David vs. Googleith

While Facebook gets slammed for being:

"irredeemably evil. It's hell-bent not on changing the world, but on dominating it: on playing the cheesy, lame, thoroughly obsolete games of competitive strategy."

Google's brand continues to allow it to play Google the good. Google of the people. Google that doesn't do evil. Google doesn't play evil games of old like blocking out its competitors in order to maintain sustainable competitive advantage.

Or does it?

Let's go back to the Map Asia conference August 2007 and the talk given by Michael Jones Chief Technologist of Google's Earth, Maps, and Local Search efforts.

After his keynote, my brother Jeffrey who owns a mapping company in Cambodia called Aruna Technology that does work with Government agencies in Cambodia, Laos and China on poverty reduction and natural resource management programs, had the following exchange with Mr. Jones (paraphrased below):

Jeffrey Q: "We all know Google’s motto do no evil - how do you reconcile this with exclusive agreements with SPOTImage that prevent other people from using spot imagery as part of their web mapping. I work with Gov't agencies to do poverty reduction programs and it would be helpful if we could use this satellite imagery instead of derived or vector maps"

Mr Jones answered by saying that it was not the intention of Google's exclusive agreement. Rather their intention was to CIRCUMVENT the one company which he said he wouldn't name but which he also said everyone would know (duh - and no it wasn't facebook), who had vowed to destroy them.

He went on to say that he was sure for the type of applications Jeff was referring to there could be an exception, and he would be speak directly to SPOTImage to see what he could do. He invited Jeffrey to discuss it with him after the keynote, at which time he promised to look into it and passed on his card.

Since that time, Jeff has attempted to be in touch at least ten times, through multiple channels of communications (email, vm, web-forms) all with no reply. No comment. No nothing.

So while we are all screaming at the evil of Facebook and the terrible things they do to the People's company, we might well remind ourselves of this small David vs. Googaleith story and try to wade through all the technology blog media hype.


ps. thanks to Peter for the post title

Update: Jeff noted in the comments that he has been contacted by Mr. Jones via email (I was kindly cc:d). I'll update the post again once they have come to a resolution on the issue at hand.

Does Advertising Need a Lab? Disney Thinks So....

via Mr. J.Moonah's tweet, Disney is staring a new media lab.

Wow cool right? It's going to be some innovation lab where they rethink the ways in which they engage with kids and create content. Yes?

Well, kinda,...sorta...Not. It's about content alright, but it's about trying to figure out new models of engagement for advertising content.

"the [Disney] facility will conduct year-round tests to evaluate viewer engagement and emotional responses to advertising across media platforms"

Not sure how a focus on advertising is going to help any media company figure out how to connect with kids in a networked world. But probably they have some other division to do that. Right?

Wikinomics Panel On Thursday

I will be on a blogging panel (does this make me a "blooger?") on Thursday hosted by Mike Dover of nGenera Research (formerly New Paradigm Research)

Check out the post on the Wikinomics blog where you can get links to the other great panelists joining me.

Museum Without Walls

My colleague of mine, Andrew Kirby, launched an amazing project today, Sedai.ca.

"The SEDAI Project's mission is to gather, protect and disseminate the history, heritage and legacy of Canadians of Japanese ancestry."

The usage of the net as an cultural, social and historical archive is going to become more and more important as our entire world becomes digitized. Moments, memories, collected and aggregated to be preserved for future generations.

Sedai is a wonderful project and their team has done an incredible job. If you have some time, be sure to check it out as it's an important piece of our Canadian history.

Have We Crossed The Chasm?

Geoffrey Moore wrote Crossing the Chasm over 15 years ago and it's still probably the foremost framework used for launching new technology products. Wikipedia gives a nice summary to the theories basic premise:

"Moore's key insight is that the groups adopt innovations for different reasons. Early adopters are technology enthusiasts looking for a radical shift, where the early majority want a "productivity improvement". The latter group want a whole product, where the earlier group only needs the core product, and has the technical competence, and financial resources to make the rest themselves."

However, it struck me as I see more and more Agencies using this framework as their basis for go to market planning, that some significant things have changed since '91 that haven't been accounted for in Moore's original model.

One of the key foundations of the model is how they define usage by groups which brings a key question to the forefront of our current marketing reality. Has the definition of an early adopter changed? "Early adopters" are classically considered those who are willing to try virtually any new technology versus the "mainstream customers" that are much bigger in number but more cautious in adopting new technologies. But in that generation that grew up with the network and doesn't even 'SEE' technology per say (the notion that technology has become biology), is this great divide still relevant?

And that leaves me wondering one important and looming question. When it comes to technology, have we crossed the chasm? And if so does that mean the entire model of influence needs to be rethought?

update: Couple points of clarification

1. A few people have made the comment that my usage of the term technology is pretty vague and noted that there are still new technologies that fit under Moore's model. I should have been more specific that I was referring to many of the new launches of products and services on the Web (social networking, micro-blogging, SaaS, wireless handsets etc.) that are being marketed as "new" technologies in a revolutionary vs. evolutionary form. I still content that for Gen Y they don't see these services as technology the way my generation and older has. They don't go on the network - the network is ubiquitous connected and pervasively proximate (UCaPP) as my friend Mark Federman would say

2. To ladder on that point above, my other main point wasn't questioning the entire model, but suggesting that we may want to relook at how an early adopter is defined now that there has been a blurring between them and the mass. Anyone can be an influencer and our traditional (if i can say traditional) notions of the "geek" as driving market adoption may be flawed

Innovative Project Management

As we evolve from traditional software development to experience innovation, the need for creative PMs that view the world through a lens that goes beyond simply an time on budget is mandatory. Found this presentation online that sums it up brilliantly.

| View | Upload your own

Are Entrepreneurs Getting Older Or Is Society Getting More Entrepreneurial?

Paul Kedrosky has a post that links to a new report on the average age of entrepreneurs. Surprising to some, the age skew is much older than expected.

This makes me wonder is it's actually part of a more general trend. With the rise of what Richard Florida calls the creative class, the growing emphasis on quality of life, and the fact that people are changing jobs and careers more often than ever, it might indicate a shift from traditional companies and workplaces unable to hold employees who are going to be leaving for start ups and more creative opportunities regardless of their age.

And it begs the question, are entrepreneurs getting older or are we as a society getting more entrepreneurial?