ReadWriteWeb

Ian Rogers of Yahoo Music gave an interesting talk at BarcampLA entitled Media 2.0 Physics. I encourage you to pore over his presentation and notes. 

I liked the part about Yahoo and original content:

"So Should Yahoo! be in the (Original) Content Business?
Like HBO before us, Yahoo! should only create content in two cases:
a) When it's maximized all the opportunity around distributing the content of others. Which, in a Media 2.0-leveraging-edge-competencies sort of way, is a LONG ways off.
b) Opportunistically: The way Music pursues original content -- sponsors drive original content, not vice versa), but...

The Real Value Yahoo! Provides
…is in providing great experiences around content (Personalization, Community, Search) (to steal from Jeff Weiner of Yahoo! Search) helping users Find, Use, Share, and Expand (on) whatever media is most relevant to them"

Also Lucas Gonze highlighted these great points by Ian about the lack of open standards in the Web media world: 

"What is the Path Out?

Please appreciate: it was not great technology that drove the Internet boom, but great standards.

Great technology gave us AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy.

Great standards (TCP/IP, HTML, and HTTP) gave us unprecedented opportunity (the Web).

We're Still Lacking Standards in Digital Media

Similarly in digital media Great technology has brought us iTunes, iPod, and Windows Media Player.

Great standards (XSPF, XIPF, Web services loosely coupling together services like eMusic with applications like Songbird) can give us unprecedented opportunity.

But relatively few standards exist to serve the digital media ecosystem.

GO CREATE AND USE STANDARDS

If we have one collective mission, fellow campers, one place to focus all our energy, it's to create standards that decentralize and create platforms of opportunity.

What if Internet Explorer only went to Microsoft's site?

(Rob Lord)

This is where we are in Digital Media today. The amount of unlocked opportunity due to lack of standards is enormous."

Flickr pic by Kareem, who also has a wrap-up post on his blog about BarcampLA.

- 37Signals publish a PDF book ("DIY publishing: There’s a new sheriff in town." -- suggestion to 37Signals: create a product that enables other authors to DIY publish...)

- Kottke on DIY book publishing (37Signals profit margin will probably be much higher than any royalties they would've got from a publishing company)

- eBay's Jason Steinhorn on convergence of browser and desktop (some interesting predictions, including that within 5 years '.com' branding will fade away)

- The IE7 team's radar screen (Jon Udell is pleased to hear that Microsoft is paying attention to browser compatibility issues now)

- Open AIM (AOL releases open API: "The AIM service is changing into an open and dynamic platform." -- Excellent!)

- Susan Mernit on Open AIM ("Of course, there is one catch--AOL still won't allow its' code to be used to link to other IM platforms.")

- Marc Canter is excited by AIM API ("There are almost 70M AIM users. Think about what you could do with that?)

- Ted Leonsis on Open AIM ("Our goal is to team up with developers to create a completely live and interactive experience across the Web and beyond.")

- Omnidrive beta and API ("With Omnidrive you can focus on making your product great while we take care of your storage matters.")

- arstechnica on Google GDrive ("Rumored to be in the works for some time, GDrive would offer users unlimited storage space for just about any kind of document.")

- Steve Rubel on beyond the blog ("...there is a burgeoning need for tools that help us cement all of the content that we want to track from our favorite galaxies into a unified interface.")

Flickr pic by 33mhz

The big news in my part of the world today is that trademe.co.nz, a virtual clone of eBay that has risen to dominance in the eBay-less New Zealand market, has been sold to Aussie media company Fairfax for a staggering NZ$700 million [news via Dave]. Mr Barren thinks Fairfax would've been attracted by the 15.6 times expected 2007 EBITDA.

TradeMe's founder, 29-year old kiwi Sam Morgan, stands to make over $220 million through the sale. Reading this report from local rag stuff.co.nz (owned by Fairfax), there are a lot of lessons which can be applied to the global 'web 2.0' space:

"In the seven years it has been running Trade Me has developed into the country's most visited website. It has 1.2 million members who are expected to host 35 million auctions this year, selling anything from second hand furniture and clothes through to antiques and cars.

Trade Me does not charge users to list an item for auction online, but charges a commission on each sale.

Trade Me has also gained a large slice of the classified advertising market, launching real estate classified ads last year and cars in 2003. Unlike auction items, Trade Me charges an upfront listing fee for classified ads and has over 34,000 cars and 15,000 properties are for sale or rent on the site.

Trade Me's growing slice of the classified advertising market was one of the reasons it was so attractive to Fairfax.

Peter Fowler, founder of the news and shopping website newswire.co.nz, said Trade Me's growing classified presence had been killing classified advertising in newspapers and cutting into Fairfax's revenues.

"Given that classified advertising has been the key to the profitability of newspapers, Fairfax has been forced to buy Trade Me or risk being overtaken by the Internet phenomenon," Mr Fowler said. "

Near on half a billion US dollars for an online auction and classifieds site which dominates a tiny 4 million people market? Wow.

Robert Scoble swears off tech.memeorandum for a week, due to excessive snark in the Sunday edition:

"...it’s the little things in life that make you smarter. The little things don’t show up on Memeorandum. They do show up on RSS. Which is why I’m still subscribed to 847 smart people’s feeds."

I don’t think the problem is Memeorandum or news trackers per se, but then maybe Gabe could tweak the algorithm to weed out the flame wars and other stuff that isn't "tech". It’s not news, after all…

The Google Analyst Day presentation makes for interesting reading. Thanks to Greg Linden for providing the early analysis and text from the now withdrawn powerpoint presentation (only available now as a 10MB PDF - sans the ppt notes unfortunately). Greg provided the notes to slide 19, which are fascinating for those of us interested in the Web Office and living 100% on the Web. Some would say my head is already in the clouds, but it seems Google is thinking along the same lines. Check these notes out (and also note the references to GDrive and competing with Microsoft):

"Theme 2: Store 100% of User Data
With infinite storage, we can house all user files, including: emails, web history, pictures, bookmarks, etc and make it accessible from anywhere (any device, any platform, etc).
We already have efforts in this direction in terms of GDrive, GDS, Lighthouse, but all of them face bandwidth and storage constraints today. For example: Firefox team is working on server side stored state but they want to store only URLs rather than complete web pages for storage reasons. This theme will help us make the client less important (thin client, thick server model) which suits our strength vis-a-vis Microsoft and is also of great value to the user.
As we move toward the "Store 100%" reality, the online copy of your data will become your Golden Copy and your local-machine copy serves more like a cache. An important implication of this theme is that we can make your online copy more secure than it would be on your own machine.
Another important implication of this theme is that storing 100% of a user's data makes each piece of data more valuable because it can be access across applications. For example: a user's Orkut profile has more value when it's accessible from Gmail (as addressbook), Lighthouse (as access list), etc."
(emphasis mine)

Interesting that these notes point to security as being one of the main benefits of Web storage. In Web Office discussions so far, security is typically seen as being a potential weakness. Another point worth highlighting is the cross-device implications of online data, which has been recognized as one of the main benefits of a web-based office - together with collaboration capabilities.

This all revives my faith in Google (not that I ever doubted they were up to something) and it should make Microsoft sit up and take notice. I'd love to get more details of their Store 100% developments... I'll see if I can collect more data.

btw the term "golden copy" seems to derive from data/records management. The best definition I found was this:

"Question: What is a golden copy?

Answer: The ‘golden copy’ is the official, master version of a record. There can only be one golden copy of each record. A golden copy exists from the point of creation of a record not just once the record is no longer used. It is important to remember that the golden copy of a record exists for all stages of its development. Therefore during the early stages of a records development the golden copy may be a draft. When a record is superseded by an updated version a golden copy may still exist for the previous version, for example with assessment regulations which are updated every year, it is not just the current regulations which have a golden copy – a golden copy should exist for each previous set of regulations, and there will also be a golden copy of the draft of the next year's regulations."

Some interesting reactions to Reuters CEO Tom Glocer's speech at the Online Publishers Association. I thought it was encouraging news and in my previous post I (somewhat breathlessly) compared it to Associated Press CEO Tom Curley's similar speech a year ago. Upon further reflection, it's not quite at the level of Curley's speech. Eran Globen brought me back down to earth with his post. 

Although according to Lucas Gonze, it seems Reuters is actually walking the talk - compared to its rival AP. According to Lucas quoting MediaShift:

"AP member sites will offer free streaming video of about 40 clips per day, but with a catch: The new AP Online Video Network is powered by Microsofts MSN Video, meaning you must use the Microsoft browser, Internet Explorer (IE), to view it online."

While a majority of the Internet population uses IE, the AP's business arrangement with Microsoft means that a good proportion of users won't be able to view AP videos - Apple/Safari users, or Firefox folks (like me). However AP's arch rival Reuters will "pick up the viewers AP is alienating", because it's made a deal with Internet video company Brightcove that will enable news sites and blogs to provide video via a player that will work on all browsers. 

That's the kind of open Web solution which makes me think that Reuters has its head on straight with relation to Web media. Now... as Scott Karp pointed out, there's nothing especially revolutionary in Reuters boss Tom Glocer's speech. Nevertheless it's good to see companies like Reuters talking the talk - and walking it too. I'd like to address some of Scott's other points. He wrote:

 "Tom Glocer has fooled 2.0 advocates like Jeff Jarvis into thinking he’s drunk the Koolaid, but the truth is, he hasn’t. This is Media 1.1 at best, and it still represents a formlua for perpetuating the entrenchment of Old Media at the center (which 2.0ers like Pete Cashmore accuse me of doing).

Firstly I'd politely suggest that Scott lay off the Koolaid :-), because all the version numbers in that statement obscure its real point: that Scott thinks Tom Glocer's speech is still all about "Old Media" controlling the media space.

Let's look at that... Glocer's speech talked about media companies being "seeders of clouds" (a somewhat nebulous phrase), a provider of tools, supporter of open standards and interoperability, and provider of filtering and editing. All of this encourages users to contribute and create content, but it's the filtering and editing where I think big media can best provide value. By filtering, I think of news tracker apps like memeorandum and Megite. Ever since Memeorandum arrived on the scene in a big way last September, I've said that it belongs in a media company (such as Reuters).

And by editing, I hope Reuters means using their journalistic resources and prowess to aggregate, add to and enhance the vast amount of 'user-generated' information being produced in this era - and edit it into quality news content. It's one of the areas where I see companies like Reuters, AP (and Yahoo) adding value in this new world. 

Of course Reuters' huge staff of writers and journalists will still produce the majority of its content - skill and experience will always count for a great deal. But I think a lot of their 'raw material' will come from the Web, what we're calling 'user-generated content'. A lot of the amateurs will also rise to be professionals too. So old media and new media and users will all hopefully intermingle and co-exist. 

Now, does that all mean that 'old media' is at the center of it still? I don't think so, because if anything it puts everybody in the same 'pool' of content and information - which gets filtered and edited (yes, the latter by humans at Reuters and the like...). Put another way: Reuters has a big part to play in this, but they won't be at the center of news media - they'll be aggregating, filtering and editing at 'the edge'.

Overall though I think Scott and I basically agree, because his summary here is basically my belief too:

"Media 2.0 is about creating an efficient marketplace for content that enables media consumers to find the highest-yield content from an ever increasing diversity of sources AND enabling content creators to efficiently collaborate."

I think Reuters is on the right path with Glocer's speech. Sure they haven't reached Media 2.0 Nirvana yet, as described above by Scott. But then who has? Currently it's enough for me that Reuters has joined the revolution evolution.

Jeff Jarvis is live-blogging the keynote of Tom Glocer, CEO of Reuters, at the Online Publishers Association. I got pretty excited by a similar speech by Associated Press CEO Tom Curley just over a year ago, so this Reuters keynote is pressing my buttons too. I particularly liked this point, on the role of big media in the current era of user-generated content. There are 3 main roles, quoth Jarvis via Glocer:

1) Media companies will be a "seeder of clouds". I think that means attracting good content and people to its sites and apps.

2) they'll be a "provider of tools… We need to produce open standards and interoperability to allow" people to create content (Yes, yes!)

3) media companies will be "filter and editor" (...I think I need a cigarette now)

Seriously, it's great to see traditional media companies embracing user content and recognizing that providing tools and filters is the answer - rather than grimly trying to hold on to 20th century broadcast culture. This is what mainstreaming the Read/Write Web is about.

The NYTimes reports that Yahoo! is backing off its big plans to create television-style original content for the Web. Fears that Yahoo original content will alienate movie studios and television networks appears to be behind this shift in strategy. In that sense, I can understand Yahoo focusing more on the other two pillars of its content empire: 'professional' content from traditional media companies (like ABC, Universal and the like); and 'user-generated' content. But actually this latest announcement is, I think, more a case of Yahoo re-defining what it means by "original content" - rather than backing off it.

Remember at last year's Web 2.0 Conference when Yahoo CEO Terry Semel outlined his vision for Yahoo as a media company? From my notes at the time:

"Yahoo is all about content" --> user-generated, professional, and the future of what content may be (which Yahoo will try to take a leadership position in designing).

I still think Yahoo has much to offer the world by taking a leadership position in defining 'the future of content'. It will undoubtedly include Internet video, multimedia and lots of input/output from general users. I think most Hollywood studios and US television networks will be slow to pick up on these opportunities, although some players like News Corp appear to be making headway. 

Yahoo has a lot to offer in this sense of 'original content', so it'd be a shame to see them back off those types of opportunities completely. I don't think they will, I expect they're just shifting tack (re-defining) and re-assuring traditional media that Yahoo won't compete (much) against them. I mostly agree with what Fred Wilson pointed out:

"The challenge is all about how to take the work of the masses and assemble it into compelling content. The company that figures that out will do very well."

...with the provisio that original content in the Internet era still requires expertise in its creation, so there's nothing wrong with Yahoo trying to create some of its own. But it's not simply a case of media companies producing "proprietary-content" anymore, as Henry Blodget put it. Original content on the Web will be much more a mix of professional and user-generated than what Lloyd Braun originally planned for.

Flickr pic by Thomas Hawk

- How would you spend VC money if you could? (Matt McAlister lists his virtual shopping list -- publisher services is his top pick: "Understanding content and communities is the name of the game.")

- MobHappy: mobile will define Gen M (for under 20's " the mobile will take over from the PC as the single most important digital device for accessing the web")

- Video profile: Marnie Webb of NetSquared (I spoke to Marnie recently about NetSquared, which is all about empowering non-profit organizations with the use of computers and networked technologies. More soon on that...)

- Rachel Cunliffe wants predictive Web stats ("Why haven’t online developers joined forces with statisticians who can model this data and provide predictions for the future?" -- great suggestion!)

- More speculation about an iTunes for movies (AppleInsider uncovers a survey about a potential "iTunes movie service" -- most analysts think such a thing is coming soon from Apple)

- Ben Barren imagines Dave Winer in a turtleneck (and also comes up with a great description of OPML: "subscribe to the best of a topic not just one source")

- Business 2.0: The Next Net 25 (a decent overview of the next-gen Web - some odd choices in its 25 companies, but overall well worth a looksie if you're new to all this)

- Dina Mehta: On Being a Qualitative Researcher ("...don't get intimidated by marketing jargon - it's something you'll pick up as you interact with more and more clients.")

Flickr pic by Russell_Reno, via Gaping Void

Dave Winer has announced OPML 2.0 (in public review status currently). OPML stands for Outline Processor Markup Language. In semi-laymens terms, OMPL is a common XML data format for outlines and subscription lists - just as RSS is a common data format for content syndication.

So why is OPML significant? Its main claim to fame so far is as a way to import and export subscription lists between feed readers and aggregators. But other uses, such as Reading Lists and as a mechanism for filtering your information load, may be its real future. For example, all the recent talk about personalized 'memetrackers' (or news trackers as Gabe Rivera from memeorandum would prefer we call them) hinges on OPML.

The theory is that people can personalize their news filtering by uploading their OPML files - aka subscription lists - to the likes of TailRank, Findory and Megite. It's still a work in progress and some developers think it's too hard a problem to solve right now. But I see this as an indication of how big a part OPML has to play in the future of media filtering and personalization. I certainly think it's a key technology, just as RSS is.

As the man himself, Dave Winer, wrote:

"OPML 2.0 is a milestone, much like RSS 2.0 was in the summer of 2002. We now know how OPML is being used, and where the problems are, and I think are ready to produce a frozen and extensible format and spec."

RSS 2.0 is the dominant syndication technology currently and so perhaps that augers well for OPML 2.0.

p.s. what's the best and easiest OPML editor out there currently?