Sprint Step 1- Complete

Despite a really rough day for the company... a day in which the could have almost purchased Yahoo with their losses (hey look, a company who HASN'T been linked to Yahoo)... Sprint had what I consider to be an all right day... completing Step 1 in my argument that Sprint should redefine the Triple Play (phone, Internet and cable) and make it a wireless play.

In case you missed it, Sprint rolled out a new Simply Everything plan that includes unlimited talk, text, TV and web time on your cell phone.

Why is this big?

In my mind, there's a fairly lengthy list of reasons, not the least of which is that Sprint may have just convinced me to stick with my loyalty to them and not get a JesusPhone any time soon, which had been a front burner issue for me.

Second, and likely more importantly.... it opens up the door to a truly Wireless Triple Play option. We know Sprint has dabbled with mobile TV, so there are clearly some sort of options going on. In addition, Xohm is rolling out slowly now in a few test markets.

So, here's the question: We know that most triple play option offered from code caddies tends to run around $100 monthly for Cable, Internet and TV. Figure a "normal" cell plan costs around $50 (and I am coming in at a price I believe to be slightly low... but not everyone is like me and working off of a cell as their only phone).

That leads to Sprint putting together some sort of a premium for complete mobility. I'd think $50 monthly would be completely worth it. What about you? How much would you pay if the triple play was Cell phone, Mobile WiMAX, and TV sent to your phone and laptop?

Touched all over

First off, I want to quickly congratulate Jeff Pulver on a great event yesterday morning. Jeff has been traveling the country throwing Social Media breakfasts, inviting Facebook and Twitter friends to get to know each other in person.

It's not entirely dissimilar from an event like the NY Tech Meetup, from Meetup.com, but in this case, you have some sort of connection already in place (friend of a friend, etc). Taking it a step further, Jeff explained that he thought using Facebook made great sense, because instead of the standard business card exchange, it's really easy to log into Facebook, find members of the group who you'd like to stay in contact with, and easily add them as friends (side note: after the event, I had lots of new Facebook and LinkedIn contacts, which was great).

The event came pretty much on the same day that the blogosphere was all abuzz with the launch of Friendfeed, a service to aggregate feeds from lots of networks (Twitter, Facebook, Digg, etc). I signed up for it.... but haven't really played with it too much yet.

During Jeff's event, I got to thinking about the different ways people can now get in touch with me, and I am wondering if I am getting to the point where I have too many touch points. In no particular order, here's a list of ways to get in touch with me:

• Cell Phone (calls and text messages)
• Twitter
• AIM
• Google Talk
• E-mail (personal and work)
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• AFTB
• MySpace (I'm still on it... maybe.... once a month?)
• Friendfeed (admittedly... this one isn't yet a full blown contact point for me)

Not to go all "one ring to rule them all" here, but at some point... doesn't it make sense to have everything aggregated into a central location? Maybe Friendfeed can be that tool, but based on limited time on it... I'm not sure that's the case.

How do you deal with having so many touch points? Any tips?

Adventures in Going Mobile... on Twitter

TheSocialTimes.com finally convinced me to try taking Twitter mobile. Let's say it was a bit of an adventure on my part... not entirely because I'm not tech-savvy.... but because technology was conspiring against me.

First off... I entered my phone number like I was supposed to... but somehow missed the "place a '1' in front of US numbers." Completely my lack of paying attention. My mistake.

Then.. I figured that out...and texted the code they asked me to text.

New problem: My phone automatically makes the first letter of a text Capitalized... oops.

I realize that's happening.. and it still doesn't work. Now... terribly perplexed... I read the FAQ's, and realize the default on my phone ends with a signature.... which I need to remove.

Finally: SUCCESS. I even let my friends over at theSocialTimes.com know I took their advice.

One more problem: Apparently... Twitter saved all of the attempted tries to go mobile... and once I finally was successful.... it posted them.

Here's a weird privacy question I have though: Twitter mistakenly just posted a few different variations of my account password to set up a phone. That can't be good, can it? I understand.. it's pretty much my own fault... but um.... this is a user error with a few challenges (imagine if something happened when I tried to set up my bank account to go mobile... if I had cash worth mentioning... this would be a major issue.).

So, to all of my Twitter friends who were wondering why I had 3 or 4 Tweets with some random variations of text (no.. I wasn't tweet'ing from a bar)... I apologize for spamming you. It wasn't at all on purpose. But... I can say.... it is a weird experience.

I guess that's why the plants that are smart enough to use Twitter are running through a laptop.

Too good to be true

Yesterday... I fell for it. Netflix-streaming actually working on the Xbox was such a great idea, I couldn't get over the simplicity and brilliance.

Today... I admit that I was had.

Instead, Microsoft made it so that if I want to... I can play a game that some other Xbox-er created. Great... Neat-o.... woo hoo

Seriously.... I don't know that I could be any less impressed with this announcement. That said: I'd like to offer Microsoft one small hint that might make me a little less unhappy with them.

Please put some pressure on EA Games to make their servers work better for playing XboxLive. Playing Tiger Woods with a friend across the country gives one the feeling of playing golf with slow motion epilepsy. It's like the Cloverfield Effect gone horribly wrong.

So there it is. Instead of leaving me completely dissatisfied... there's an easy way to offer a little consolation.

Netflix streaming might finally make it to my apartment

But it sure wasn't how I expected it to happen. Rumors are flying all over the net that later today, Netflix is going to be coming to an Xbox near you.

First off, I admit it.... this seems like a perfect marriage. The biggest complaint I've heard about Netflix streaming is that it doesn't make it to the TV, rather the computer monitor. For some people... this is a definite non-starter.

If done right, this is an absolutely brilliant move.... which is tough for me to say considering a pretty heavy anti-Microsoft bias. Sure, it might not make me cry (sorry Scobes.... I couldn't help it), but until the announcement later today.... I'm almost at the point of having to tip my hat to Microsoft.

Of course... this brings up a whole new question for me personally.

1. Microsoft makes Silverlight, which is going to power MLB.tv
2. Microsoft makes Xbox which is going to be streaming Netflix

Dare I say it.... might there be a way that I can get MLB.tv on a flatscreen?

yAOLhoo? or YaSpace?

First, a tip of the hat to Jerry Yang for declining Microsoft's advances, at least initially. I don't know for sure, but I have to assume it was a huge boost of confidence to a once proud internet property (and an internet property that still has a ton of loyal users) and its employees. Of course, that's just my perception, and clearly... this didn't work for everyone.

There was, naturally a few rumors of a yAOLhoo type creation coming out of it, and now there's talk of a YaSpace. I tend to agree with Henry Blodget, this one really shouldn't have any legs. MySpace and Yahoo are both victims of declining traffic and hype, having lost their diminence to other players (namely: Google and Facebook)

So... where does that leave Yahoo now?

Quite frankly... it now looks like Paul La Monica was wrong when discussion the Wall Street Journal takeover. Microhoo might have replaced that takeover as the lamest bidding war ever.

Advertising in a Mobile World

Last night at dinner with a bunch of friends who are very sharp when it comes to the web and marketing (as two different areas of expertise... not as in 'web marketers'), we got into a great discussion about the mobile wars, and the impact of them on the consumer. All around, everyone seemed to agree with me that there's a boatload of disruptive technology about to make its appearance on the market... but there was one thing I couldn't help but take away, and it came up when one of my friend in marketing began discussing advertising in the mobile world.

There are tons of players looking for ways to take advertising to the mobile level, including AOL, Google and Yahoo. However, there's one question we all had for my marketing friend:

Do you really want to be advertised to on your mobile device? Does anyone?

The Mobile Wars- Game on

What a fun day for anyone who happens to be excited by any and all things mobile.

First off, we had AOL put an entrance into the market. Although it isn't a phone, per se.... it is AOL attempting to get into the game with a mobile platform.

Speaking of things that aren't phones... We had our first true look at Android. Based on the initial video, I have to say... it looks pretty cool, and I can't wait to see more. Android has the potential to be the one thing that actually manages to keep an iPhone out of my hands, assuming that Google apps are integrated to the highest level of functionality.

Finally, Microsoft has decided to get into the consumer phone market, making a purchase that puts Apple and the Jesus-phone right into their sites (BTW: think it's a coincidence that this was announced on the same day the gPhone made it's debut)?

Owen Thomas said it best ...the ad libs are better than anything we could have written. Of course, Owen is referring to the MicroHoo deal that supposedly isn't to be. You know the deal, where Yahoo's mobile apps might end up being a key piece of the likely forthcoming ZunePhone (in the spirit of current naming conventions: I am calling it the my!Phone from here on out... with the simple irony being that under NO circumstance will it ever actually be a phone I own).

It should be a very exciting next few months, as the repercussions of today's excitement start to take shape.

Where Social Networking started for me

Yesterday, there was a great post on theSocialTimes.com talking about meeting people who are part of your social network, and the initial interaction you have when you meet those people in the real world.

Believe me... I get where he's coming from.

That said, it got me thinking about where Social Networking really started for me, and I'll give you a hint... it wasn't the first time I signed up for Friendster. Understanding that it's really easy to find out the exact details on where the phenomenon came from (Here: I'll even save you the trouble), I was thinking about the first time something that resembled social networking, as it is today, became commonplace to me.

Not surprisingly, my very first social network centered around baseball... and in particular... the Boston Redsox. That said, I am ignoring the Wiki definition, and taking it a step further... believing that Social Networks are a logical extension of a web 1.0 application: Message Boards.

The site I linked to above is a geek's haven for Redsox fans and Statistical nutjobs... and I say that as:

1. A complete and utter term of endearment
2. Someone who's a member of that message board community (until now, I had never thought of it as a community... but it most certainly qualifies).

I don't know how long I have been a member of the message board (I do know I was using dial up when I first joined), but over the years, I've come to expect different reactions from different people on any particular event. For example, when the news that Curt Schilling may miss the season broke, anyone who's been in the community for a while knew exactly who was going to rant about this being even more reason the Sox should have traded for Johan Santana.

Not dissimilar from the way I go to Twitter for tech news, that's the first site I was going to go to, even prior to going to Schilling's blog itself. Lets' be honest... despite being one of the most outspoken athletes on any particular subject that happens to come up... Schill doesn't break news on his blog.

Back on topic- that message board is also the first web site where I met the users in person. Each year, in a lot of cities, select members organize trips to a local ballpark to see the Sox play. In DC, we took it a step further and met once a month to hang at a bar and watch the team. We even had a code for meeting each other (since there weren't pics on the site at the time). It was asking the bartender "where are the asshats?" Somehow.. it always worked. (Sidenote: Trying this at a Yanks/Sox game... walking around in NYC bar in a Redsox hat is most definitely not something to try).

Where am I going with this?

Quite simply... Here's what I'm thinking:

Social Networking as we know it now is just another step as to where the Web is heading, meaning it has been around for a lot longer than anyone wants to admit, and isn't some sort of 'new web.' With that in mind... I can't wait to see what's next.

So, what's your "first social networking experience?"

8 days a week?

In case you missed it, there was a 5 hour pregame event leading up to last night's new episode of House. Apparently, Alicia Keys and Tom Petty played, and they even held a football game to build momentum leading up to TV's best show.

Working as a flack, I'm often torn away from keeping any semblance of a normal TV routine (this doesn't count that fact that I didn't bother with cable, because most of what i want to watch can be found on the internet anyway).

So, the goal for me yesterday was a simple one: Watch last week's episode of House online, watch the 5 hour warm-up (including commercials) leading to the new show, and then watch the new show.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that Rupert's Empire, which I typically think is ahead of the curve in online video (after all, they worked with Hulu to have streaming superbowl commercials... they launched a successful show on MySpace that is getting picked up on another network) has a policy that makes me wait 8 days until after an episode airs to find it online.

I'd even accept 6 days... making it so I can watch the episode at least 1 day in front of another new episode... but apparently Rup's not having it. Apparently, you get 2 options now.

1. Fall behind and try to guess what happened last week based on what's going on in a new episode
2. Stay perpetually behind

I understand that TV's business can be based on appointment viewing (i.e. getting higher rating during a specific time)... but this seems to make it harder to attract an audience each week. Is it any wonder that Tivo/DVR and illegal downloads are so popular?

One day, the cable networks will figure it out. They need to, otherwise they are faced with heading the same direction the music industry went.

$4.6 billion to shift a paradigm...$44.6 billion to stay an also-ran

Dan Frommer just posted a really thought provoking piece on how Micro-Hoo could be a really solid win for Mobile. I don't disagree that this deal could have a profound impact, but I'm taking a different approach as to why:

While some have said Google wasn't involved in the 700 MHz spectrum to win it, I'm going to go ahead and disagree. First and foremost, we know that the company pledged $4.6 billion to the auction (despite the fact that many on Wall Street don't think this is all that great an idea). The actual winning bid (although not yet finalized) is said to be $4.7 billion, which I think is in the realm of possibility of Google winning.

So, let's call it $40 billion less than Microsoft is bidding for Yahoo (at these rates, what's a tenth of a billion count for anyway?)

All of that said, there's too many coincidences happening out there that make me think Google wins the mobility battle (and the 700 MHz auction).

1. Sprint and Clearwire kissed and made up
2. Google is said to be helping these companies along
3. While I openly admit to being a Mac Fanboy, if there's one thing that can hurt the iPhone.... it's AT&T. A gPhone running on.... oh, I don't know... a 4G wimax network might be awfully tough to pass up

I thought all along the Apple and Google would go in on the spectrum offer together, with the iPhone and even the Macbook Air being perfect fits for a 4G network. Besides the crossover on the boards, etc... there's also on distinct that made it make sense to me: Both companies have Microsoft in their sites.

Having Sprint/Clearwire in the mix makes this a little more difficult, but I'm still not convinced the theory doesn't at least hold some water (don't forget.. wimax evangelist Intel fairly recently began working with Apple, and Intel also has some stake in the Sprint/Clearwire re-marriage).

So, here's what I am getting at:

In one corner, you have the potential of Micro-Hoo to make mobility more easy to use and building ad networks. I'm also going to throw the ISP's into the mix here. Don't forget for a second that Microsoft is trying to turn Xbox Live into an iTunes/AppleTV competitor, and they will need to distribute it.

In the other, you have Google's spending power and vision, Sprint/Clearwire's budding 4G network, and Steve Job's ability to build entire ecosystems (hardware and software that work flawlessly together), all of whom pose a passion for mobility.

Should any of this be correct, I'll be siding with the latter.

Microsoft to Yahoo: $44.6 Billion has a nice ring to it

What a way to wake up this morning.

In case you haven't had your cup of coffee yet, here's what you need to know. Microsoft put up a bid to buy Yahoo, for $44.6 billion. The idea, obviously, is to form a stronger competitor to Google.

I guess my question is: If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it... does it make a noise? Combined... Yahoo and Microsoft have about half the search traffic Google does. $44.6 billion seems like an awful lot to drop in order to finally get to half of what your competition is up to.

Look, I know Yahoo is a once proud property, and the company should eventually end up in the Internet Hall of Fame (is there such a thing?), but the company has had a rough go lately, and maybe it's time to face the music.

I have lots of friends who are incredibly loyal to Yahoo (one of whom will be VERY unhappy if he has to lose his yahoo e-mail address... it's his last name @ yahoo.com), but the more I think about this, the more I can't help but notice I don't use a whole lot of Yahoo products, and I also tend to not use a whole lot of Microsoft products. In fact, the only thing that draws me to either a Yahoo or Microsoft product is baseball (mlb.tv will be running on Silverlight this year, and my fantasy baseball league is run through Yahoo fantasy sports).

And even though I use Microsoft and Yahoo for baseball... I still end up going to Google to find more information on specific players. My take... if a tree falls in the woods....