Image via CrunchBase

Read a great piece reviewing history and recent developments in YouTube: Streaming Dreams.

We are all very familiar with YouTube – home video, music videos, links published in emails and on Facebook pages.  However John Seabrook paints a picture of the ambition of Google for YouTube – in competing with mainstream television for your time and the dollars of the advertisers.

Will be very interesting to watch the development of commercially produced content (lots of channels referenced in the article) including programmes developed specifically for distribution via YouTube.

We’ve seen the developments which have led to so many people struggling to read books, watch longer movies and television documentaries.  YouTube in many ways has been part of this – watch three minutes not 60 minutes.  However now we seem to be witnessing YouTube partly trying to morph to the longer format.  Three minutes is a good format for getting you to watch when you’re not supposed to be watching e.g. in work; but to sell lots of advertising (in the current environment) want you to stay for more than three minutes.

I just wonder of YouTube is missing a trick.  I think the big challenge for all of us is getting quality from all the distractions.  Yes – distract me, challenge me, stimulate me.  But I only have so many waking hours in the day.  I need environments such as YouTube to satisfy me – have I really been satisfied having spent x minutes in this environment?  If I have then surely I will look to spend more time there.

Impact of YouTube – is it only beginning? is a post from: barryjogorman

What chance do we have of our kids reading books when they are online all the time?

Interesting idea to reduce work related email during employee free time.

Stress caused by not getting offline is a post from: barryjogorman

Some years ago did some work looking at a bookshop and the unfolding challenge from Amazon.  The book shop has since folded.

This Christmas received a voucher for Amazon at a Kris Kindle party one week before Christmas.  From my smartphone entered the voucher against my account, ordered the books from my Wish List, showed this to the person giving me the voucher, received the books three days later.

Larry Downes gets it right in his piece about Bestbuy.  The consumer just takes these new technologies/ solutions/ buying experiences on board.  The retailer who fails to move with the times just folds.

Online shopping – some still don’t smell the coffee is a post from: barryjogorman

A man in a hurry who never seems to have been particularly happy.

By any measure of business success he achieved a great deal – built a company (Apple), lost and regained control of Apple (including rescuing Apple), shaped another company (Pixar), developed and commercialised a range of outstanding products.

It was interesting to read the book as someone who has lived through most of the same period.  In a previous role within KPMG I was very involved in the role out of Apple technology across the firm (and the development of specialist software for the platform).  I also recall the subsequent decision to migrate to the Windows platform because of a perceived lack of business applications software for the Apple platform at the time.  And in my current role I have not yet returned to the Apple platform – to date preferring the combination of Microsoft, Google and Android.

Jobs is not portrayed in a particularly attractive light as a person nor as a boss/manager.  His treatment of people falls far below that expected.  Yes he was within his rights to demand focus, attention to detail, brilliant engineering, quality output from his advisors, etc.  But the haranguing of employees and vendors, the tantrums, the rejection of ideas and subsequent relabeling as his own ideas – none of these would warm you towards the man.

I suppose Jobs is an example of the entrepreneur who stays in control.  In many cases we talk about the need to transfer control from the entrepreneur to the professional management team – on the basis that the entrepreneur brings the idea and the energy for the startup but may not have all the skills to see the startup through to full development into an established company.  Perhaps the appointment of Sculley was the attempt to do this.  But it failed and failed badly.  A couple of points here: it can only work if it has the support of the entrepreneur and the timing is also critical.  In Apple’s case it happened too late, it did not have Jobs support )in spite of the initial ‘love-in’ and perhaps Sculley was not the tight person.  The other essential question though is how do you maintain the innovation momentum  when you switch control to the professional management team?  In theory the entrepreneur should have more time to devote to product development, research, etc.  But would this have resulted in the stream of new products from Apple (post Jobs’ return) if he has not been at the top of the organisation?  I don’t think so.

I often distinguish between those who get projects done and those who play a positive role in corporations. Good project managers will do whatever it takes to get the project delivered on time and on budget – including managing scope and user expectations.  Good corporate managers understand the corporate objectives and develop teams of people in this context.  Typically the two types are different.  Project managers have little interest in anything except closing out the project – leaving someone else to pick up the pieces in terms of people who have been sidelined, over stressed, temporarily over praised.  Corporate managers work to a different timetable – seeking to develop the people and move the company toward tis objectives.

Jobs had a vision for Apple and Pixar – and this vision drove him.  And he embodied this vision in many of his products – e.g. Toy Story, iTunes, iPhone.  But the impression I form from Isaacson’s account of Jobs is of someone who was so project focused, delivery focused,  that a lot of what is associated with building corporate culture, developing people was dumped.   And the interesting summary of all of this is that it worked.  Jobs created a company of ‘A players’ and demanded A performance.  He got A performance and refused to accept anything less.   The result – outstanding products and outstanding commercial success.

So what was the genius of Steve Jobs?  A number of thoughts strike me after reading the book and experiencing a number of his products (Pixar and Apple):

• Hard work and sustained application comes in near the top.  How many times do we read about getting close to product release and deciding to rework something because it was not quite right?  Yes this points to the high standards he set for himself and the team – but also the commitment and willingness to take on the rework to get something right.
• Jobs was comfortable being surrounded by experts – be that brilliant engineers, designers or marketers.  He never lost sight of the fact that regardless of their individual ability they were all cogs in the wheel – all with a role to play.  He may have had a natural bias towards to design side, but he understood that he needed the best in all areas.  His management style may have been questionable – at the very  least on a human level – by the did not struggle in an environment of brilliant people
• Tough commercial negotiator – whether dealing with Microsoft, music industry or Disney – and executed a number of his deals from positions of weakness.
• His own consistent advice to others appears to have been to focus – and he appears to have followed this advice himself.  He was not short on ideas but focused on specific opportunities.
• Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  We can all see now that smartphone, digitised music, etc all make sense.  But Jobs saw the opportunity looking forward – he saw the opportunity with the Xerox GUI development at Palo Alto.  Jobs saw the opportunity for innovation through technology.

The Jobs/ Gates rivalry is a recurring theme through the book.  They both built hugely successful companies in the same period.  Isaacson emphasises the basic difference in philosophy being Jobs’ obsession with total control (hardware and software) as against Gates’ willingness to release his software for different platforms.  I think this analysis is an over simplification – Gates was very keen to own the desktop by ensuring it was running his operating system (and today Balmer would like to see mobile phones running a Microsoft operating system).  Jobs is dismissive of Android – in fact seems to see Android as a poor quality rip off of Apple.  I think this case is unproven.

Having read so much comment about the book in the press was wondering whether I would learn anything from the book itself.  Not sure that I fully understood the man himself after reading the book.  Isaacson was determined to paint the picture ‘wars and all’.  He probably did this.  But I think somewhere in this he missed a trick in summarising the man.  I enjoyed reading the biography.  It was a rip roaring life when you look at the ups and downs, the product releases, the deal making, the family life.  And because we have all been touched by his technology it feels relevant.

Steve Jobs – Biography by Walter Isaacson is a post from: barryjogorman

So what sticks in my mind in terms of technology – looking back on 2011?

What have I really liked?

I have been very happy with my Android phone – Samsung II.  Great phone, easy to use, great camera, easy integration with lots of social networks etc.  Would be lost without a smartphone.

Have found myself leaning much more towards Twitter than Facebook.  Have really found Twitter useful in terms of work related research, staying in contact with other professionals, developing my own profile.  Notwithstanding this Facebook is a daily platform for me – and has lured me into chess.com.  Typically have one or two chess games on the go (48 hours to move).

I have stuck with FourSquare.  Most of my acquaintances run a mile from FourSquare – why would you want to share your location?  I think this type of location based software has a long way to run.

Have enjoyed listening in to TWIT.TV (Leo Laporte’s This Week in Technology).  I tend to download the podcast and listen to it on one of my walks.  He has had some great guests during the year and some great debates – even last week with regard to restrictions on software copying.

Leo Laporte has got me to sign up to tow of his sponsors: www.Audible.Co.UK and Carbonite.  Audible I sue to download books which I listen to when walking, taking public transport, even at home rather than reading the physical book (nice break for the eyes).  I am using Carbonite to back up my data.

I have implemented encryption using TrueCrypt – seems to work very well.  And seems to be gaining in popularity wherever I go.

And EverNote – what a great application.  Increasingly I find myself using Evernote to capture meeting notes.  And it’s available on my Android phone when I need to access a note.

Finally – Google+.  I definitely like it.  And it looks like it has traction.  But then Google has some influence!  And I should say I have had a great year with Google Apps – has not let me down.  The world needs Google and Microsoft competing – at least you can now shop and compare between the two cloud offerings.

What have been my other observations?

Lots of disillusioned IT teams in corporate world.  Lots of them working with reduced budgets, smaller teams but many of the same challenges.  Many of their users have lots more technology available to them at home or on their phones – real challenges in providing stimulating corporate IT environments to end users.

Understanding the economics of the cloud is challenging.  If I have 100 Offce/ Exchange users does it make sense to sign up to Office 365 (or Google Apps)? Do the price points make sense?  Green field site v. established business.  Many people unconvinced about the economics.  Many people committed to cloud approach.  Debate is vigorous.

Regardless, operating from Ireland, with its current economic challenges, web based technologies are being embraced and lots of entrepreneurs emerging with ideas which exploit these technologies.

2011 reflections on IT is a post from: barryjogorman

Testing android app for wordpress is a post from: barryjogorman

Privacy, invasion of privacy, attacks on privacy – never seems to be out of the news.  Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook theme seems to be that privacy is a thing of the past.  Much of the behaviour of people in social networks would tend to suggest that attitudes to privacy have changed greatly.

Helen Nissenbaum provides some to the background – what we mean by privacy, why it may be a good thing for the individual, why it may be a good thing for society.  And she considers the impact of changes in technology:

• ‘democratization of database technologies
• information mobility
• information aggregation

Change impacting privacy is a post from: barryjogorman

Interesting book on a number of counts: good discussion of a major change project, public health is of interest to all of us, provides an insight into implementing change in public sector and poses some interesting questions about the role of politics and politicians and their impact on provision of public services.

He is very forthright on a number of points:

• Patients (ie the public) need to demand change
• Practitioners need to lead the change
• Primary care is at the centre of any effective solution
• We do not need more beds
• Rationalisation of A&E services across the country was the only option – backed up by significantly improved ambulance services
• HSE (and therfore the public) was paying too much for drugs
• The revised consultant contract (80/20 split of public/private) work is the way forward

Clearly be believes that he has mapped out a way forward for public healthcare, that we have made significant progress during the last five years and that if the curent incumbents stay on message we will see real changes and benefits for patients in years to come.

It will be interesting to see how a number of changes play out:

• Ongoing discussions re consultant contracts e.g. reimbursement; changing role in context of 80/20 arrangements
• Further consolidation of A&E facilities across the country
• Further role out of integrated services
• How will the current Minister for Health drive forward the changes?

The Challenge of Change – Brendan Drumm is a post from: barryjogorman

He made some opening remarks about a number of the key drives for change in the US: consolidation (insurers and providers), budget issues, healthcare reform movement.

WRT to IT he claimed to have seen less progress than he would have expected (given that Healthcare is one of the most technologically advanced industries) – probably because (1) fragmented healthcare industry and (2) lack of great products.

He argues strongly for a subtantial commitment to IT – if providers want to trak outcomes and to manage the continuum of care.  He is looking for his investment in IT to generate quality, productivity and efficiency – with better outcomes for the patient.

He had some interesting views on RoI and investment in information technology.  Quick RoIs do not occur – and people too often build false expectations.  IT will not solve the healthcare cost problems. These are down to technological advancement, democratisation of advertising by pharma, demographics (in 100 years we have added 35 years to the average life), life style/ behaviour (e.g. child obesity).  Many of these issues are not being addressed at the right level.

Mr Dowling made a number of other observations:

• need to move from pay for service (ie volume) to pay for value
• IT must be used to connect different providers right across the contuum e.g. hospitasls, socil services, ancillary services
• important to implement systems which do notlock people into doing what they are doing today

Healthcare provider CEO – a perspective on IT is a post from: barryjogorman

In one of our breakout sessions we discussed why companies would choose to share their data – ie publish it in formats which are easy for others to consume (e.g. csv, not pdf).  Granted many businesses have web sites, describing their offerings, providing some background on the company, potentially inviting comment or queries and answering some Frequently Asked Questions.  But very few offer much data arising from their product or market research, their production statistics or their sales campaigns.  In general they would regard this information as confidential and constituting some element of their ‘Competitive advantage’.

Today’s seminar really focused on government publishing data which it might be argued belongs to the citizens.  However, understandably, there was plenty of discussion around this in terms of the efforts required to publish it, the potential ownership of the data, maintaining the data going forward, etc.  There was some discussion as to whether ther should be a charge for this data on the basis of the costs associated and the potential for companies to generate come commercial benefit.  Plenty of solid reasons were put forward for publishing the data – transparency, accountability , etc.

Much of this debate brought me back to thinking about privacy, Mark Zuckerburg’s general approach with Facebook, differing attitudes to publishing personal information on sites such as Facebook, twitter, google+, foursquare, etc.  Why do some people choose to share their views on politics, on the economy, their location in a restaurant – whereas others want nothing shared?

I think this question ‘Why publish your data?’ can be addressed in all of these contexts – individuals, government and corporates.  And the answer is  - because the person or the organisation sees some value in its publication.  At the personal level the social networks and smart phones have made publishing data so much easier.  What we are now seeing emerge for business and government are a range of platforms and tools which may all of this a lot easier for government and companies.  And a little like individuals – not sure that anyone has really worked out where all of this is taking us.

Some newspapers have figured it out – by making their content available, by marking it up semantically, they become more relevant to more entities for longer.  But that’s a little different to publishing data which is a product of lots of research completed at your own cost – on the basis that it’s good for society or that of I do it then someone else will publish other data in exchange which I can exploit.

Why publish your data? is a post from: barryjogorman