I don't know if you've heard of this computer: http://www.zonbu.com/ I read about it in Time. It has NO hard-drive because all the applications are stored online. Personally, even in a city like New York, I just don't think Wi-Fi is 'there' yet for this kind of thing, but it definitely seems to be the direction we're going in.
Also, not to espouse nutty futurism, but I've been predicting for some time now (blogged it, seesmiced it) that a new universal 'online' language will begin to emerge and develop based on community needs and uses. The thing is we SAY the world is small now, but if I can't communicate with someone who doesn't speak English then is it really that Small? I think we're going to move towards a new grammar that we'll bridge (and break) the language barrier that exists in social networking. I'm not sure how this will start, but....
chrisbrogan
· 2 years ago
You're right, though, Seth. Things will get smaller. Language will change even more. Structures. Styles. As things like lolcats go down into the pit, I think even more things will erupt in strange constructs. We already have weird words that don't really represent the real world. How many more times will this change? What will be the variants?
Language. Logic. Data.
andrewcareaga
· 2 years ago
Pretty heady stuff to ponder as I nurse a turkey-and-stuffing hangover. ;) But the idea of universal, ubiquitous access to information, networks and social connections certainly appeals to me. I also think about the notion of a single, aggregated "network of networks" which would allow me to access everything in a single interface. No logging on to Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, MyRagan, email, iGoogle, Flickr, del.icio.us, etc. -- just turn on my phone, PC, laptop or whatever device I might have and I'm jacked in.
A colleague of mine dreams of a single social network, but humans are too diverse. We break down into tribes, neighborhoods and other social units based on geography and ethnicity (in the old world) and now by interests. I would settle for a single interface.
I'm completely in alignment with your vision of the future. I just wonder if anyone will emerge to 'own' it or if it will remain an oligopoly of service providers and knowledge aggregators like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Nielsen, News Corp, et al. It'll be interesting to say the least, and hopefully with a not very 1984ish conclusion.
I wonder too when our public information becomes meshed with what we consider private or 'guarded' what will happen with respect to privacy and marketing guidelines? I predict the proposal of an Information Privacy Act by a grey-haired senator that doesn't quite get it in the next few years. That will at least put the privacy and information transparency ethical debate on the table.
Valeria Maltoni
· 2 years ago
Hats off to you for the deliberate use of language, Chris. I especially like "Social media is a construct we use to explain how we’re communicating and expressing ourselves."
I'm with Nick on the privacy issue. No guarantees that we will own our information and what happens when companies use it or lose it is quite painful to go through. There needs to be a conversation around ethics to complement your futuristic approach.
As a recent Apple convert, I see that their system have already some of these characteristic you list built in. The .Mac application shares your data on the Apple network. I'm still learning some things about the system, but it's a walk in the park compared to Windows-based.
I'm still convinced that it should be people and not machines in charge ;-)
Rick Mahn
· 2 years ago
Well thought out concepts Chris. I believe that you are helping present ideas of future technologies in the context of what we need it to do, rather than what it can do for us.
Most times, technologies themselves get us side-tracked on their abilities. Instead, we need to look at what we really expect of technology. It's often much more intuitive than is realized.
EDO
· 2 years ago
[x-posted] NET (machines (computers, back end infra (storage, routers, bandwidth, traffic), connectors)) -> WEB (hyperlinked docs, knowledge within docs, [actionable] knowledge objects, descriptors, connectors) -> SOCIAL GRAPH (people - nodes and connectors).
This is (as i like to describe it) the X-to-X NetWeb - person-to-person, person-to-thing, object-to-thing, etc. - actionable in situ as well as @ the point of contact/interaction (think next gen intelligent mashups) - creates new knowledge and insight.
my 2 cents (premoney, of course)... :)
Sue Murphy
· 2 years ago
I agree with many of these concepts and am just as excited as you are about the prospect of the convergence of information and the seamless sharing of that information across technologies. However I have to wonder if the service providers (iGoogle, Facebook, MySpace, Apple, Adobe etc.) are going to truly allow this to happen?
Sure, I would be thrilled to have seamless recognition of multiple formats. My systems SHOULD just be able to play a QuickTime, Flash Video, or WMV without any consideration on my part as a user. As a content creator I would be ecstatic to not have to worry about what format I'm delivering to my audience. Think of the time, effort and money I would save!
Does it make sense for Apple, Adobe and Microsoft to forego the branding and advertising opportunities that exist when they make me download their latest plugin in order to receive content? Something tells me no.
Maybe there is a model that will enable the service providers to accept this sort of seamless delivery stream. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
All Comments
Also, not to espouse nutty futurism, but I've been predicting for some time now (blogged it, seesmiced it) that a new universal 'online' language will begin to emerge and develop based on community needs and uses. The thing is we SAY the world is small now, but if I can't communicate with someone who doesn't speak English then is it really that Small? I think we're going to move towards a new grammar that we'll bridge (and break) the language barrier that exists in social networking. I'm not sure how this will start, but....
Language. Logic. Data.
A colleague of mine dreams of a single social network, but humans are too diverse. We break down into tribes, neighborhoods and other social units based on geography and ethnicity (in the old world) and now by interests. I would settle for a single interface.
Jason Falls gives it a whirl too:
http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/2007/11/19/w...
I'm completely in alignment with your vision of the future. I just wonder if anyone will emerge to 'own' it or if it will remain an oligopoly of service providers and knowledge aggregators like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Nielsen, News Corp, et al. It'll be interesting to say the least, and hopefully with a not very 1984ish conclusion.
I wonder too when our public information becomes meshed with what we consider private or 'guarded' what will happen with respect to privacy and marketing guidelines? I predict the proposal of an Information Privacy Act by a grey-haired senator that doesn't quite get it in the next few years. That will at least put the privacy and information transparency ethical debate on the table.
I'm with Nick on the privacy issue. No guarantees that we will own our information and what happens when companies use it or lose it is quite painful to go through. There needs to be a conversation around ethics to complement your futuristic approach.
As a recent Apple convert, I see that their system have already some of these characteristic you list built in. The .Mac application shares your data on the Apple network. I'm still learning some things about the system, but it's a walk in the park compared to Windows-based.
I'm still convinced that it should be people and not machines in charge ;-)
Most times, technologies themselves get us side-tracked on their abilities. Instead, we need to look at what we really expect of technology. It's often much more intuitive than is realized.
NET (machines (computers, back end infra (storage, routers, bandwidth, traffic), connectors)) -> WEB (hyperlinked docs, knowledge within docs, [actionable] knowledge objects, descriptors, connectors) -> SOCIAL GRAPH (people - nodes and connectors).
This is (as i like to describe it) the X-to-X NetWeb - person-to-person, person-to-thing, object-to-thing, etc. - actionable in situ as well as @ the point of contact/interaction (think next gen intelligent mashups) - creates new knowledge and insight.
my 2 cents (premoney, of course)... :)
Sure, I would be thrilled to have seamless recognition of multiple formats. My systems SHOULD just be able to play a QuickTime, Flash Video, or WMV without any consideration on my part as a user. As a content creator I would be ecstatic to not have to worry about what format I'm delivering to my audience. Think of the time, effort and money I would save!
Does it make sense for Apple, Adobe and Microsoft to forego the branding and advertising opportunities that exist when they make me download their latest plugin in order to receive content? Something tells me no.
Maybe there is a model that will enable the service providers to accept this sort of seamless delivery stream. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.