Remember the movie, Minority Report? The one with Tom Cruise in it?
Remember the scene where he was an agent searching for clues on this murder, and he was using this computer interface that looked so ultra cool in 2002?
Let me refresh your memory:
Well girls and boys, that technology is now here.
And it has been created by MIT. More details here.
I believe that is the future of the Internet. Driven by creativity, popular culture, brilliant ideas of movie makers, writers and producers alike and realized by techies. There's no limit to where technology can take us.
Did you turn off your lights on Earth Hour this year?
I'm sure at least 50% of us did. Even if we didn't, most people knew about Earth Hour. Organized by the WWF, Earth Hour was initiated in 2007 in Australia when 2.2million people switched off their lights to make a stand on climate change. In 2008, it went global.
Earth Hour 2011 Official Video
So how did people all across the globe find out about it? Technology had a big part to play in this highly successful marketing campaign. Aside from using traditional media like print and broadcast, it also harnessed the power of viral marketing.
Creating a good marketing campaign that goes viral is the dream, the grand masterpiece of any marketer's career. In the internet age, viral marketing is made easier; sharing a video from Youtube on your Facebook is a prime example of viral marketing. It breaks through the constraints of communication in time, distance, speed, bandwidth. Information can be viewed at any time, from anywhere in the world at a faster speed (depending on internet connection of course).
Earth Hour makes use of humour to make their message go viral. Take a look at one of their ads created for 2010's Earth Hour:
Does that not at least put a smile on your face?
Web surfers would not hesitate to share such a cute play on pop culture with their friends. With technology, it facilitates personal communication since information can easily be shared through email, blogs and social networking sites. Earth Hour leverages on such technology to spread the word about their campaign and improve communication to their target audience.
In this day and age, the internet has become part of our everyday lives. Not only does it appeal to our personal identity, it also plays on the fact that we feel a need to belong to a community. WWF understands this and thus makes use of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube and blogs to reach out to its massive audience.
I'm sure you use at least one of the above sites to keep in contact with friends or just for entertainment. You can become a fan of Earth Hour on Facebook, follow its tweets on Twitter, request to be friends on MySpace, view photos of the event on Flickr, watch how different nations celebrated Earth Hour on its YouTube channel and subscribe to the RSS feed of its blog so that every update gets delivered right to your inbox. By entering the spaces of the public and championing a worthy cause that employs good humour, WWF is ensuring the success of its computer-mediated communication.
Though it is hardly a revolutionary breakthrough use of technology in communication, Earth Hour does it well and with class, and they deserve a pat on the back for making such excellent use of technology in mass communication.
A very illuminating story from Mashable on a survey done by the Oriella PR agency in 2010 showed how exactly the Internet was affecting traditional journalism, right from the horse's mouth.
Many of these journalists believe that much revenue from the advertisers were lost and over half of them feared that traditional journalism might be taken off the market altogether.
However, there are alternative views. Chris Ahearn, President of Thomas Reuters, believes that the Internet will in fact help journalism instead of kill it.
Also, there is the issue of citizen journalism. But what exactly is it?
No doubt citizen journalism wields great power especially if the blogger has a large number of followers. An angry opinion leader can spark off an angry mob, and an angry mob is not what any organization, government or society wants.
Ultimately, citizen journalism will not take over professional journalism, because citizen journalism is generated by the layman and the layman sees what he wants to see. Journalists, however, are trained to analyze and see the bigger picture. They synthesize information from all around to provide us with a well-rounded and hopefully unbiased story. This is what citizen journalism generally lacks.
Also, citizen journalism tends to be more biased because it is not run through an editorial team before it gets published, therefore it is not held accountable to the public. Can we take such sources seriously, even if the citizen journalist in question does try to hold up journalistic integrity? I'd still take my chances with my local and international news agencies any day.
There has been much talk about how the Internet is supposed to help bring politics to a whole new level. There has been many compelling evidence for this argument as well, but is the Internet really helping politics?
In the context of the US, I would suppose so; after all, Obama leveraged the power of social media and Internet to win votes and much-needed funds for campaigning.
Even his inauguration was viewed by millions around the world. People no longer had to stay glued to their TV sets to watch it. Now news is about what you want, when you want it, and we are pickier about our choices than ever before.
But what about locally? With the upcoming elections, all the different political parties in Singapore are turning to the Internet for a leg-up. Since the opposition parties do not get enough attention from the mainstream media, they try to use websites, social networking and so on to get their point across.
Though it may help to increase awareness, sometimes this awareness backfires.
Let's look at Tin Pei Ling.
She's the youngest MP candidate introduced by the PAP this year, and she has been the brunt of ridicule on the Internet ever since. Even though the Internet can raise awareness, it can also raise awareness of the wrong issues.
Instead of going after her policies, or what she can contribute to the society, netizens are vicious in their personal attacks on this candidate. They misuse the Internet to expose trivial details about her, and the entire debate disintegrates into childish name-calling and malicious remarks.
I am sure the with the upcoming general elections, the entire point of discussing politics on the Internet is to facilitate understanding, to weigh the pros and cons of each candidate and each political party before casting a rational vote. Unfortunately, political discussion on the Internet has been reduced to mud-slinging.
Because this is controversial, and it is also interesting, it captures the majority's attention. People may not actively go out and source for objective material about the important things that matter - the polices, what each political party stands for and their plans for our future.
Let's not let the loudest voice on the Internet prevail; don't let it drown out the more important things at hand. Remember that with the Internet, the information is there at your feet, just waiting to be discovered.
Marketing is a huge part of business, and everyone has an online presence these days. So how do you keep your customer engaged and coming back for more? You certainly can't rely on a traditional web page with just text and links, can you? You have to use multimedia.
According to wikipedia, multimedia is media and content that uses different combinations of content forms, like text, audio, video, images, animation and interactivity.
But how do you integrate multimedia and marketing?
Most importantly, it has to be of a certain quality. You wouldn't want to stumble across a multimedia corporate website that looks like one of those bastardized MySpace profile page with too much animated glitter, awful music and jarring videos right?
Multimedia is extremely useful, but what content should you put up? If it does not further your company vision, increase brand awareness, engage customers or sell a product, then why put it up at all?
Are you using an Android phone? Well be afraid, be very afraid! The next time you go app-shopping on the Android marketplace, don't download just any app, for they might contain malware!
You don't exactly want to open an app containing a trojan, do you?
Worms, viruses, trojans, spyware, and even phishing can not only target your computer, but they also are quickly invading the smartphone platform. eWeek reports that most smartphone users aren't too careful when it comes to their mobile devices, downloading at whim and not evaluating the sources stringently. If we are careful when it comes to our PCs, we should do the same with our mobile devices too. You don't want to receive a phone bill costing thousands just because a malware is texting premium rate numbers, right?
So far, Google has responded pretty well by removing these malicious apps from the Android marketplace after being informed by bloggers at Android Police. Google also remotely removed apps from user's devices, which is honestly quite creepy because it's a huge invasion of privacy, even if it's to fix a security threat.
However, the worst isn't over yet. The security app released by Google has been duplicated by hackers and there are malicious apps in the Android marketplace masquerading as the Google security app.
Of course, not all hope is lost, and you shouldn't be too hasty to throw your Android device down the chute just yet. PC Mag has a few tips on how to protect your android phone.
CNET also gives a useful overview on top apps to secure your Android device.
Part of the reason why Android is facing this problem is because they believe in open source developing, and therefore there is no gatekeeping for apps put up for download. Open source breeds progress? Well maybe, but it's also an open playground for viruses and security threats. My iPhone and iPad have no fear (for now) because of its relatively closed system of developers, even though its millions of users are a huge temptation for malware producers. I'll take Apple over Android any day.
Personally, I've had some experience with video editing, so let me share with you some of the videos I have done as well as some tips to making better videos.
How to make a good video:
Tell a story
Use a software you are comfortable with
If you don't know how to use the software, search for tutorials on YouTube
Use music
Don't use complicated transitions like the ripple effect (Fading to and from black is your best bet)
Don't use too many effects
Choose a good place to host your video
Here's example of what you can do with just an iPhone and iMovie:
This is a short clip made to introduce a business plan for a spa facility.
Of all the video editing software available, my personal favorite is still Final Cut Pro. Obviously if you don't want to buy it (or pirate it), the next best thing would be iMovie. No, Windows Movie Maker doesn't cut it because videos produced on it usually look amateur. In iMovie, it is relatively simple to edit, trim clips, add music, voiceovers, credits and smooth transitions without much effort at all.
Another thing to keep in mind is the material you are using in the videos - are they all original content? If you use copyrighted music like I did, YouTube tends to flag it and take it down. So to get around it, just host it on another video sharing site like Vimeo. Avoid sites like Tudou, Youku and Xtube, because they are better known for hosting either undesirable videos or copyrighted materials like full movies, so it indirectly associates your video with their negative image.
Other than that, go out and shoot some footage with your cameras and have some fun with the videos you can come up with!
And if you don't actually have a camera with video recording capabilities, fret not. You can make an equally compelling video with still pictures and extremely creepy music.
Watch at your own peril. Don't say you haven't been warned!
*Disclaimer: All videos in this post were shot and edited by me. Still images and music may have copyright issues.
How will learning be like in a year, even five years from now? Nobody can tell. Just a couple of months ago, a school in the US made iPads mandatory for all students. Now wouldn't you like to be a student there, renting an iPad for a small fee per month and having all your textbooks and materials in one device? No messy notes! No forgetting to bring assignments, because they are all in your iPad!
I'd like it better if I could have the option to stream my lectures directly from iTunes U though, especially if I couldn't wake up for class in time. Not only can I keep up with school, I can virtually crash any lectures I wish on subjects that I actually like and learn at my own pace, without having to take any exams at all!
If you've never heard of iTunes U before, check this out:
And notice these courses aren't from random, unknown universities. These are famous universities.
Unfortunately, exams and homework are still part and parcel of a student's life, and honestly we all wish for homework help once in awhile. That's where sites like Student of Fortune come in; it's a community-based e-learning system where students post their questions and learn concepts online, while the online tutors (anyone can sign up) get paid for the help they give.
Awesome, right? Now why wasn't this concept up when I was studying subjects like chemistry and physics?!
But let's not digress. With the power of videos, there's hardly anything you can't learn on the internet these days. Be it cooking, playing the guitar or web designing, just go to YouTube's How-To section for all the resources to get you going.
So every mother, son, father, daughter is already on the Internet. Time to get your business a slice of the e-commerce pie, right?
Before you dive head-first into e-commerce, make sure you understand the dynamics of the online culture first.
Let's cover the most basic form of e-marketing: Emails, Facebook and Twitter.
The big trio that every single company wants a part of certainly can't go wrong, right? Wrong. From personal experience, how many of you constantly delete junk emails and unsubscribe from mailing lists? "Unlike" a business because they were too annoying? Now think about why you did that. Mashable has a good idea how misusing these platforms turn people off.
Personally, these are my 4 most important criteria to decide if a company stays on my list or not:
Don't be annoying. Stop spamming our inboxes / walls too frequently
Make sure you have something of value to offer the customer
Don't be pushy and too promotional
Try to build brand loyalty, stop gunning for one-off sales
But understanding how it works now isn't enough. You don't want to be a laggard, do you? It is also important to monitor marketing trends and where businesses are heading to. And that future is in m-commerce: Mobile-commerce, that is.
If all else fails, there's nothing like the old school method of using a novel way to catch the attention of potential customers and making them smile while offering them something extra in return. Here's how car rental company SIXT did it:
Facebook and Google are now engaged in talks with Twitter, each of them hoping to buy over the service.
Not that it's anything new, actually. Facebook first tried to buy Twitter in 2008 for $500 million, then Google tried to buy Twitter in 2009. Both of them failed.
Google and Facebook both got Fail Whale-d!
So even after being rebuffed once by Twitter, why are these two companies still clamoring over it and attempting to buy it at, *gasp*, $10 billion?
Why Facebook Wants Twitter
It's simple. Facebook has over 120 million users. Twitter has 60 million. If they buy Twitter, Facebook will practically monopolize the social networking industry, since the union of the two biggest players in the market can almost guarantee the annihilation of the rest of the struggling social networking sites.
That'll be the final nail in the coffin for sites like MySpace. Tom would be so sad.
Imagine, Facebook and Twitter being completely integrated, with such a database of information given freely by the users all available for sale to market researchers and advertisers. Facebook will be rolling in wads of cash, and they'll give Google a run for their money.
Which brings me to....
Why Google Desperately Needs Twitter
Google has absolutely zero presence in the social networking industry right now. Alright so they have Google Buzz. But who uses it? The closest thing they have to social networking is YouTube, and still it does not offer as much interaction and flexibility as Twitter.
Also, if they acquire Twitter, this would make their search engine business more comprehensive and diverse. Instant updates around the world, and people might even turn there for breaking news and other newsworthy issues!
And let's face it. Google's current main competitors are Facebook and Apple. Apple's trying to dabble in social networking too, even though their efforts remain lukewarm. How can Google be left out? They're trying to stay ahead of competition and since they can't grow a successful social networking site, they'll just have to buy one that's already doing well.
Plus, Google is filthy rich, and they can afford it anyway.
Ok I admit, when Google Wave beta was first launched, I was excited. I was going all "SEND ME AN INVITE!" because hey, it's Google and Google produces good stuff.
But then I actually got my invite and saw what Google Wave was really all about, and I wasn't sold. Not one bit.
Are you confused?
Well I sure was. For those too lazy to watch the video, Google Wave is basically social networking, wikis, instant messaging and file sharing all thrown into one platform. However, I was confounded by Google Wave. Here's three reasons why:
1. Why do I need Google Wave?
Okay, so I can share it with several people. I can see edits in real time. I can even use it for social networking, and to talk so some random French person I have a language barrier with!
But wait... Document sharing? Wikis already do that. Edits in real time? Google Docs does that too. Social networking? Well why would I want to bring something fun like social networking into a seemingly work and efficiency based application? People want to idle around social networking sites to have fun, stalk others and so on but who idles around their email homepage? And what are the chances that I'd be acquainted with someone I can't communicate with on normal circumstances?
2.Why is it so complicated?
Wait a minute... What? What's this about real-time posting and editing to websites? Sounds cool but it seems much more than what an average user is able to grasp. Why is Facebook successful? Because it is easy to use. It's so easy to use that even my mother has an account where she chats with friends, plays games and keeps in touch with her old friends. Would she be using something like Google Wave? I doubt so.
3. How many people are actually willing to use this?
The entire existence of Google Wave depends so heavily on the assumption that many people are using it. However, by alienating half the online population who are not so tech-savvy or willing to learn and master new technology like Google Wave, they are left with a very small user population. How can I start a Wave and share it with others when I have only two friends using Google Wave? That's why Friendster is going down the drain - because nobody uses it anymore, everyone is on Facebook and you'd have only about 20 friends if you signed up with Friendster now. Not exactly a lot fun, I would imagine.
If Google Wave had arrived maybe several years later, the online population might be more receptive to such brilliance. Just imagine, with the gadgets that developers could have produced, Google Wave might be the only thing we needed to open on our browser, connecting us to all our social networking sites, emails and instant messaging clients! Too bad it had to die.
This week we learned about the history of the Internet. We found out that in my childhood days, the World Wide Web was known as Web 1.0. This was our Netscape and Mosaic browser era, when computers ran on MS-DOS and information on webpages was static (remember Geocities?) and behaved more like bulletin notices; created by someone and put out there for our information.
Web 2.0 is what we're familiar with now. YouTube, Google Documents, Amazon.com, Facebook... These are sites that are driven by user-generated content and interactivity is what clearly sets it apart from Web 1.0.
There has been much talk about Web 3.0. According to Wikipedia, it is both about personalization of the Web to an individual's tastes and convenience and also about Semantic Web. Semantic Web is sometimes synonymous with Web 3.0, but according to HowStuffWorks, loosely means that computers of the future would be able to understand the meaning and context of say, our search engine queries, instead of just matching the words with similar keywords on websites. In short, Web 3.0 is supposed to be a mind-blowing experience of having the Internet streamlined to suit your personal tastes, understand the exact nuances of your requests and find information for you that is exactly what you're looking for.
Kind of like having your iPhone grow legs, hands and a brain and become your new BFF.
The good folks at Digital Inspiration have kindly compiled a simple table to illustrate the differences between Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0:
While we can't quite call the technology we have today Web 3.0, we are slowly getting there. Filling the gaps between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 is augmented reality. In simple terms, with the right application, holding up your smartphone with its camera on and pointing it towards the thing you want to learn more about is the only thing you need to do to pull information about it off the web.
Here's a short video on what augmented reality is.
Breath-takingly simple yet unbelievably efficient, right? Augmented reality is available right now, even in Singapore, with popular iPhone apps like buUuk.
Imagine that - information is presented to you without tedious, manual, individual searches on the Web!
Not limited to food, there are also apps for astronomy like Pocket Universe; impress your date by buying a US$2.99 app that tells you the name of the constellation you're staring at.
Augmented reality even does real-time translation with Word Lens.
Notably, the most impressive use of augmented reality comes from an app known as Layar. When it was first introduced in 2009, it focused on the ease of search for things near you, much like the app, buUuk. However, it went further than just comparing information pulled off the web; it went for an interactive experience.
Look into the past, see into the future, play games and interact with others using your smartphone camera
While still buggy and sometimes prone to crashing, these apps are a clear sign that we are inching closer towards Web 3.0. It would be a completely personal, intuitive and simple experience. Though augmented reality is not what Web 3.0 is all about, with these technological advances, it enhances the entire experience of the web. The only thing lacking now is a way for computers to understand the semantics of our words. I wonder how much further can scientists take the concept of augmented reality when that day comes?
