Many people who want to see the connectivity of the net more broadly distributed have been enthusiastically following Nicholas Negroponte's project "One Laptop Per Child." (OLPC) The idea was to get a laptop called "Children's Machine XO" out on the market at $100 per laptop, using open source software. From there, the long term ideal of the project would be to get one each into the hands of all the world's children. But on April 26, Negroponte announced a new deal. The OLPC machine is going to run on Windows and now the price is going to be $175. He also backed off their goal of an initial 5 million unit production run, and has instituted several other policy changes.
The politics behind it: It's generally understood that Microsoft had enough power in many nations across the globe to pressure them – indeed blackmail them -- from buying the open source versions of OLPC. OLPC enthusiasts feel that another "change the world" project has been turned into just another mass marketing opportunity for the Evil Empire.
On the independent "One Laptop Per Child News" site, Lee Felsentein – the computer revolutionary who – with Efrem Lipkin, started the Homebrew Computer Club that basically started Personal Computing, suggests that those who worked on the open source version of OLPC will now be excluded from participation and that they should take their work and run – try to do this as an independent project.
Felsenstein writes: "What is the status of the code base currently developed for OLPC? Is it accessible and freely available to be used by others? Someone closer to the project should make sure that this code base cannot be appropriated and kept from use by others.
"If the XO machine becomes unavailable to those who develop external software for it, then a replacement platform should be designed. This isn’t the hard part – the foundation of the project will be the software, especially the application software. I would recommend that a substitute platform for software development be specified and made available."
No doubt, if and when the OLPC machine starts getting distributed, it will be better than nothing (but not much better, considering Windows' famous vulnerabilities). And Bill Gates will be all over the media getting and taking credit for this idealistic project to bring computing to the world's poor. And the initial impetus behind the project will get no media coverage and will never penetrate the mainstream discourse. As Kurt Vonnegut put it, "And so it goes."
Read the entire Lee Felsenstein piece
Monday, April 30, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Glocal Dynamism & Immigration
We're thinking glocally here at Pajama Nation, but we also have to recognize the drift and exchange of human beings across the globe that has been growing with transporation and other technologies. Right now the drift is still towards people emigrating from the "third world" to the advanced nations like the US and Europe. Most people see this as a one way street, since the drift of bodies is basically in one direction. But a recent New York Times article -- "A Good Provider is One Who Leaves" -- shows a healthy dynamic between those who leave and those who stay. Immigrants are getting capital and shifting it back to their earlier locales, and we begin to see growth and development "back home: as the result. of that "redistribution" of capital.
Quoting the New York Times:
"About 200 million migrants from different countries are scattered across the globe, supporting a population back home that is as big if not bigger. Were these half-billion or so people to constitute a state — migration nation — it would rank as the world’s third-largest. While some migrants go abroad with Ph.D.’s, most travel ... with modest skills but fearsome motivation. The risks migrants face are widely known, including the risk of death, but the amounts they secure for their families have just recently come into view. Migrants worldwide sent home an estimated $300 billion last year — nearly three times the world’s foreign-aid budgets combined. These sums — 'remittances' — bring Morocco more money than tourism does. They bring Sri Lanka more money than tea does. ...In 22 countries, remittances exceed a tenth of the G.D.P., including Moldova (32 percent), Haiti (23 percent) and Lebanon (22 percent).
A nice little think piece by Alex Steffan on the WorldChanging website expands further on the possibilities of this glocal exchange of energy between those who forage out for resources and those who build the nest back home.
Quoting Steffan:
"inding better ways to connect migrants with the financial services they and their families and business partners back home need is key as well, many experts say. Particularly promising is the idea of productizing remittances -- sending goods instead of money.
"But a whole host of other innovative financial services might make migrants' checks home both more effective and more frequent, from micro-finance banks to micro-insurance, even meso-financial investment opportunities. Creating such new services will require a pretty rapid case of redistributing the future, helping nations to develop not only the proper laws and proper policies, but even the proper software.
"Now, imagine this: imagine all these enterprising, ambitious people, and all the money they send home (and all the institutions with which they interact to send it) being bent towards even more beneficial ends, becoming better, longer levers for really remaking the nations from which they're traveled into places of prosperity and sustainability. Imagine deciding to make migrant labor truly worldchanging."
"
Read Full NY Times Article
Read Full WorldChanging Article
Quoting the New York Times:
"About 200 million migrants from different countries are scattered across the globe, supporting a population back home that is as big if not bigger. Were these half-billion or so people to constitute a state — migration nation — it would rank as the world’s third-largest. While some migrants go abroad with Ph.D.’s, most travel ... with modest skills but fearsome motivation. The risks migrants face are widely known, including the risk of death, but the amounts they secure for their families have just recently come into view. Migrants worldwide sent home an estimated $300 billion last year — nearly three times the world’s foreign-aid budgets combined. These sums — 'remittances' — bring Morocco more money than tourism does. They bring Sri Lanka more money than tea does. ...In 22 countries, remittances exceed a tenth of the G.D.P., including Moldova (32 percent), Haiti (23 percent) and Lebanon (22 percent).
A nice little think piece by Alex Steffan on the WorldChanging website expands further on the possibilities of this glocal exchange of energy between those who forage out for resources and those who build the nest back home.
Quoting Steffan:
"inding better ways to connect migrants with the financial services they and their families and business partners back home need is key as well, many experts say. Particularly promising is the idea of productizing remittances -- sending goods instead of money.
"But a whole host of other innovative financial services might make migrants' checks home both more effective and more frequent, from micro-finance banks to micro-insurance, even meso-financial investment opportunities. Creating such new services will require a pretty rapid case of redistributing the future, helping nations to develop not only the proper laws and proper policies, but even the proper software.
"Now, imagine this: imagine all these enterprising, ambitious people, and all the money they send home (and all the institutions with which they interact to send it) being bent towards even more beneficial ends, becoming better, longer levers for really remaking the nations from which they're traveled into places of prosperity and sustainability. Imagine deciding to make migrant labor truly worldchanging."
"
Read Full NY Times Article
Read Full WorldChanging Article
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Contrarian Thoughts About the Long Tail
Famous tech entrepreneurial billionaire Mark Cuban offered some interesting takes on the downside of the Long Tail on his blog, and I can attest to the truth of what he's saying when he writes, "No Content Creator wants to be on the Long Tail." Or I'd amend that to read no professional content creator wants to be on the long tail. Content creators want to break through the "content ceiling" – we want our work to break through the clutter and attain economic value, and continue to bring in money. For us, the Long Tail is inflation of the worst sort. The market is flooded with free writing. It's mostly crap writing, but most people don't know the difference. Everybody can write up to a certain level of competence. In other words, if someone is not a piano player, they will sit at the piano and hit the wrong notes and nobody will listen. If somebody is not a "writer" in the sense that those of us who are writers mean it, they can still sit down and communicate.
Cuban writes, "If the goal is commercial, whether to make money directly or indirectly from the content, then the battle to fight through the Content Ceiling begins." And "Very few commercial content creators aspire to get 10k aggregate views from all the videohosting sites. Very few bands are happy with having 10k free downloads , or even 10k friends on Myspace as their endgame. Very few commercial content creators aspire to see their creations end up on Community Access TV. All content creators recognize each of these as a way to create incremental demand for their content, in hopes of breaking through the Content Ceiling, but none of these will reward the content creator with direct revenue. For content creators trying to make a living from their work, they all just represent the Long Tail Ghetto."
This is all about the downside of Long Tail economics. Those that build the thoroughfare, the aggregators make the big bucks. Those that fill in the content, mostly, do it happily… for free. The net is a playground for interaction. A few comfortable technophiles like Chris Anderson and Cory Doctorow (I love Cory and think he's a genius but I do think he's a bit glib about this) are excessively glib about how all this effects artists – musicians, writers, ad infinitum. The narrative is that you can use your music, writing, etc. to get people's attention and then offer them something else. WHAT? The lecture market dried up fifteen years ago, the mid-level book authors are being axed by a declining book industry, magazines are dying and most of the ones that exist are deadly to the imagination.
Speaking to those who are seriously trying to get ahead with content-based projects, Cuban writes, "For all the talk of the internet changing distribution, the reality is that in order to break through the Content Ceiling and to climb the Vert Ramp, 99.9 pct of content creators are going to do need OPM (Other Peoples Money). The internet alone is not going to get the job done. You can put your content everywhere and anywhere the net allows you to be hosted, but for most people the amount of revenues for that content you had before you started the hosting process will be the exact same as what you have after the hosting process."
Of course, there's no fighting the distribution of tools for communication to the great masses, and I'm in favorite it. PJ is part of this process. But it's worth remembering the downside. There is also a possible market here, servicing quality "content creators" and helping them to find new markets. It's something to think about.
Read the entire piece
Cuban writes, "If the goal is commercial, whether to make money directly or indirectly from the content, then the battle to fight through the Content Ceiling begins." And "Very few commercial content creators aspire to get 10k aggregate views from all the videohosting sites. Very few bands are happy with having 10k free downloads , or even 10k friends on Myspace as their endgame. Very few commercial content creators aspire to see their creations end up on Community Access TV. All content creators recognize each of these as a way to create incremental demand for their content, in hopes of breaking through the Content Ceiling, but none of these will reward the content creator with direct revenue. For content creators trying to make a living from their work, they all just represent the Long Tail Ghetto."
This is all about the downside of Long Tail economics. Those that build the thoroughfare, the aggregators make the big bucks. Those that fill in the content, mostly, do it happily… for free. The net is a playground for interaction. A few comfortable technophiles like Chris Anderson and Cory Doctorow (I love Cory and think he's a genius but I do think he's a bit glib about this) are excessively glib about how all this effects artists – musicians, writers, ad infinitum. The narrative is that you can use your music, writing, etc. to get people's attention and then offer them something else. WHAT? The lecture market dried up fifteen years ago, the mid-level book authors are being axed by a declining book industry, magazines are dying and most of the ones that exist are deadly to the imagination.
Speaking to those who are seriously trying to get ahead with content-based projects, Cuban writes, "For all the talk of the internet changing distribution, the reality is that in order to break through the Content Ceiling and to climb the Vert Ramp, 99.9 pct of content creators are going to do need OPM (Other Peoples Money). The internet alone is not going to get the job done. You can put your content everywhere and anywhere the net allows you to be hosted, but for most people the amount of revenues for that content you had before you started the hosting process will be the exact same as what you have after the hosting process."
Of course, there's no fighting the distribution of tools for communication to the great masses, and I'm in favorite it. PJ is part of this process. But it's worth remembering the downside. There is also a possible market here, servicing quality "content creators" and helping them to find new markets. It's something to think about.
Read the entire piece
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Building Community
Guy Kawasaki was the ultimate tech evangelist, creating insane enthusiasm for the "insanely great" Macintosh back in 1984. Apple was extraordinarily successful in bringing together communities of Mac users all across the US (and the world?). Mac User groups sprang up everywhere (and without MeetUp!) and the endless fanaticism of Mac enthusiasts may owe something to Kawasaki's understanding of community dymanics. I recently ran across a piece on his blog about The Art of Creating Community. Maybe you too can, in Kawaski's words, generate "unpaid, raging, inexorable thunderlizard evangelists for MacIntosh and Apple II."
A few of the strong points from the piece:
"Identify and recruit your thunderlizards—immediately! Most companies are stupid: they go for months and then are surprised: “Never heard of them. You mean there are groups of people forming around our products?”
"Assign one person the task of building a community. Sure, many employees would like to build a community, but who wakes up every day with this task at the top of her list of priorities?"
In a global and multicultural project like Pajama Nation, we'll have more than one person – one person per continent, perhaps.
"Foster discourse. The definition of 'discourse' is a verbal exchange. The key word here is “exchange.” Any company that fosters community building should also participate in the exchange of ideas and opinions. At the basic level of community building, your website should provide a forum where customers can engage in discourse with one another as well as with the company's employees."
It's never too early to think about how to get people excitedly arguing and discussing and adding value to a company project. As Kawasaki himself says in this piece, don't stifle dissent. In fact, it's good to turn the whole ideology of the company upside down once in awhile and see what shakes out. (I'll be posting about some "Long Boom" critiques in a few days).
Read the full Guy Kawasaki post
A few of the strong points from the piece:
"Identify and recruit your thunderlizards—immediately! Most companies are stupid: they go for months and then are surprised: “Never heard of them. You mean there are groups of people forming around our products?”
"Assign one person the task of building a community. Sure, many employees would like to build a community, but who wakes up every day with this task at the top of her list of priorities?"
In a global and multicultural project like Pajama Nation, we'll have more than one person – one person per continent, perhaps.
"Foster discourse. The definition of 'discourse' is a verbal exchange. The key word here is “exchange.” Any company that fosters community building should also participate in the exchange of ideas and opinions. At the basic level of community building, your website should provide a forum where customers can engage in discourse with one another as well as with the company's employees."
It's never too early to think about how to get people excitedly arguing and discussing and adding value to a company project. As Kawasaki himself says in this piece, don't stifle dissent. In fact, it's good to turn the whole ideology of the company upside down once in awhile and see what shakes out. (I'll be posting about some "Long Boom" critiques in a few days).
Read the full Guy Kawasaki post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)