If you think it's just all fun, games and venture capital in Silicon Valley, you're probably right. Check out Winecamp, an "ad hoc, un-conference" (wonder if Tara Hunt or Riya, which sponsored the event, will trademark that fancy-dancy description!), where participants spend a weekend in Stockton, Ca. to "share and learn in an open environment" and presumably drink copious amount of fine California wine. Maybe we can do this kind of thing in Canada? How 'bout BeerCamp or HockeyCamp or SnowCamp or MapleSyrupCamp or BlackFlyCamp. Come on, if we really want to get the high-tech community going here in the Great White North, we need to think out of the box – just like those crazy Californians.
Addendum: Just to rub it in, here's Tara's take on the weekend.
Who's a Journalist?
As a newspaper journalist and a blogger, I'm fascinated by the decision made on Friday by a U.S. Appeals court (Apple vs. bloggers who allegedly disclosed the company's secrets) that online and offline journalists are equally protected under the First Amendment and there is “no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' news”. The decision opens a huge can of worms about who's a journalist at a time when everyone can be a “journalist” by simply starting a blog or Web site. At the mesh conference (which I helped organize), one of the challenges was determining who warranted media accreditation. At an extreme, one could argue anyone who has a blog could have been given accreditation if you believe they provide editorial insight and “news”. Of course, this policy would kill the conference business because most people attending would attend for free as “journalists”. So how do you define a journalist? Do they have to be employed by a news organization and, if so, how do you define a “news organization”. From a big picture perspective, what we're is seeing the democratization of journalism – taking the business from something done by a small elite to an activity in which everyone with a blog, podcast, cell phone, etc. is a journalist. Look at what community journalism sites such as NowPublic.com are doing by creating large armies of news gatherers around the world. NowPublic has plans to leverage this “asset” by selling the services of its community journalists to mainstream media organizations on a licensed/pay-as-you-go basis. The “who's a journalist/who's not” question is just one of the many challenges facing major media organizations as they grapple with how to survive/evolve in a world where an increasingly amount of information is delivered and consumed on the Web. It's bad enough they have to figure out ways to make money (advertising? subscriptions? value-added services?) online without having to worry about the “competition” for readers and advertisers is a guy/gal producing high-quality insight and perspective on their blog/podcast. At the mesh conference “Who's a Journalist?” was one of our panel topics but the question could easily be the subject of a full-day event.
For more insight, check out Dave Winer, The Blogging Journalist, Jeff Jarvis (who provides several excerpts from the court decision) and The Volokh Conspiracy.
Why the Fascination with the Blackberry-killer?
My column in the National Post this week is about Motorola's "Q", and the strange obsession people have with the hyping the next Blackberry-killer. The Inquirer has an odd story about a new Blackberry-killer to be unveiled soon that will be sold through ISPs. Blackrimglasses. has some comment on this mysterious device, while Om Malik puts some weekend fun on the issue by office an online poll on the next Blackberry-killer.
Early Morning Thoughts 'bout Web 2.0, Vonage, MySpace
After much thought and a lot of reading, I'm even more convinced Tim O'Reilly is dead wrong in his efforts to trademark “Web 2.0″, and the people who are supporting him (particularly the Silicon Valley crowd) are nothing more than apologists who can't see the forest through the trees. Maybe O'Reilly invented the phrase “Web 2.0″ or maybe he didn't – but nevertheless it's now an integral part of the high-tech lexicon so trying to put a legal claim on it is a mistake. Furthermore, the real value in “Web 2.0″ for O'Reilly is not owning it but how many people closely associate it with him. This gives O'Reilly cache and status as one of the Web 2.0 thought leaders. And shame on the U.S. Patent and Trade Office, which has apparently never met an idea that it won't patent or trademark.
Update: It appears that Darcy DiNucci may have invented “Web 2.0″ given it appeared in a paper written in 1999. Hat tip to Rob Hyndman, who has excellent post on Web 2.0 that combines his expertise as a lawyer, his passion for the Web and his involvement with mesh, which I suspect we won't be calling “Canada's Web 2.0 conference” anymore.
Okay, Vonage ended the week down at $13.20, down $3.98 from its IPO issue price. The company can't be accused of leaving money on the table! But what I want to know is who bought the IPO and why. I mean, there was so much criticism surrounding Vonage's large losses, uncertain prospects and the fierce industry competition that you would think investors would be cautious about jumping into the fray. You wonder how many Vonage customers took advantage of the “opportunity” to buy into the IPO on the belief that a company offering low prices would equate to a good investment.
Finally, one of the most intriguing notions of the week is Scott Karp's contention that the downturn of MySpace has started. Scott's thesis is based on Alexa data and chats with people who study how teenagers behave (if that's even possible!). Mathew Ingram has a nice take on Scott's idea. He agrees with Stowe Boyd that MySpace is like a hot nightclub where people are willing to stand in long line-ups to get in – only to quickly abandon it when something new comes along. A good read is Mathew's column on social networks and their hunt for revenue.
The Chronicles of Norkia
Norkia.
Curious about a combination of Nokia and Nortel? For more, click here but don't click on Norkia.com unless you need a tool to kill pop-up ads.
Web 2.0? Bah, Humbug!
Don't know why everyone's so pissed at Tim O'Reilly for trying to trademark “Web 2.0″ for conferences: the guy's in the conference business, which is coming back to life again, so being about to own “Web 2.0″ is perhaps a good way to sell a few more tickets, although you have to wonder how much business he'll be getting after pissing off so many people. If you're that upset, move on. Forget about Web 2.0 because, after all, it's just so yesterday. We're talking Web 3.0 or Web 4.0 – or in the spirit of Spinal Tap – let's take it all the way to Web 11.0. It's like Web 2.0 is going to become the “Coca-Cola” of the Internet. For whatever reason, O'Reilly wants to own his “idea” that has already got him invaluable publicity and street cred. But if that's the way he wants to play, maybe he should take his ball and go home – and the rest of us will find another cool phrase to use (until some miscreant claims that one as well).
Addendum: For more insight into this P.R. debacle, check out Rob Hyndman, Mathew Ingram, Paul Kedrosky and Rick Segal, who does a nice job breaking down O'Reilly's rationale. By the way, here's Tom Raftery's post, which explains how a not-for-profit group, IT@Cork, received a cease and desist letter from O'Reilly's lawyers after using Web 2.0 for a half-day conference – a conference O'Reilly was invited to attend.
Update: The image (top left) is the O'Reilly meme map from his well-cited Web 2.0 manifesto that appeared in September 2003 and really put him on the map as one of the leading Web 2.0 thinkers. Betcha O'Reilly now wants all the goodwill back that he had when his thesis appeared. By the way, does anyone know if O'Reilly actually created “Web 2.0″? Maybe he was just the first person to run with it.
