attention industry

Facebook Apps: Invisible Network Effects

Thu, 24 May 2012 18:26:04 -0400

Facebook is now a network effects company, the same way Google is an algorithm company.

And it’s going to pay off bigger than anyone seems to expect in mobile.

But before I go into that: I know what you’re thinking. The FB mobile app, on iOS and Android, is pretty bad. It’s slow, frustrating, and manages to be both cluttered and short on functionality.

But ignore the flagship FB mobile app. It’s a mess for a reason: it’s an attempt to put everything on Facebook into one place. It’s as bad on iOS as iTunes is on OSX.

Look instead at Messenger and Camera. These fit into a mobile design paradigm that, frankly, Facebook was never designed for. They are single purpose apps, and unlike many mobile apps, they are instantly useful.

This is the secret weapon Facebook has on mobile. Developing a network on anything sucks. Letting one app access your data from another app feels sketchy.

Facebook, on the other hand, has spent the better part of a decade letting you plug your every social connection into it. And, despite complaints, they have a fairly robust privacy management system.

You’re already using Facebook (probably), they just need to remind you why. And being able to instantly populate your phone’s mobile apps with a deep and vetted network you have already approved? That’s a decent why.

Camera seems great, despite being an instagram also-ran. Because it was instantly relevant, with one click. Because it showed me Facebook photos I wouldn’t have seen in the news feed, on desktop OR mobile.

Messenger is much the same. People I couldn’t easily reach on my phone before are now easy to text. One step. No setup.

Beyond this multi app approach, the biggest clue that these apps are a big part of FB’s way forward is the naming.

Facebook isn’t focusing on social networking apps. They’re aiming to replace core functions of your most intimate device, by being less work.

With the end result of making more and more interactions part of their social graph.

The Appropriate Tool

Sat, 19 May 2012 16:24:22 -0400

I’m visiting my sister and her family this weekend, and I’m just at the outset of a personal project. I assumed that lugging my MacBook Air and iPhone along would keep me in working order for the trip.

But I find myself missing my aging, generation 1 iPad.

The stage this project is at, I need to try a bunch of things. Mock up pages, try text styles, play. And for whatever reason, my laptop doesn’t feel like the correct tool for that. So it’s stayed in my bag more or less since I’ve gotten here.

I’ve been scribbling in Evernote since the drive here began, and adding to my notes and ideas. But I haven’t pulled out a notebook, because I fear that leaving too much of this project on paper will stall me on this page. I need to play with content.

The bigger issue though, is context. In a family social setting, I can play with my phone or tablet without getting a second look. A laptop or notebook, however, creates an assumption that you want to be left alone.

There are jobs, in passive creation, where the iPad has become my ideal device. And this is the power of creating new categories: you find undiscovered use cases.

The short version is, there’s not always a justification until a reason for one is created. If you create a compelling tool, people will create a use for it.

A good enough product can create market fit.

Words Destroyed by My Generation

Wed, 16 May 2012 09:36:32 -0400

Awesome (did not used to mean ‘cool’)
Genius (did not used to mean ‘smart’)
Brilliant (did not used to mean ‘bright’)
Authentic (did not used to mean ‘cool without seeming to have applied effort’)
Revolutionary (did not used to mean ‘new’)
Innovative (did not used to mean ‘new’, either)
Entrepreneur (did not used to mean ‘self-employed’)
Visionary (did not used to mean ‘has an idea’)

But seriously: when was the last time you saw someone use one of these words in a way that made you think it was justified?

This is the worst product composite shot I’ve seen in...

Fri, 04 May 2012 11:39:36 -0400

This is the worst product composite shot I’ve seen in years.

Why we hate paying for content online.

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:41:00 -0400

[This is an extremely simplified version of a much larger point]

Publishing used to be hard. Publishing is now very easy.

Distribution used to be hard. Distribution is now very easy.

When Publishing was hard, it indicated Authority. Now Authority is less clearly defined.

When Distribution was hard, it indicated Importance. Now Importance is less clearly defined.

People can be easily convinced to pay for that which is Authoritative and Important. It is much harder to convince people to pay for specific goods on a flat landscape, where Authority and Importance is far less obvious, and far more relative.

You’ll note that I’m not mentioning piracy, or copyright, here. Because piracy has always existed, and should be folded under the same banner as breakage, or any other inevitable reality of selling things.

The problem isn’t a lack of morality. It’s a lack of clear signifiers that say ‘HERE is the thing you should want to pay for’, mixed with a nearly infinite sea of choices.

I like Gumroad. It solves an actual problem, has a revenue...

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:35:00 -0400

I like Gumroad. It solves an actual problem, has a revenue model, and has multiple use cases.

The thing I find most interesting about it is that you could sell pretty much anything digital on this platform in nearly no time. This doesn’t just change the actual sales process, it changes the expectations of what you can sell.

For instance, there are a TON of bloggers and writers who, if they were selling a PDF book or presentation, functionally a longform blog post, I would shell out $5. There’s a larger group of people who could charge me $0.99 very easily, for video or images or behind the scenes content.

If Gumroad works, it could conceivably facilitate a fourth model of internet sustainability [after Ad Support, Freemium, and Patronage (including Crowdfunding and Branded Support)].

Definitely keeping an eye on this, and don’t be surprised if I start trying to sell thinking in digital formats.

Best Thing On The Internet Today.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:04:28 -0400

I love ze frank’s A Show. I loved The Show, too, but I specifically like the current presentation of interactive elements around each youtube video, with links, and missions, sitting comfortably to the side of the action.

It makes me happy that in the episode, ze says ‘It’s like in that whitman poem’, and clearly, without direction, I see that the link to the side will let me read the poem in question.

It’s minimal as hell, but it’s amazing UX.

Why You Get Tired of Twitter

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:17:35 -0400

Every new thing has a curve. In my experience it goes something like this.

• New (A new social object or platform has been discovered.)
• First Connections (You find someone to share this new discovery with. Your shared interest is a foundation for a relationship.)
• Tight Community (Your initial connections intensify, and grow in number.)
• Scaling Community (The overall community grows, outside of your personal social group.)
• Dissonance (The overall community is less recognizable. You no longer feel a sense of understanding or ownership.)
• Discontent (The lack of connection to the growing community leads you to feel that it has changed. Your initial social connections no longer feel related to this platform.)

This has happened three or four times in my life. Each time, the early stages have been hugely beneficial or transformative, and the tail ends have been distracting and more than a little hard to move through.

Interestingly, when new platforms feel less valuable to me as an early adopter, the monetary value they have increases exponentially. Mass appeal, as a necessity, alienates the initial core. However, I’ve also seen that feeling of alienation come at a time when an entire social network or platform collapses as it attempts to scale.

"The research comes from Panos Ipeirotis, an Associate Professor and George A. Kellner Faculty Fellow..."

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:24:00 -0400

“

The research comes from Panos Ipeirotis, an Associate Professor and George A. Kellner Faculty Fellow at the Department of Information, Operations, and Management Sciences at Leonard N. Stern School of Business of New York University. He started looking at visibility metrics for online ads over a year ago and has since been analyzing over 1.5 billion ad impressions a day. His high level findings:

38% of ads are never in view to a user
50% of ads are in view for less than 0.5 seconds
56% of ads are in view for less than 5 seconds

”

- Nobody Even Sees 50% Of Your Media Buy | mThink.com

I’ve suspected that most ad metrics are iffy at best. I didn’t expect that they were THIS iffy.

Related

Trying to Optimize. Last night, I became fascinated by trying to...

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:19:03 -0400

Trying to Optimize.

Last night, I became fascinated by trying to figure out which apps I use the most, and which home screen apps are actually just wasting space. So, I’m experimenting: moving some likely lower utility apps off the home screen, and seeing what my daily use is actually like.

(Apps removed: Safari, Foursquare, TeuxDeux, and Facebook)

Interestingly, I only starting realizing I didn’t often use Foursquare and Facebook when I turned off notifications. FB was essentially spam, given the low barrier to event invites, and Foursquare notifications stopped providing even useful information when I realized I’d rather use it as a discovery tool when traveling. Safari is functionally accessed 90+% of the time via other apps, or spotlight search, and I found my mobile to do list was only accessed during certain meetings, in which I am more and more relying on Evernote.

I’ll post an update later on with any realizations from this process.

EDIT 1: After only a short time, I realized that I head to my second screen of apps for the App Store icon more than nearly anything else, given it manages updates, and I tend to be obsessed with new technology releases.

How did the ad hurt you?

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:35:47 -0400

Kinds of advertising that impact me negatively:
• massive auto playing display ads online
• ads masquerading as content
• those infuriating little pull out cards that are in magazines
• 20 minutes of ads before 20 minutes of trailers before a $14 movie
• warnings / threats before legally purchased video content
• malware / spam

Kinds of advertising that hurt no one:
• small, unobtrusive, silent display ads
• ads that do not interfere with content
• contextual text ads
• clearly called out, and avoidable sponsored content

You might disagree with me on this. If so, I’d love to hear why.

Get ready for ads to start appearing on Tumblr.

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:53:59 -0400

Get ready for ads to start appearing on Tumblr.:

nedhepburn:

That’s a shame.

If true, this isn’t a shame. In fact, I’d say it’s the best thing that could happen to Tumblr right now.

I know that advertising is supposed to be the devil, but Tumblr not having a viable business model is a much larger threat than having ad space on the dashboard. I love Tumblr. I want to keep using it for a long time.

Basically, the only better news would be that instead of this, there’s now a “premium” version of Tumblr for $10 a month, that gives me Analytics, x number of free highlights, and storage for files. In fact, if Karp & Co. offer that, I’ll sign up instantly. Ads or no ads.

Why I deleted everyone on Path.

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:43:00 -0400

I deleted nearly everyone on the ‘private’ social network Path a few days ago, and it felt important to clarify why.

Path’s 150 user limit seems founded on a misunderstanding of what the Dunbar Number actually means. While the most common interpretation is that things should be capped at 150, what I’ve determined is that, a group of 150, and a group of 250, are perceived nearly identically, with one major difference. You do not recall or connect with everyone in the second group. You also don’t really ‘notice’ those extra people.

This doesn’t mean ‘you can only have 150 friends, really’ as many Facebook doomsayers have interpreted it to mean after stumbling into the concept via Malcolm Gladwell. What it means is, 150 is the barrier from a tight knit community, to a community more like the ones we recognize in real life - the ones with a tight knit layer that we think about, and a much larger, less cohesive layer that we generally forget. Social networking is like this: your behaviour at work doesn’t collapse entirely when you hit 200 employees. But culture transmits less automatically - keeping the company the same suddenly requires more effort and process.

The problem with this is, if you use a service like Path, and have 150, or even 50, people connected to it, the use case is nearly identical to using Facebook and not adding everyone you meet, or using Facebook with even rudimentary privacy controls.

By removing everyone who doesn’t satisfy what I’ve taken the calling the McQuarrie Test*, I’ve tried to give Path a use case that makes it separate from what I consider reasonably mature usage of a general social network.

A Working Social Communication Hierarchy:

Pair (relationships)
Path (close friendships)
Facebook (real life connections)
Twitter (asymmetrical communication)
Tumblr (social publishing)

The worry here, of course, is that many people will interpret me not adding them to Path, or me removing them from Path, as some kind of insult. It’s not an insult at all. It’s simply a reminder to myself that, at core, a person can only have so many close friends. And even when attempting to make EVERYONE a close friend, your behaviour will indicate otherwise.

Which is why I was, until now, using Path as a glorified Foursquare replacement.

The key narrative element I use to explain the social media revolution is that publishing has become a core social activity, in the way expression is a core social activity. The important thing to realize is that, per McLuhan, the medium is still the message. The platform, the audience, and the mechanics of communication inherently carry a meaning all their own.

I’m just trying to plan accordingly.

*Named after my friend Angus McQuarrie, who once suggested that “would you call this person at home” was the real determiner of friendship. This conversation took place before cell phones were prevalent.

I noticed Calvetica on your iPhone home screen. Would you recommend it (and why)?

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:24:49 -0400

Massive Calvetica fan. There are some issues in relation to iOS insisting you use the native Calendar app for some functions, but Calvetica generally makes creating new appointments, reviewing my schedule, and accessing calendar info easier.

That, and the design is very much my style.

Getting the most from a quantified self.

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:02:46 -0400

Getting the most from a quantified self.:

I wrote a post on the Company blog. I do this, from time to time.

Concerning your tech setup post: what about your phone? Sticking with Android?

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:41:09 -0400

I’ve actually been back on iOS since February. Will probably never go back to Android again. Currently using an iPhone 4S. Siri is borderline useless.

Fixing iTunes

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:49:15 -0400

iTunes has a core problem: with the rise of iOS, it’s arguably the most important part of OSX. And it’s bloated, slow, and lacks focus. I have a few suggestions to fix it.

Make device sync a universal feature:
It wouldn’t hurt to have ‘Sync to Device’ be an option in every OSX app that has files. Music for iTunes, Movies via a Movie specific app (more on that later), documents from Pages / Keynote / Numbers, etc. This would also tie with Apple’s unspoken objective of hiding the filesystem, and tying files to the app used to access / edit them. This could also, of course, be folded into a more robust iCloud application.

Separate apps by function, iOS style:
iTunes is currently movies, music, apps, and device manager. Given the Mac App store has it’s own app on OSX already, I have trouble understanding the advantage to keeping this separate from the other app stores. Similarly, Movies could easily be it’s own app and store, separate from iTunes: this would also allow better customization for the AppleTV experience, and frankly, a better overall player experience. That said, you would still want a single, complete way to manage everything on your iPhone, iPod or iPad.

Make your device profile a desktop app:
This is the simplest solution, and one that solves a few problems. You could sync and update multiple devices at once. You could export a device profile between Macs. And you could ensure that access to your device profile, and ability to make changes, isn’t entirely tied to having your device plugged into your laptop. The big benefit here, though, is that ‘I want to change something about my iPad’ now has a separate user flow than ‘I want to hear a favourite song.’

Having an iOS device profile act as it’s own app also leads to some great opportunities down the road, including being able to port entire profiles to devices via a future version of iCloud, and/or being able to load up your profile temporarily on a loaner phone / borrowed phone, with all charges and downloads being profile (and therefore personal carrier) specific.

My Tech Set-Up and Future Plans.

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:55:41 -0400

I spent last night taking key data off of my now 5 year old macbook, and backing things up to external HDs, dropbox, etc. This isn’t in anticipation of a replacement, but rather in preparation for a move - I can’t imagine anyone buying the thing, and I don’t intend to bring it with me. For the last year, it’s had no battery, so it functions as a desktop running an out of date OS. While decommissioning the thing, I began to think about what was next.

My (likely) future personal technology set up:

11 inch macbook air (maxed SSD)*
20 inch external monitor
Apple bluetooth keyboard
Apple magic trackpad / magic mouse*
1 TB external HD*
iPad (new or 2)*
Apple TV*

* indicates something I do not already own

This is based on the recent realization that I don’t really need an always-on home computer. Most of the time, I’m just streaming content, creating documents, editing documents available in the cloud, or browsing the web. I don’t need a dedicated desktop for that, and I’m not the torrenting machine I once was.

For now, I’m considering using my work computer (13 inch macbook air) as my overall hub (we have a very open tech policy at my office) but I think a completely personal machine is a good idea, especially for non-work travel, and for tinkering / dorkery / information security. When at home, an 11 inch macbook turns into a desktop as well as anything else. When travelling / working remotely / in cramped spaces (planes, coffee shops, couches) an 11 inch form factor would come in handy.

Also, the quick visual separation of my personal and professional machines would be nice.

I currently have an iPad 1, and it works fine, but has one flaw that bothers me - the back panel isn’t flat, so it doesn’t sit flat on a table. I don’t need cameras, I don’t need Siri, but I do need to be able to use the damn thing to take notes in a meeting. This has only recently started to bug me, but now it’s bugging me in a way that needs to be addressed.

Realizing that I don’t need an always on desktop was a pretty big revelation, but it made one thing official - a traditional PC isn’t my main device. It’s a second screen at best, and possibly 3rd. Mobile is my primary access point, now. A laptop is for heavy lifting / intense creative tasks.

[It’s pretty obvious that this entire set up is very, very Apple centric. I’d say this is intentional, but it’s more than that. It’s an understanding of the basic nature of computing, moving forward. We no longer buy operating systems. We buy into operating ecosystems. Getting a Samsung laptop, or an Android tablet, would mean having one device that doesn’t integrate well with everything else. It would also mean managing / paying for another app platform. None of this appeals to me. I made a choice to enter the Apple ecosystem, and won’t be leaving until I see a compelling reason to.]

Things That Scare Lauren Leto: Use It or Lose It

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:57:22 -0400

Things That Scare Lauren Leto: Use It or Lose It:

thingsthatscarelaurenleto:

Why don’t products innovate on friends?

Immediately after posting my post on how Instagram could have beat Facebook, my friend Jason sent me a gchat pointing out that with scale and time, Instagram would eventually face the same problems Facebook does - random posts clogging, etc. Which made…

Very good idea, and a partial inspiration for my last post. Friendships decay without interactions over time - why don’t any networks reflect this?

(Private) Social Network Ideas

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:59:00 -0400

Something I’ve wanted for a few years now, is the return and evolution of the private forum.

What’s Missing:
Social networks don’t have overall access barriers; they focus on personal access, either asymmetrical (following) or symmetrical (friending). The core issue with this is that the platform is open, and therefore the denial is open. Anyone can attend the party, but they can’t necessarily enter a conversation.

This purely personal, political barrier is what ruins ‘personal’ networks like Path: even with a strong effort to NOT add those who aren’t close friends, the request / accept / ignore dynamic layers social pressure on the decision. This is a flaw that’s as old as the first truly social experiences I had online, like livejournal. You can see rejection. That dimension alone makes privacy a violation of the still developing digital social contract.

A Potential Solution:
What I want is something with the features of a social network, but closed to 99.99% of humanity. Closed to the invite from the one person in the group who inevitably invites more and more friends. What I want, is private, roll your own forums. Fully mobile compatible, asymmetrical, and with threads that are only visible to those invited.

This Solves a Few Problems:

Rejection: you can’t see what you’re left out of. The focus is instead what you’ve been invited to. Invites head in one direction (outward) at the forum level, and from one individual (creator) at the thread level.

Privacy: this isn’t public, and any content created within it isn’t visible to anyone you haven’t designated. Thread members can request invites for others, but there’s still a closed door, and others aren’t notified of the submissions / rejections.

Individuality: each social network has its own pervasive norms. This wouldn’t be possible in a fragmented system. Your group would develop its own, reflective dynamics. The pressure to conform to outside behavioral dynamics would be substantially lessened.

And So:
The real question is: what would the product be in this situation. Most social networks are only funded by scale and collected information from users. In this case, you’d need to actually sell the product. Which would be a nice change.