...Or is our digital consumption, marked by a classic characteristic of jumping on the bandwagon? Asks Archana Venkatraman
On one hand, Ofcom research suggests that people are willing to give up on celebrations and routine pleasures such as meals out and holidays to hold on to communication services, if a choice has to be made. That fits in with the EC's digital competitiveness report found that two in every three Europeans under 24 years of age use the internet every day.
But almost exactly at the same time, another research report from social media analytics company Sysymos analysed over 11 million Twitter accounts and found that about over 85% of Twitter users post less than one update a day and that 21% of users have never posted a Tweet. In addition, the social networking site Friends Reunited is sold off for a fraction of what it was worth in 2005.
Arguably, the reason for the burgeoning success for Facebook as against Friends Reunited could be attributed to its free access as against a subscription model, which was eventually dispensed with. Similar trend was spotted by the EC's report where it said that a third of young people would not pay for online services such as music and video downloads.
Have we assumed that most internet services we use will remain free and that we just have to factor the hardware costs? Media baron Rupert Murdoch has just shaken this belief to its core.
We haven't yet sorted out our digital behaviour and our inability to put a value to our digital services. We embrace digital services- general search engines, social networking sites, news sites, email accounts, YouTube and numerous download sites - that are free, without assessing their real value and importance to us. We all know of people who have opened a Twitter account to obtain a desired URL before it is too late.
The real question is how many of us would actually give up on holiday and dining-out to keep Facebook and Twitter and Skype if all three were in fact subscription-based? In such a scenario, people willing to keep communication services would have to pay for the devices, internet connection and individual websites.
It is time we start putting a price on the communication technologies we use and choose more selectively. Web 2.0 has certainly revolutionised the way we live and communicate but if we do not exercise our discretion then the companies providing these services will gain revenge, either by charging or disappearing.
Friday, 7 August 2009
Friday, 31 July 2009
In the fight between Google and Microsoft-Yahoo, users win
Archana Venkatraman
On Wednesday [July 29], Microsoft and Yahoo paired up to announce a ten-year deal in the search markets. The companies announced that the partnership would improve efficiency in reaching and tracking online audience.
Together Microsoft-Yahoo will hold less than 30% of the US market share, even though it is significantly more than their individual numbers. A research firm comScore suggests that Google handles 65% of the US search market. On a global context, however, the game looks even tougher for Microsoft and Yahoo with Google having 70% of the market share. But the two companies claim the deal to be a game changer within the search market.
Through the deal, Microsoft acquires a ten-year license to Yahoo's search technologies while Yahoo sites will use Microsoft Bing as their search platform.
Professionals navel-gazing to know 'what's in there for me' may not see a radically different search experience in the short run, but the competition introduced within the sector could result in innovation, more sophisticated search technology, meaning-based content, efficient organic search and further collaboration and consolidation.
In isolation, the development may mean little to professionals, but this just marks the beginning of maturity within the digital information industry. We could see more such collaborations not only between rival companies but even complementary collaboration between search companies, social networking sites and information management companies.
As one expert told me "the future of the search is about you and me", I see it coming true.
On Wednesday [July 29], Microsoft and Yahoo paired up to announce a ten-year deal in the search markets. The companies announced that the partnership would improve efficiency in reaching and tracking online audience.
Together Microsoft-Yahoo will hold less than 30% of the US market share, even though it is significantly more than their individual numbers. A research firm comScore suggests that Google handles 65% of the US search market. On a global context, however, the game looks even tougher for Microsoft and Yahoo with Google having 70% of the market share. But the two companies claim the deal to be a game changer within the search market.
Through the deal, Microsoft acquires a ten-year license to Yahoo's search technologies while Yahoo sites will use Microsoft Bing as their search platform.
Professionals navel-gazing to know 'what's in there for me' may not see a radically different search experience in the short run, but the competition introduced within the sector could result in innovation, more sophisticated search technology, meaning-based content, efficient organic search and further collaboration and consolidation.
In isolation, the development may mean little to professionals, but this just marks the beginning of maturity within the digital information industry. We could see more such collaborations not only between rival companies but even complementary collaboration between search companies, social networking sites and information management companies.
As one expert told me "the future of the search is about you and me", I see it coming true.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
You can't close down people
It is time to see social networking sites as just that. Networking sites. Says Archana Venkatraman
Two incidents earlier this week took the paranoia around networking tools to an absurd level. One was when MI6 chief Sir John Sawers's personal life became public when his wife innocently uploaded their holiday photographs to her Facebook account. The other was concerns expressed by UK intelligence agencies that Facebook and other social networking tools ruin the spy industry, as finding new recruits without an online trail has become nearly impossible.
In the first instance, Sawers faces a probe, and in the second, consultants are saying that having a Facebook profile is like "opening up a Pandora's box of online traceability that one can't ever truly close". The message from security experts is loud and clear - maintain a low profile at all times.
That means having no images in the public domain, or being associated with any person or organisation. What we need to understand is that while the latter is in people's control, the former is not. In today's internet age, it is hard to control information that is visible and searchable in the world wide web.
For instance, the MI6 chief was unaware of the availability of information while his wife did not consider the implications of her enthusiastic and seemingly harmless activity. Even if she had been careful with the security settings, his friends could have published the photographs and "tagged" friends' friends and so on, or he could have featured in other holidaymakers' pictures.
High profile officials must indeed have Facebook and Twitter accounts as information coming from them is fast, first hand and extremely useful. It also is important for the info pros of the future as references while documenting an event.
Instead of making them digital outcasts, they and their loved ones must be informed about the security aspects of these websites. More importantly, instead of controlling the prolific adoption of these inevitable sites, experts must advise search engines and those who run social networking sites to stop crawling through their pages for easy find-ability and to stop presenting a vast amount of information to random web search-ers.
It is the technology that has to become smarter with sensitive personal information, not people.
Two incidents earlier this week took the paranoia around networking tools to an absurd level. One was when MI6 chief Sir John Sawers's personal life became public when his wife innocently uploaded their holiday photographs to her Facebook account. The other was concerns expressed by UK intelligence agencies that Facebook and other social networking tools ruin the spy industry, as finding new recruits without an online trail has become nearly impossible.
In the first instance, Sawers faces a probe, and in the second, consultants are saying that having a Facebook profile is like "opening up a Pandora's box of online traceability that one can't ever truly close". The message from security experts is loud and clear - maintain a low profile at all times.
That means having no images in the public domain, or being associated with any person or organisation. What we need to understand is that while the latter is in people's control, the former is not. In today's internet age, it is hard to control information that is visible and searchable in the world wide web.
For instance, the MI6 chief was unaware of the availability of information while his wife did not consider the implications of her enthusiastic and seemingly harmless activity. Even if she had been careful with the security settings, his friends could have published the photographs and "tagged" friends' friends and so on, or he could have featured in other holidaymakers' pictures.
High profile officials must indeed have Facebook and Twitter accounts as information coming from them is fast, first hand and extremely useful. It also is important for the info pros of the future as references while documenting an event.
Instead of making them digital outcasts, they and their loved ones must be informed about the security aspects of these websites. More importantly, instead of controlling the prolific adoption of these inevitable sites, experts must advise search engines and those who run social networking sites to stop crawling through their pages for easy find-ability and to stop presenting a vast amount of information to random web search-ers.
It is the technology that has to become smarter with sensitive personal information, not people.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Talking local archives
A roadshow on preserving information in the digital age took place in York on Friday 26 June. Those who have set up the event should be congratulated. The organisers are the National Archives, the Society of Archivists and the Digital Preservation Centre. Part of the reason for the roadshow is to invite comments on the recently released consultation on Archives for the 21st century, a new draft government policy for publicly funded archives, and although the National Archives is the only one of the three to be based in London, it is good to hear that conversations are taking place all over the country and not just in Whitehall and the National Archives' Kew headquarters. As a London-based writer I know it is very easy to get a London-centric view of life. And when the consultation was first published IWR expressed the worry that the policy had already been decided and that there was a danger too much was going to be decided at the centre rather than leaving decision making over archives to local say.
The commitment to start a national conversation on the issue augurs well. Today's Digital Preservation Roadshow is the second in a series which is aiming to highlight the issues associated with preserving digital information as well as offering expert advice and cost effective practical solutions to the archives sector. Delegates were due to be told how a phased approach to digital preservation may be more manageable, particularly in a time of shrinking budgets, and identify what information needs to be kept and the main risks to it. All sounds good stuff.
The commitment to start a national conversation on the issue augurs well. Today's Digital Preservation Roadshow is the second in a series which is aiming to highlight the issues associated with preserving digital information as well as offering expert advice and cost effective practical solutions to the archives sector. Delegates were due to be told how a phased approach to digital preservation may be more manageable, particularly in a time of shrinking budgets, and identify what information needs to be kept and the main risks to it. All sounds good stuff.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Face the paradoxes
Peter Williams reports from the Library Show in Birmingham
Speaking at the Library Show, British Library chief executive Dame Lynne Brindley said there was never a better time to be a librarian. But she also said that the current period was also a little daunting, especially as librarians had to commit to a culture of continuous operational change. She advised the profession to take control of its own destiny. Speaking to an audience at the seminar programme, Brindley presented a series of paradoxes for the information profession. The paradoxes include love Google or hate Google and the issue that the Google generation students are technologically savvy but not digitally literate.
Earlier Roy Clare, the chief executive of the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council warned that some librarians still regarded marketing as a dirty word that was done by someone else and he said MLA was working hard to ensure engagement with the local community.
Speaking at the Library Show, British Library chief executive Dame Lynne Brindley said there was never a better time to be a librarian. But she also said that the current period was also a little daunting, especially as librarians had to commit to a culture of continuous operational change. She advised the profession to take control of its own destiny. Speaking to an audience at the seminar programme, Brindley presented a series of paradoxes for the information profession. The paradoxes include love Google or hate Google and the issue that the Google generation students are technologically savvy but not digitally literate.
Earlier Roy Clare, the chief executive of the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council warned that some librarians still regarded marketing as a dirty word that was done by someone else and he said MLA was working hard to ensure engagement with the local community.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Tweeters and non-Tweeters
It is well worth repeating the cliché - internet has transformed our lives. Information, news, file-sharing, catch up television, blogs, entertainment and social networking. Layer upon layer, it is a world unto itself.
While this virtual world exposes us to new challenges and conflicts, it also dangerously divides our real world into separate sects.
A YouGov survey of almost 2000 adults have revealed varying attitude towards social media. While many welcomed its adoption in business, 71% respondents said teaching social media technologies such as Twitter in schools is "inappropriate".
Meanwhile, the old school of thought is still prevalent- 50% of the UK workforce are banned from using social media in the workplace- presumably for productivity reasons. Contrarily, 20% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a corporate Facebook would be better for sharing information and collaborating on projects.
As I have always argued, the majority of respondents who were inclined towards social media in the workplace were Generation Y-ers. This reflects how the young have changed the way they communicate.
Traditional organisations must provide social media platform to its employees for sharing ideas and views and to collaborate in a medium of their choice. Social media sites are not just a means to connect or not just used to advertise the positive aspect of one's life. Today, they are beyond a mere public relations weapon of every individual.
Several Tweeters have a fan-following for their valuable information, some human resource departments vet people by tracking their social media activity. Ambitious companies have extended their online presence with the use of these tools and even promoted products and services through them.
Business social media site LinkedIn boasts of 40 million plus members. This shows the importance of these applications and the role they are likely to play in future generations' personal and professional lives. Social networking sites such as Facebook host a multitude of groups fighting for social, economic and environmental causes. And that is why, it is important to allow children familiarise themselves with these technologies which they have a great aptitude and appetite for.
What is also shocking about the survey is that 6% have admitted that they'd go as far as not taking a job if social media tools were not made available to them. Although nominal, it reflects the division in ideologies. Besides, a survey of even younger sample could provide more alarming insights.
It must be about a happy marriage- making social media technologies a tool to achieve traditional objectives- than slipping into a divided society of Tweeters and non-Tweeters.
While this virtual world exposes us to new challenges and conflicts, it also dangerously divides our real world into separate sects.
A YouGov survey of almost 2000 adults have revealed varying attitude towards social media. While many welcomed its adoption in business, 71% respondents said teaching social media technologies such as Twitter in schools is "inappropriate".
Meanwhile, the old school of thought is still prevalent- 50% of the UK workforce are banned from using social media in the workplace- presumably for productivity reasons. Contrarily, 20% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a corporate Facebook would be better for sharing information and collaborating on projects.
As I have always argued, the majority of respondents who were inclined towards social media in the workplace were Generation Y-ers. This reflects how the young have changed the way they communicate.
Traditional organisations must provide social media platform to its employees for sharing ideas and views and to collaborate in a medium of their choice. Social media sites are not just a means to connect or not just used to advertise the positive aspect of one's life. Today, they are beyond a mere public relations weapon of every individual.
Several Tweeters have a fan-following for their valuable information, some human resource departments vet people by tracking their social media activity. Ambitious companies have extended their online presence with the use of these tools and even promoted products and services through them.
Business social media site LinkedIn boasts of 40 million plus members. This shows the importance of these applications and the role they are likely to play in future generations' personal and professional lives. Social networking sites such as Facebook host a multitude of groups fighting for social, economic and environmental causes. And that is why, it is important to allow children familiarise themselves with these technologies which they have a great aptitude and appetite for.
What is also shocking about the survey is that 6% have admitted that they'd go as far as not taking a job if social media tools were not made available to them. Although nominal, it reflects the division in ideologies. Besides, a survey of even younger sample could provide more alarming insights.
It must be about a happy marriage- making social media technologies a tool to achieve traditional objectives- than slipping into a divided society of Tweeters and non-Tweeters.
Friday, 15 May 2009
In God we trust, in public sectors... we don't
The government has pledged to remove innocent people from the national DNA database by launching a public consultation "Keeping the right people on DNA database" early this month.
It sets out proposals to introduce "more transparent safeguards" for the individual and aims to provide a proportionate balance between protecting communities and protecting the rights of the individual.
There have been numerous debates about the compulsory DNA database with experts arguing that it is discriminatory because it has 40% of black men's DNA profiled as against just 9% of white men; that it is violation of freedom of expression and that it promotes distrust and so on.
But more than the controversial nature of the information the government holds, the fact that it exists with the government is worrying. Recently, there have been innumerable reports about the plunging public confidence in public sectors. The health care services, the councils, the police, libraries, institutions and other government departments are less trusted by the people following series of high profile sensitive data leak that jeopardised our security.
The government launched the national DNA database in 1995 with an aim to allow police store DNA profiles to help resolve crimes. And today, the UK leads the world in developing a national DNA database (profiling over four million people).
According to the government, the database has played a key role in solving criminal cases such as Sally Ann Bowman murder, convicting Steve Wright in 2008 for the murder of five prostitutes and also for proving innocence such as clearing Sean Hodgson of the death of a young woman nearly 30 years after he was wrongly imprisoned.
While we do not undermine the role of such information to help the police solve criminal cases and would like to do every bit to cooperate, we are worried about the loss of that information to a wrong set of people likely to misuse it, tamper with it and manipulate it. When in the recent past public authorities have failed to observe basis principles of security such as encrypting a disk with employee information or safeguarding anti-terrorism documents.
The issue is not so much about an invasion on right to privacy or human rights, it is in fact about data protection. We now know that privacy is long dead in this digital age. Our fear comes out of our falling confidence in the public sector organisations.
It sets out proposals to introduce "more transparent safeguards" for the individual and aims to provide a proportionate balance between protecting communities and protecting the rights of the individual.
There have been numerous debates about the compulsory DNA database with experts arguing that it is discriminatory because it has 40% of black men's DNA profiled as against just 9% of white men; that it is violation of freedom of expression and that it promotes distrust and so on.
But more than the controversial nature of the information the government holds, the fact that it exists with the government is worrying. Recently, there have been innumerable reports about the plunging public confidence in public sectors. The health care services, the councils, the police, libraries, institutions and other government departments are less trusted by the people following series of high profile sensitive data leak that jeopardised our security.
The government launched the national DNA database in 1995 with an aim to allow police store DNA profiles to help resolve crimes. And today, the UK leads the world in developing a national DNA database (profiling over four million people).
According to the government, the database has played a key role in solving criminal cases such as Sally Ann Bowman murder, convicting Steve Wright in 2008 for the murder of five prostitutes and also for proving innocence such as clearing Sean Hodgson of the death of a young woman nearly 30 years after he was wrongly imprisoned.
While we do not undermine the role of such information to help the police solve criminal cases and would like to do every bit to cooperate, we are worried about the loss of that information to a wrong set of people likely to misuse it, tamper with it and manipulate it. When in the recent past public authorities have failed to observe basis principles of security such as encrypting a disk with employee information or safeguarding anti-terrorism documents.
The issue is not so much about an invasion on right to privacy or human rights, it is in fact about data protection. We now know that privacy is long dead in this digital age. Our fear comes out of our falling confidence in the public sector organisations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)