal with. If you're not looking for a single item, head to Google News' main page and you've got yourself the front page of a region-less, multi-sided newspaper. It'll take an adjustment for readers who like folding newsprint but it's not an impossible leap.

Finally, by 2014, who knows what'll be around? Let's take a look at five years ago. In 2004:

-Facebook was just being founded. Now, it's a widespread phenomenon that has 300 million users in 5 years.
-Digg was founded. Now it's one of the most popular social news networks on the planet.
-A small email service was launched. Gmail now has 146 million users despite being in "beta" for much of the five years.

That's just three services that are now synonymous with the larger internet. Impressive to say the least. Now, what comes in 2014? Who the hell knows and really, who the hell can guess? Was Twitter predicted in 2004? Certainly not by the just-launching Facebook, which had no newsfeed. Certainly not by a large portion of the Facebook audience who flipped their collective shit when the news feed was introduced (now, almost all of which, I'd be willing to bet, spend 90% of their Facebook time gleefully scrolling through their feed, while cursing the hand that fed them, Twitter).

My guess? Probably something along the lines of Google Wave, an even-more-instant-than-Twitter real-time-service that somehow gets news to millions in a blink of an eye. That'll actually be it's name: EvenMoreInstantThanTwitterRealTimeServiceThatImprovesOnTheIdeasOfGoogleWave. Google Wave users will hate it.

5 Potential Uses of Twitter

Here's my list of 5 potential uses of Twitter:

1. Crowd-Sourcing: A quick search for a hashtag or trending topic will give one a pretty good idea as to what the masses are saying about it. This was initially more difficult without the use of a client desktop application but since Twitter has implemented a viable search on their own site, this is a quick and easy process. Let's say I wanted to see what Eagles fans thought about Sunday Night Football. Search for "Iggles" and there you go.

2. News Source: One can get breaking news information quicker on Twitter than any place else on the 'net. Whether you choose to follow news organizations such as the NY Times or rely strictly on the idea of citizen journalism, a Twitter user can get to the point info fast and easy.

3. Blogging Platform: Tired of writing longer blog entries? Twitter alleviates that with it's 140 character restriction. When a Twitter user is efficient and up to date (Adam Schefter), you can get the information you want without having to sift through a longer blog entry. Twitter forces the user to boil down his/her post to the bare minimum, a blast of information without the (sometimes) needless opinion.

4. Keeping up with Friends: An offshoot of #3 and an intrusion on Facebook's (which has essentially adopted Twitter's format for their news feed) territory, one could use Twitter for what doubters hate Twitter for. If you want to tweet that you're sitting watching TV while eating Cheetos, have at it. Just don't expect anyone other than your friends to follow you.

5. Meeting New People: While Facebook is designed for keeping track of people you know, Twitter is much easier to find people with similar interests and seeing what they have to say. Utilize the excellent WeFollow and you can find Twitterers for just about any topic you want to learn about.

TweetDeck and Other Twitter Apps

As someone who regularly uses Twitter (yet doesn't actually tweet all that much), some may find it odd that I rarely, if ever, actually visit Twitter.com. While I have nothing against Twitter's website per say, I do find that user an application for my Twitter viewing is much better. I've tried many (and given them a fair shake) desktop apps ranging from Tweetie to twhirl to Twitterrific to TweetDeck and on the iPhone, I've tried TweetDeck and TwitterFon.

By far, my favorite, on both platforms, is TweetDeck. The layout is simple and user-friendly. It's a full featured app that is powerful yet accessible. It's easy to navigate, easy to pick up yet easy to utilize to its full potential.

I do find it interesting that there is such a proliferation of Twitter Apps readily available for free use. Unlike the other major social networks, such as Facebook or MySpace, Twitter Apps have thrived to the point that I'm not sure I know of any of my friends who actually utilize Twitter by going to the service's actual website. The app experience allows your feed to be open all the time, running in the background, allowing quick access for checking Twitter whenever you want without having to visit the site. I guess I've become the de-facto app guy for the class so it probably doesn't come as a surprise that I support and use an app for this but in this case, the app geniunely makes a Twitter experience easier and more effective.

Journalists and Social Networking

While reading the Nieman Reports piece on the role of journalism in social networking, I was struck by the idea that the social networks are not mere tools that we now use, but they are the world in which we use additional tools. As more and more internet users turn to networks like Facebook and Twitter for their breaking news tidbits, these sites are quickly changing the game.

In the past, one would have to wait for the media source to digest and then spit back out the information. Even with so called "breaking news", TV and radio networks were forced to first turn inward and decide how exactly they should at least begin covering the story. This is not to suggest that they would have to understand the end point of their coverage, but at least the beginning with which to take the air with. However, with the social networks continuing their rise in power and popularity, they are, in a way, cutting out the middle man that was the major media outlets in the days of yore.

Nowadays, users can turn to their feeds and see instantaneous updates about a situation. Hell, even the major networks utilize Twitter as a source of information. Take the Iranian election protests earlier this year, or the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008. These were events that were largely being reported on by the participants, literally as the events were occuring, allowing the citizens of the world to have unfettered and unobstructed access to the events as they were unfolding. No longer were people forced to turn to the major corporate networks in order to gleam information. The trade off here was that the users (and the consumers of the news) were forced to understand and decide what to trust, on their own. Ultimately, however, that's what we trust our news organizations to do. This process just cuts out that middle man.

This is both an exciting and disconcerting notion. While in the right hands of responsible intelligent consumers of the news, this is a huge boost in access and power. No longer are we forced to listen to Reporter X drone on about an event that happened hours ago. Now, we're able to (hypothetically) hear from the person who started said event. That's the beauty of Twitter. Where Facebook is best (and most efficiently) used as a means of keeping in touch with people whom you know, Twitter doesn't necessarily provide that same service. Rather, Twitter allows you to follow people you've never met yet trust as a source of news (Hello, Bill Simmons!). It allows me to track down the participants in the controversies in Iran rather than having to hear Brian Williams tell me about those participants. Exciting stuff.

On the other hand, in the wrong hands (read: unintelligent and irresponsible news consumers), this leads to a dangerous means of spreading rumors. The situation with Michael Jackson, mentioned in the Nieman article, is just such an event. While many of the early people reporting his death turned out to be correct, this is the type of Tweeting that starts rumor riots. If one listens or follows a single feed, they will be misinformed (although one could also argue, fairly easily, that if one only watches/listens to a single news channel, they'll be just as misinformed). If one takes the time to broaden and listen to many feeds, Twitter opens a new realm of news coverage, one that ultimately leads to the question: Do we still need professional journalists or will citizen journalism emerge as the de facto means of receiving and reporting on news (I only half kid)?

The Impact of Social Networking on Annie Le

"Maybe it is the legal system, and not the Internet, that should be adjusting to the new order of things."

The above quote, taken from the MediaLite article by Robert Quigley, strikes me as being the most adept moment of the piece. It's easy for people to complain about the new obstacles that Web 2.0 presents to tried and true institutions. It's another for them to actually attempt to change and adapt with the changing times. Technology has always and will continue to frighten people who don't understand it. History is littered with people who struck against what they felt was the unstoppable wave of change. However, I can't help but feel that the struggle that these people feel is all for not. Technology is moving forward. Ultimately, one has to as well.

Does the advent of new social networking systems change a great deal of our society? Absolutely. Is it for the worse? I'm not so sure. While there are some definite issues that have arisen from the rise of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc., these aren't necessarily issues with the services themselves but rather with the people who use them. I find that people spend their time blaming the problems they may have with these services on the service themselves. They feel their privacy is violated, that it can lead to an all-too-quick spread of false information. Yet, these people typically use these apps in a way that adds to the problem. I suppose my point here is that as technology changes with the coming times, it's ultimately up to the people to change with the technology as past generations have. It's not the technology's job to change with the people, but to push the people forward.

The Annie Le case is certainly more high profile than some small town killing. That is undeniable. Still, it comes down to individual restraint as to how people act in regards to the use of technology. Does this mean that it will be impossible to find a juror who hasn't heard of the internet rumors regarding the case? Absolutely not. Quigley says that "If this past week’s coverage is any indication, whatever trial springs out of the Le case will be a media circus, and the temptations will be even greater." Once again, that may be true. But it's foolish to blame the internet for a juror's inability to follow the simple, straightforward rules set forth before him. It comes down to personal responsibility and tact. Decry the lack of that in our society but don't blame a budding technology as the reason for it. Society hasn't started it's media downfall since the popularization of Facebook began. It was happening well before that, without any help from Twitter.

Facebook, Twitter and Profitability

Much has been made over the past week about Facebook's supposed even running when it comes to cash flow and for the most part, it's big news. Some of the big internet startups at the end of the tech bubble were having issues with monetizing their site, i.e. creating a way for it to turn a profit for investors. Facebook went the way of advertising, hoping that enough traffic plus enough ads would provide them with enough money to offset their operating cost, thus providing their investors with some sort of return on their investment.

However, Twitter's profitability is still in question. One thing that you'll notice on every twitter page is a complete lack of ads. In fact, there is a complete lack of editorial control. Twitter, unlike Facebook, which features apps, a controlled look to each page and ads, is a site wholly controlled and molded by user-content. If everyone stopped using Twitter today for an hour, the service would literally be dead for that 60 minute span. With no new updates, Twitter's bread and butter, of reporting news literally as it happens sometimes, would be destroyed. It's a service based on what's happening right now, not yesterday or the day before. Rather, if Twitterers don't provide new information, Twitter is stagnant.

Facebook, due to it's much larger scope and content, doesn't face this issue. If everyone stopped updating their statuses (a sub-par, direct rip-off of Twitter's service), Facebook still provides the users with loads of old pictures. Facebook is what it's creators want it to be, Twitter is what its users want it to be. For me, that's ultimately why Twitter is a more fascinating and interesting service, with loads of more potential. Twitter's a continually evolving beast, not because of what its programmers and creators want it to be, but because of what it's users desires. As the service matures and continues to find its footing, it will continually adapt to the changing climate as it changes. Facebook is still reliant on it's programmers to move with the curve.

Still, the question of profitability remains. If Twitter can't figure out a way to make money, what's to say that its private equity investors won't jump ship. Rather, than throwing good money after bad, they could feasibly move onto the next hip app or service. Personally, I'd love to see Twitter figure out the answers here because its potential is much more exciting than it's social networking counterparts.