One debate that comes up in game development is the use of any language other than C/C++.  The C/C++ languages have been almost the exclusive language for game engines since its beginning.   While developers my also adopt scripting languages (many times to offload work to less technical game designers) the core that makes the engine do its magic is in C/C++.

With the advent of new technologies does this still make sense?

Microsoft has for some time been promoting an hier to the thrown in C# which is built on top of its .Net platform.  Why not C#?  I honestly like C# and believe that it is in many ways a step up that can help with productivity. C# has many of the advantages of Java without being as bloated.  It is more secure by nature and protects programmers from common mistakes.

That said, in some cases C# does not make business sense.  If you invest 10-20 million into a game, you expect the best return on that investment. The ability to release that game on multiple platforms (PS3, Wii as well as XBOX) can double your returns for small additional development time… if you program it in C or C++.

That may change.  One of our favorite small game engines Unity3D is scheduled to be release on other consoles.  When it does it will bring it’s version of the .Net runtime along with it.  Since the main engine is already in C++ it preforms significantly better than C# for most of the heavy lifting, leaving game logic to C# which is significantly faster than most scripting languages.

If your target is XNA or Unity3D then C# is the obvious choice.  To go beyond those use cases Microsoft will have to work to make the CLR a lot more open. Releasing the core of .Net under a BSD or MIT license (rather than the more restrictive GPL/LGPL for Mono) would allow developers to integrate C# on any platform and modify it to perform efficiently for their games.  Till that happens  (or Unity3D becomes a real competitor on all platforms)  console development will belong to C and C++.

It was a great panel put together by Rita Turkowski of Intel and featured Remi Arnaud, Johannes Berh, Mimi Harris, Doug Twilleager, Christian Renaud, Vladimir Vukicevic and Mark Young.

I still like X3D for the sheer boldness of trying to define a standard that can completely describe 3D in XML for the web.  It is a bit heavyweight for many applications and the tools are still rudimentary for general consumption, but is still the only standards compliant 3D implementation for the web.

I think we are a bit too early for Web3D standardization.  At this point “competition is good” as evidenced by Unity3D and others coming up under the radar.  It is great to see it mature and evolve.

Kudos for a fun panel to Rita and the gang!

A while back (March 2008) I wrote an article for Game Developer Magazine on what was coming up in gaming.

Most of these predictions came true, but that is not remarkable considering that we were only looking a couple years ahead.  What I find more interesting is that things have not moved faster.  After all the vacuum isn’t going anywhere.

Catching the Next Wave.

If we take a look at the Petri-dish we call the Internet we notice something, it evolves pretty quickly.  What was the killer application last month is old news the day the next start-up launches. The companies that grow either have something intrinsically valuable, or can evolve faster than their peers. We are learning that the only true constant is ever accelerating change.

Of course this isn’t just happening in the Internet, it’s bleeding into all facets of technology and content.   While we may have previously measured it in the hardcore game industry in rendered triangles and frames per second we now measure it in development time, content footprint and ever increasing budgets.  In an industry that has always been constrained by hardware we now can’t keep up with the event horizon that is consumer expectation driven by Moore’s law.

In many ways the high profile segment of the game industry has close parallels in video.  Blockbusters are high risk endeavors where risk is mitigated with large marketing budgets, sequels and emulating past success.  At the beginning of the silent film era, production costs were dictated by technology rather than content and as technology, expectations and completion increased so did the costs of content.

As in video, blockbuster games are also just the tip of the iceberg.  The combined markets of Virtual Worlds, niche MMO’s,  advanced casual (Wii, Xbox Live,  etc.), handheld (DS, PSP), mobile and casual games  dwarf the high profile blockbusters like Halo and World of Warcraft at significantly lower costs.

Each of these segments is experiencing exceptional annual growth in the range of 15-40% annually with revenue from games already set to eclipse movie box-office.  In contrast Movies, DVD and Television are stagnant or declining slightly across the board.  The consistent growth of the game industry exemplifies a shift in the entertainment consuming habits of the world away from non-interactive broadcast content to engaging interactive and social experiences.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not believe that big budget or console gaming is a dinosaur waiting to become extinct. The 39% growth in 2007 for console games should cement the fact that the industry is booming.  As the number of next gen handhelds and consoles multiply, so do game sales and the market is nowhere near saturation.

On the other hand, what I do find interesting is that almost 30% of Internet users worldwide play Internet games (casual and MMO) with revenues exceeding $3 billion.  That market can be expected to double in the next 4 years producing a global market of around 500 million Internet game players.

While this in no way is detrimental to consoles, it does illustrate the continued shift and adoption of the Internet as the new multimedia operating system.  The Internet already represents over 25% of total media consumption with growth rates accelerating this last year.  In addition, online ad spending is expected to increase at an annual rate of 20% over the next 4 years.

Here’s the fun part.  When we look for radical changes that can energize a market segment we look for unmet needs.   An example of this can be seen with Nintendo’s Wii and DS. Nintendo set out not to just to compete with Microsoft and Sony, but instead to focus on a market that wasn’t being met.  The Wii as an example made games not only physical, but intuitive.  The emotional friction of having to learn a game was eliminated.  We all know how to bowl, play tennis, etc… Without that friction a whole new demographic of gamers jumped in with both feet.

Internet gaming is growing by leaps and bounds, but is currently polarized around Casual and MMO.  This is our first clue that something is up.  Like most things in nature the Internet abhors a vacuum and the lack of a strong segment of advanced casual games sticks out.   Part of the reason for this vacuum is the lack of common platforms and delivery.  While casual is mainly Flash and AJAX, advanced casual is typically embodied in 3D.   Releasing a custom client only adds friction for the user, greatly reducing adoption.

Change is coming. Adobe is reported to be adding 3D to their Flash plugin and I would expect Microsoft to attempt to up the score with fearures in Silverlight.  Over the next couple years we will see a big swing in the general quality of casual games on the Internet and a much greater range of game intensity.  While true casual will remain king, the expectation of consumers will rise.  At the same time an advanced casual segment will emerge as well as new mid complexity virtual worlds and MMO’s.

It is always exciting to see a wave coming in and knowing that it’s time to hop on.  This one is on us and it’s time to start paddling.   We at Social Sage have seen this one coming and are busy putting together solutions to help the industry hang ten.  If online is your passion, wade on in and join the fun.  It’s going to be one hell of a ride!

References:

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/01/10/internet-ad-future-is-a-load-of-bull

http://www.macworld.com/article/60788/2007/10/cga.html

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3329&Itemid=2

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/worldofwarcraft/news.html?sid=6167847

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070830-gaming-to-surge-50-percent-in-four-years-possibly.html

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=6573d3b8b0c3d010VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6519400.html

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-01-07-dvd-sales-slippage_N.htm

http://www.mpaa.org/2006-US-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-Report.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_in_film

http://mediabiz.blogs.cnnmoney.cnn.com/2007/12/21/hollywood-2008-fewer-sequels-more-risks/

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10803

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17004

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17006

Happy Holidays, and remember to
Drink Eggnog Responsibly!
(Or end up like the poor sod above)

I noticed recently that Yelp isn’t as prevalent in my searches. Where Yelp used to show up almost every time I Googled a restaurant, instead it looks like Yelp competitor Citysearch is Google’s new review partner.

We haven’t seen a press release yet, but if Yelp has lost its relationship with Google this could lead to a downturn. While they may have the best reviews, that will mean little if people can’t find them. Could Yelp’s recent crowing be a scramble to paint a pretty picture before the decline?

We all have aspirations great and small. Though he had lived his life as a scientist and teacher and was at that time the public face of the CRD, Robert’s dream was a modest retirement on a hillside in China. The CRD was to be his last task before relaxing and living the simple life. It saddens me to think Robert won’t get that chance. I hope he was dreaming that dream the night he left us in his sleep.

Robert was a man who you could not help but like. A man who you felt you could trust and who regardless of what happened around him would treat you with respect. He had an infectious love of life that was only tempered by the his role and place in the world. I will miss my friend Robert and how he represented to me the many sides of China as it enters this brave new world.

Farewell to our friend Robert, you will always be China to me.

A tipping point can be defined as “the culmination of a build-up of small changes that effects a big change”. It is many times tied to an event that adds a missing catalyst or critical amount of energy to achieve a self sustaining reaction. In Gladwell’s book (The Tipping Point) he refers to the mechanics of this being related to “three agents of change” which he calls “the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context”.

On the other hand, critical mass might be defined more clinically as an “an amount or level needed for a specific result or new action to occur”. For a general purpose social network the chances of a person being interested in or staying in that social network are greatly increased if they already know someone in that network.

Since according to Dunbar any person should be able to keep relationships with about 150 friends, you can surmise that a critical mass would be 150th of the total number in the community. For example if you take a network of 300 million people (US population) and divided that by the maximum size of each persons social graph (150 people) we come up with 2 million people. At that point everyone is likely to have at least one friend that is using the network.

This is of course simplistic, but in practice works as a good rule of thumb for determining when you have achieved critical mass. If we consider smaller regional social networks (e.g. Los Angeles) this rule can be applied as well. For 12 million LA metro residents we would get a critical mass at about 80,000 for a general purpose network.

The problem with simple critical mass calculations is that most social networks are not general purpose. In narrow demographics the effect of connectors and mavens is exaggerated. In order to cost effectively reach the tipping point within a narrow demographic you must be very conscious of Gladwell’s agents of change and how they are related to your objective.

Now here is the fun part. One path to a tipping point is to capture mind share in your demographic. Thanks to search, by influencing the domain mavens and connectors you can effectively control and capture a much wider demographic. If you manage to become popular with people who review a product, you can dominate information and opinion related to a product in the marketplace.

Capturing definitive mind share can be achieved with a much smaller number of people. With a demographic of 800,000, and a critical mass may require 8,000, pervasive mind share may be achieved by influencing the most influential 80. In creating a social network for a specific demographic it is critical to create a strategy that effectively leverages Gladwell’s agents of change to to achieve your goals.

When we amortize most work over millions of consumers it becomes practical, and sometimes more profitable to make the product “free” and support it through advertising or ancillary sales. Because of this trend there is a growing expectation among some people that all content should be “free”.

I received a twitter today from Scott Sigler about an article on Cory Doctorow’s blog Boing Boing talking about Scott’s new book “INFECTED” being a “free download”, but “inexplicably limited”. Cory as usual has many good points, but I still feel that he is a bit harsh with regards to the publishers and what is appropriate at this point.

I have followed Cory’s work for a while and been terribly impressed by some of his forward thinking. His book Down and Out is a must read and a book I recommend to anyone who is trying to get a feel for the concepts behind a Free economy. No I don’t think we will be turning in our greenback for Wuffie any time soon, but I do think that we are gradually moving closer to an Entertainment Economy.

At this point monetization in many domains is still tied to retail. One of those industries is book publishing. Yes in time (probably a short time) book publishing will have to adapt to the new market realities or suffer a similar fate as the now maligned record industry. At the same time we are in a time of transition. Most people would still rather read their books on paper rather than a screen.

For now releasing a book for “free” online does not necessarily hurt the retail sales of the book and may actually strengthen it due to the strong network effect on book sales. For some books the smartest thing you can do is release an “free” version to prime the pump.

That said, the industry is going to change. When Apple released the iPod the record industry didn’t understand that Apple had changed the playing field. While previously people put up with the inconvenience of physical media, the iPod cut the chains and gave them a more convenient way of interacting with music. Physical media was dead, the record industry just didn’t realize it yet.

The same will happen soon for books. While there have been a few eBook readers that have been release and had a tiny amount of success, they have not been convenient enough to make a dent in consumer habits. The same was true for the predecessors of the iPod. In the same way there will come a product that will change that game.

I have seen a glimpse of that future on my iPhone and that future will be here any minute. It will take time for the change to really impact society as profoundly as the ipod has, but it will happen as the next generation again helps change how we think about media. When it becomes common place to have all of your books in your pocket on your phone it will change the game.

So in thinking about Cory’s post I wondered, if indeed that future is upon us, what will it look like? The model that is being pushed by the “free” believers is that you should release content for “free” and then expect people to monetize it via retail sales or donations if the consumer liked it. In this case the retail sales are dependent on the generosity of the reader rather than the previous gating of content via retail. In effect, even retail sales then becomes a Donation.

In this model less adept authors who perhaps relied on taking advantage of current culture or coining Memes to sell books, may find they can no longer compete. Content is king and the flood gates will be opened, if your book is boring fluff it is likely to not get donations.. and perhaps any attention at all.

At the same time, unless publishers hop in bed with the new portals and gatekeepers (iBooks, instead of Borders) they are likely to become irrelevant as the artists go directly to the gate keepers. Of course all of this is evolutionary. Even the record industry has to wake up to the fact that the new gatekeepers are the publishers and they have to fulfill a different role as marketers and managers to continue to add value for the artist.

I do not think that the “free” AKA donation-ware strategy will work for all content. We need lots of layers in the pyramid and not all models work everywhere. It will take time for this all to shake out, but it is going to be fun to help it along.

While there are many less restrictive licenses (MIT, BSD, MPL, etc.) the GPL is perhaps the least understood and most feared by business. To an extent this confusion shouldn’t be a surprise. The FOSS ( Free and Open Source Software ) movement is made up of an array of activists that have slightly different ideals. Since to an extent law relies heavily on intent and consistent treatment, the inconsistencies in this approach muddy the waters. When over time the leaders of the movement make contradictory statements regarding the scope and intent to the GPL, this injects Fear Uncertainly and Doubt (FUD).

Making matters even more confusing, copyright law is also in sad shape in relation to basic tenants that the GPL relies. For software, what constitutes Fair Use and Derivative works are at odds within case law. On one extreme, case law infers that a product is derivative even if you have copied no code from the system it interacts with. On the other, conflicting case law infers that it is Fair Use to reverse engineer a system to utilize it without worrying being considered derivative.

Which of these precedents we think will play out is potentially random and depends a lot on the way we use the code. Without explicit exclusions set down from developers we have to go back to the intent of the authors of the license itself. In this case the Free Software Foundation specifically spells out its beliefs. In their interpretation of the GPL your program IS derivative if you include GPL code or link to GPL code in any way (dynamically or statically).

There are several acknowledged exceptions to this rule such that your program may NOT be considered a derivative work.

1. You may dynamically link against a standard interface where other existing libraries may be substituted.
2. You may execute a GPL program via fork() or execute().
3. You may communicate with a program via standard network and IPC mechanisms.*
4. You may distribute your program and a GPL program in aggregate (on the same medium) provided they are still represent separate programs and the terms of the GPL are observed.

These exceptions give us enough rope to use GPL’d programs and libraries in conjunction within a larger closed source systems. On top of these some developers may add additional explicit exceptions like allowing dynamic (LGPL) or static linkage. In some cases it may also be possible to contact the developers and negotiate a closed source license that removes the limitations of the GPL all together.

There is one other notable loophole. The GPL only kicks in when you distribute the derived program. If you do not distribute a derived program to people outside your company you do not have to distribute your closed source. You may even use GPL derived software as a service and charge money for it without releasing any code.

In practice this loophole does have a couple gotchas. The first is that you cannot sell or give the derived program to another company or person. The second that many do not consider is that during some M&A transactions the company is selling the assets rather than merging the companies and selling the assets may also be considered a distribution.

Of course as with any software your license (FOSS or commercial) you should be cognizant of the patent issues, indemnification, additional license restrictions (e.g. GPL3 restricts DRM) and the total cost of ownership related to maintenance and support. As with anything we do as companies there is more to the bottom line than the price tag coming in the door.

The other thing to consider is the perception of the public and the FOSS movement. You are using FOSS software and the implied contract is that you will participate in the community and contribute improvements. It is not enough to use FOSS, you should adopt a policy that states how you use FOSS and how you support it. Working with FOSS developers and being a good citizen goes a long way.

References:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html
http://www.bu.edu/law/lawreview/v85n5/Stoltz.pdf
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/38089.html?welcome=1202601329&welcome=1202602307
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_licenses
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Licensing/Scenarios

The changes happening to the societies of the world due to the advancement of Moore’s law and the Internet into every facet of our lives represents this on a titanic scale. The problem is that this paradigm shift does not fit in the box we understand. In order to understand it we frequently have to look for the things that change on a macro level. What are the currents that are shifting the sands? Where is that sand going?

To come up with comparisons we have to look at the telegraph/telephone as a precursor and realize how profoundly it changed the world. We then realize that even that shift pales in comparison to what we are experiencing today.

Getting our feet under us in this whirlwind of currents is difficult. In order to start understanding we have to examine the foundations of enterprise, social interaction and even assumptions of why we do things in our daily lives. We track the currents and try to predict where the next wave will hit.

This is an interesting time we live in, it can be a lot of work keeping up, but it can also be a lot of fun. Part of the fun is running into other people who get it. These meetings are often a fervent exchange of ideas and feelings as we negotiate a common understanding of the most exciting thing we have ever witnessed. We challenge each other and grow. Stitching together what is happening is in an imitation of blind men trying to describe an elephant.

There is a patchwork of understanding, a mosaic picture of convergence that is coming into focus. The world is changing and the new shape is just starting to emerge. The only constants are change and our basic human needs. To those that are awake to the possibilities this represents opportunity. The world has become a canvas for us to paint on.

How do they do this? With a complete and utter understanding of their space, a rock star management team, enthusiastic seed investors and deep relationships. In his presentation at the Pasadena Angels Presentation Screening event BrightQube’s CEO Lee Corkran handled every question head on and nailed it to the floor with a smile.

So they rock, are you doomed? No, it just means you probably won’t be getting any money from the same well. If you have a competent team and a great product that will give people the returns they are looking for then you need to persevere and you will likely get funding. The lesson here is not to give up, that sometimes your lack of success is just because someone else is being very successful.

Those who know me know that I do not hand out faint praise. I will say nothing rather than complement a company I don’t think has what it takes. I am hard to impress, and these guys pulled it off in spades. What more it’s my impression that they are offering a way cheep valuation for having what is essentially a polished and innovative product. The funding is probably a done deal, but if you can get in on this series B, I would hop on.

The format of the screening event was geared for fast presentations (less than 20 minutes) rather than 1 minute elevator pitches. This allows the presenter to paint a much more elaborate picture of what they are doing and why you might be interested in investing. As it turns out it can help, but it also masks some basic communication problems.

By luck one of the presenters at the Screening event, HauteSpot Networks, was one of the winners at the Fast Pitch event. HauteSpot is a solution for streaming CCTV and HiDef video over wireless. At the fast pitch it was unclear what the target market was and how the product was used. The questions from the judges aimed at a consumer play and that didn’t seem to jell or make sense with what I knew of the competition in that space.

The presentation at the screening presented a much different picture of what the company was about and I had an opportunity to talk to HauteSpot’s CEO Bob Ehlers after the event. It turns out that the technology developed by HauteSpot is geared towards government, large public installations and the media. In those markets they had done a lot of work to get government approvals, partnering relationships and start the ball rolling on lucrative contracts.

The interesting thing here is that Bob was using the same type of language in both presentations. In the screening with his PowerPoint there was enough context to see exactly what the business was, but in the fast pitch there wasn’t. Instead the judges assumed that it was yet another consumer play based on their experience and context. If it looks like a hammer we know where to find a lot of nails.

As I talked with Bob afterwards we recounted some of this and that the miscommunication was simply the lack of understanding of the context of the investors. In Bob’s case he assumed that he used some of his terminology that everyone would instantly know his market. That in a way the market speaks for itself. His context was the presentations he had been so successful with in government meeting rooms.

In business as anywhere we need to start by understanding our audience, what they are looking for, what they need to understand. We assume that many things are obvious that just aren’t. Lessons learned, drop the domain specific thinking and adopt the language of the audience. Focus on what the audience understands and build a bridge to your vantage point.

HauteSpot is great technology put out by a company that knows its market and to my view is making the right moves to capture it. They have enough on the ball that most investors can see potential past the delivery, but Bob is also taking his experience to heart and will be tuning his presentations to address defining his market, its potential and their exit strategy in the language of the investor. I look forward to seeing his company grow and have no doubt they will be a great success.

That said I still walked away a bit disappointed in the pitches themselves. The companies, supposedly handpicked from over 80 applicants, did not impress. Few of the presenters were able to concisely and explicitly convey their value proposition or why they were differentiated from the competition. In all but one case I did not see any company that I thought would provide the 30x returns that most investors are looking for.

This isn’t to say that some of the companies are not going to do well. I think several will be profitable businesses with modest returns for their investors. As an Angel or VC, modest is not what you are looking for. Modest returns rarely warrant the risk. Typically an investor will invest in 20 companies and 5 of them will pay for the failures of rest. To do this those 5 have to have exceptional returns.

Where do we get exceptional returns? We get them from people who can adapt and turn the current paradigms upside down to find value for the customer. Investors look for people who think outside the box for opportunities and apply good business practice to achieve results in that space. It is not enough to differentiate what you do, you have show how that will shake up the industry and be a clear advantage.

Alex Quilici (CEO YouMail) gave a good presentation that illustrated what a company has to do to succeed and provide these types of returns. That you really do need to watch your market, respond by tailoring your business to the markets needs, and provide simple measurable goals that everyone can work towards. Alex did a great job of communicating exactly what and why these concepts are important.

What company peaked my interest? I won’t name names, but they had perhaps the least glamorous market, hair extensions. They clearly articulated that it was a $500 million market, and that their product was going to take a 5 hour application process down to 30 minutes. Their proprietary product will reduce the time and cost of extensions by an order of magnitude. In essence they can and should turn that industry upside down when they release. They didn’t win.

___________________________________________________

This year is set to be even more exciting than the last, so fasten your seat belts and have a great 2008!


Happy New Year!


-Marty

Before we answer that question we have to define what a “Community” is? As has been pointed out by Robin Hamman, “Community” “has dozens if not hundreds of distinct definitions”. In practice we shouold go by the most common definition that covers the specific context. If we go to the dictionary we find a definition of “a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists (e.g. “The Business Community”)”.

The key’s points here are:

1. Common Interests.
2. Perception of being distinct and separate.

When we examine Twitter and find that the common interest is Twitter and the activities on it, and that the perceived distinction is of those who use/get twitter and those that do not. So yes, by definition, Twitter IS a community.

That said, groups of followers within Twitter may NOT be a sub-community since they do not identify themselves as being separate from Twitter itself. We are not the “following Scoble” community.

Of course all this “definition” talk begs the question, how should we forge this new online vocabulary? Like any lexicon it will develop on its own via adoption patterns. When creating definitions I lean towards either adhering to already established meanings, or inventing new words entirely. This makes words less confusing when we use new meanings in conversation.

SPAM is in the eye of the beholder. The point of the other article is not whether we should consider one thing or another SPAM based on frequency or other metrics, but instead that we should pay attention to how our perceptions of the source color our assessment.

There is a double standard that we take for granted. We classify companies and people of authority differently in our minds than we do friends. The type of interactions we expect are completely different.

Regardless of the generation if someone radically changes the interaction context on us (turning mentoring or friendship into marketing) then we are going to view that as betrayal of our perception of what we have signed up for. I give you permission to be my friend, not sell me a car.

In the end while we may each have different ideas of what constitutes SPAM it all comes down to unwanted or inappropriate interactions as colored by our perception of the source of those interactions. Appropriate interactions build trust and “Social Capital”, inappropriate ones tear it down.

Merry Christmas, and remember to Drink Eggnog Responsibly!

___________________________________________________

Please note that Christmas is in fact not only a celebration of Christian beliefs, but coincides with and in part may be substituted for celebrations of “winter solstice”, the Roman “Saturnalia“ and “Dies Natalis Solis Invicti” and its progeny the “Twelve Days of Christmas“. Christmas is also coincides with the secular holiday of Chri$tma$$ celebrated throughout the world, but was perfected in the USA.

For the politically correct:

Please accept with no obligation, explicit or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wished.

In a recent twitter conversation Jeremiah Owyang asked the question, ” Did we break Dunbar’s Number of 150 members per social network? Or are tools more efficient?”

The reality is that we have been pushing Dunbar’s number since we first invented the little black book. By offloading much of the social context data into long term storage we can maintain much more meaningful social interactions with a larger number of people. We can also pick up stale relationships and rekindle them much easier.

So what does Moore’s Law have to do with any of this? Our mobile phone and Social Network contact lists are this generations black book. We may not quite be up to the level of Johnny Mnemonic, but the reality is that we are already augmenting ourselves. For now the interface is our eyes and keyboard/pad.

Some of us are already living in the future…

Chuck was a good guy who was incredibly smart and capable. One of the few straight shooters I know in Washington. He not only had a great reputation, but it was well earned.

I don’t know why he ended up killing himself. I know that the government can be a meat grinder, especially when you get to a high enough level. I got out of DOD contract work quite a while back to escape the drain it can be. I do not for a minute believe that Chuck did anything wrong. It just wasn’t his style.

No I believe that a good man got caught in the machinery of sensational news and government digression and his sensibilities made him do the “honorable” thing. It is a true shame when the system harms the true heroes it was put in place to support.

All that aside, I salute you Chuck and all that you were. I support your friends and family in thier morning and will always remember Chuck as the great guy that he was.

The long tail has many forms, some obvious ones being older and niche music as well as practically all of the blogoshpere. I disagree with the idea Alex Iskold posted that, because the individual content contributor isn’t making money, the long tail is in trouble. Making money is not necessarily first and foremost for many of the people producing content for the Long Tail.

I just finished reading Moneyball where Michael Lewis relates that Billy James was ecstatic at having sold 64 copies of his first Baseball Almanac. This was done out of passion and a need for recognition, not greed. This type of attitude is pervasive in the Long Tail.

The Long Tail is real and here to stay not because the people creating the content for the long tail are making money, but because someone else has figured out to monetize access to it as part of their service. The Long Tail was always there, and is growing because the internet makes it so easy to share content and get positive feedback.

I know that I do not have a large audience, but blogging still holds value to me. Even if the numbers are low its still a fun to look at Firestats and realize that other people are getting what you are talking about.

We are the Long Tail.

The reason is that I have been using the hacked books app fro the iPhone for a while now. The iPhone has a great screen, intuitive interface, and not only fits in my pocket, but it is always with me. When (they have too) apple releases their own eBook reader hooked up to iTunes there will be no competition.

I am afraid that I have to agree with Tim O’Reilly, while Amazon’s Kindle is a good product, it is too little too late. My question isn’t whether I should buy a kindle, but when can I get ALL my books on my iPhone?

Today a friend of mine Darius asked me for my thoughts on my recent participation in the DrupalCampLA BarCamp. This gathering of self proclaimed Drupal geeks was one of the better events I have been to. The thing that makes all gatherings worthwhile are the people that you interact with.

On this level DrupalCampLA far exceeded my expectation because I came in contact with some real pioneers that are genuine and working hard to bring the platform up to a usable level for everyone including big business. Much credit to Crystal Williams who with AOL and a group of volunteers put together a great event.

The efforts of WorkHabit and Bryght to get this platform usable and maintainable go above and beyond. By using their consulting as a way to fold resources back into the development of Drupal, they not only moves the platform forward, but in the end give their clients better value in a platform that grows with them.

That said there is also a lot of money being spent by the likes Ethan Kaplan over at Warner Brothers Records who have put themselves out on the beading edge by using and pushing the platform for real commercial sites. This is a big risk in many ways since they and a few others really are blazing a trail.

Before you run off and start using Drupal be aware that although it is definitely suitable for many small to medium web sites, configuring and using it is significantly more difficult than WordPress and it does not yet scale to the level of MySpace or Facebook. Drupal is also potentially a real performance hog if you don’t pay attention to how modules interact.

My takeaway from DrupalCampLA is that Drupal is a good content management platform with a alot of features and a thriving community of developers. It has a long way to go, but it is the developers and people like Jonathan Lambert at Workhabit that will eventually evolve Drupal into a scalable and maintainable enterprise grade solution for real development. If your development curve and needs matches that of Drupal you should give it a try.

Another side observation is that for many applications Drupal is a better solution than Rails. The reason is that the development community is much more open about sharing modules that you can build on. Starting with a content management system as its core means that CMS is core to any module created. This is a big benefit for anyone that uses it and instantly increases the value.

The velocity of exposed and usable community development outstrips the difficulty of developing in PHP. At this point, while I dislike PHP, it is already scalable (with work) and I believe will through Drupal and some Rails like frameworks be the only logical choice for social web development in the next few years.

If you use Twitter and you are noticing a high noise level then its time to ask yourself if the people you are following enrich the conversation. If not, it is time to clean out your following and refocus on what Twitter does well. It may not be Twitter that is the problem, but who you are Twittering with.

I just dumped a bunch of follows off my list and will drop more in the next week. I feel better already!

When Guy started his new project truemors.com I was stunned. Truemors was pitched as a place to post inside scuttlebutt. In effect a place to post rumors and gossip. This was the last thing I would have thought Guy would get into.

This shock prompted me to email Guy to quench my curiosity. To my surprise Guy started to correspond and I started to get the feeling that what had transpired was only partly a change in Guy.

After some reflection I realized that a big part was the crumbling of a personal mythology that had developed around Guy’s blog. When we expose parts of ourselves on the web others develop a mental picture of who we are as people. The higher the signal to noise ratio (more quality/less crap) the more respect and expectations.

In this instance I had developed respect for Guy that was tied to the perception of Guy as a VC and analyst. A perception that he had such insight as to be able to see the forest for the trees. Truemors struck me as trivial and fluff. An idea that I would have discounted and rejected.

Of course the reality is that trivial and fluff with the right twist can be more viral and successful than something that took years to develop and millions of dollars. In many ways the paradigms have changed and it truly is the little guy in his garage that can come up with the next great thing for very little money. Throw it against the wall and see what sticks.

Spam?

When I added Guy on Facebook I received a message to try Truemors. Mind you I get messages from time to time from other developer friends who are developing Facebook apps to tryout their wares and don’t think anything of it. Once again I apply a double standard for Guy.

I told myself that it was because Guy wasn’t commenting on others work or talking about the next great thing he was involved with. Guy was selling Truemors to us. In my mind he had violated a trust. The critic is not allowed to be a promoter.

In my mind Guy was now trading social capital for the success of this enterprise. The earned respect and myth being traded for a chance that you might try his application. That it might be enough to help put Truemors over critical mass.

So of course I send Guy a message, what gives? In Guy’s reply he asks “I have to do what I have to do, right?”.

Guy was right; you do have to give it your all. He wasn’t being any more spam than my other friends, he was simply promoting again. I once again realized that it was my perception that was coloring all of this. I had been affronted when he dared stray from my preconceptions. Guy was simply using his assets to help his investment succeed. This was business.

In the end I have to thank Guy for an education. Once again (as has happened many times before for me) I have learned that people are people. Putting someone on a pedestal clouds our vision of the real person. I would rather know the person than the myth.

One more thing, Guy, good luck with Truemors.

Inducing brain activity may be a good idea in some cases such as brain disorders as exemplified by the coma patient that recently responded to a Brain Pacemaker. At the same time I think we have to be wary of the fact that the brain is trainable.

I worry the each time you use this device that you are inadvertently re-enforcing some random or not so random set of pathways with unknown consequences. Beyond this, TMS is considered safe ( relative to electroconvulsive therapy ! ) and there is a slight risk of siezures.

I think for now I will wait for a few others to become guinea pigs before I exchange it for counting sheep.

Disney is by its nature a big lumbering beast that is mired in bureaucracy. Having worked there a while I found it was unavoidable. Disney in many cases is less about the projects and more about dealing with the internal politics.

That said we should be fair, most large corporations have the same problem. To combat the bureaucracy large company’s buy small companies and grant them a degree of autonomy. That way the new unit can then at least get some things done.

The problem is that at the same time the new units want to take advantage of other verticals and other parts of the business want to get into what the new unit is doing. Instant politics. The job of senior management then becomes shielding that unit from the politics rather than integrating them into the Disney way. This will invariably mean that a large portion of managements time will be spent away from the main task of running the new unit.

I can only hope that Lane Merrifield CEO of Club Penguin and now EVP at Disney has enough experience to understand and work the system. At the EVP level you can get a bit done if you know how to work the system and keep everyone focused. As a former Disneyland employee perhaps Lane gets it. If so this is a big win for Disney and Club Penguin.

The answer is it depends on who you are. Certainly on its face the projected revenues by themselves don’t seam to make sense, especially as was mentioned on TechCrunch that penguins (like anything else) are only likely to be hot for so long.

Club Penguin has captured the untapped demographic of children and tweens better than any other game, and games are the driving attention force for this market. For Sony this would have been of little value since they really do not have a way to capitalize on it across their company. They are focused on Generation Y. The Wii vs. PS3 battle is delineated along the demographics that each company targets.

Disney on the other hand is directed almost singularly at the children and tween market. They add a lot of value through brand trust and the ability to market a wide array of verticals towards this demographic. What they have lacked is a good vehicle in online games. They have made some headway with games like ToonTown, but ToonTown requires a client download and is not quite as accessible.

Will Club Penguin remain hot enough to pay back the investment before penguins become pase’? Perhaps, with Disney’s marketing and investment its possible. That is only part of the equation that makes this a no-brainer.

Contrary to Bob Iger’s public statment that Club Penguin will be a standalone business, I believe that this is an important strategic move. It is about grabbing the attention of this demographic and growing it to the whole range of Disney properties. This strategic move should not be as much about making money from Club Penguin as it is about creating a new channel to sell Disney to Disney’s core market.

I think Bob has played a smart hand in buying Penguin, let’s hope it pays off.

I have found that in my life I only grow if I challenge myself. By writing about each opinion we have we challenge those ideas and force ourselves to think a bit more critically.

-Marty