Evan Williams | evhead: An Obvious Next Step

Ev Williams stepping down from his full-time role at Twitter, where he was ramrodding product after stepping down from CEO role. What’s on the horizon?

now that Twitter is in capable hands that aren’t mine, it’s time to pick up a whiteboard marker and think fresh. There are other problems/opportunities in the world that need attention, and there are other individuals I’d love to get the opportunity to work with and learn from. (Details to come.)

I am eager to learn more about that whiteboard.

And Twitter? Ev’s forté is starting things up, not driving product.

Update: 4:25pm 30 Mar 2011 — I just discovered that Jack Dorsey has returned to a role at Twitter, Executive Chairman and leading product development.

This does have a Steve-Jobs-returns-to-Apple feel, doesn’t it?

Why Doesn’t Twitter Steal Job’s App Store Model?

Om Malik recounts recent flaps surrounding the Twitter ecosystem, and drives home a key point: Twitter still doesn’t have much of a business model. He recounts a number of companies that prospered based on business model innovation — including Apple’s App Store — but doesn’t thread the needle:

Om Malik, What Is Twitter’s Problem? No, It’s Not the Product

In the end, that business model ends up defining how companies get built over a long period of time. It is also a good way to avoid the problems of tomorrow. From the way I see it, Twitter’s troubles are not going to be over till it settles on a business model and then starts to shape its identity and organization around that model. When that will happens is anyone’s guess!

Since Twitter slapped Bill Gross on the wrist for attempting to monetize the Twitter stream, why doesn’t the company set up a way to do it in partnership with Twitter?

Today’s news — that Twitter has screwed down the Dickbar so that it doesn’t cover tweets — suggests that Twitter is still rooting around for an revenue model. And until the company has figured it out, they continue to flounder.

Why not a straightforward app store model? Let companies monetize by building apps that integrate with the Twitter platform, but require those companies to share revenue for app sales, advertising, subscriptions? Why not steal from Steve Jobs? After all, he famously said

Good artists copy, great artists steal.

It is as if Mr. Kirkpatrick can’t accept the notion that someone who creates a great company might also be boorish and arrogant and sometimes even rotten. To him, Mr. Zuckerberg isn’t just a great businessman, he’s also a good guy. “Mark is the most impactful person of his generation,” he told me. “That is what we should be trying to understand: how someone so young could create something so important.”

Yet where is it written that driven entrepreneurs are also good guys? More often than not, they’re anything but. As a human being, Steve Jobs is the very definition of the word “jerk;” yet he’s also the greatest chief executive alive. The young Bill Gates could be obnoxious in the extreme. At the age of 24, Marc Andreessen was so arrogant that he allowed Time magazine to photograph him on its cover sitting on a throne barefoot.

Unpleasant personality traits are almost required of young entrepreneurs trying to build something lasting. It requires tremendous arrogance to believe that their idea is better than anyone else’s. They need to be immensely selfish, putting their fragile creation ahead of everything else, including important relationships. And they have to be ruthless, tossing overboard friends who were once useful and no longer are. Those are the qualities Aaron Sorkin captures so beautifully in “The Social Network.” That is what Mr. Kirkpatrick largely misses in “The Facebook Effect.”

There is much about Mr. Kirkpatrick’s book that is useful in understanding Mr. Zuckerberg and the importance of Facebook as a social phenomenon. I wouldn’t dissuade anyone from reading it. Nor would I discourage anyone from reading “The Accidental Billionaires,” which is a fun, zippy airport read. But for deep, lasting truths?

It’s “The Social Network,” hands down.

Joe Nocera, ‘The Social Network’ Captures the Facebook Obsession

iTunes Ping: Social Music

Apple has rolled out the long-rumored and much awaited social iTunes in the form of Ping.

Ping is a streaming, social network-based suite of capabilities that has been integrated across the world of iTunes, in a way that is reminiscent of early versions of Last.fm, and using the now standard open follower model popularized by Twitter.

To use the service, an iTunes 10 user has to click on the new Ping label in the left sidebar of iTunes, in the STORE area. Then there is some setup, basically geared toward what should be presented to followers and privacy controls on followers:

Once this is set up the user has a minimal profile with location, bio, name provided by the user and some musical genre categorization offered by by iTunes, along with streams of actions taken by the user, like buying music, liking albums, and purchasing tickets for concerts:

(I did include an avatar, but Apple is still ‘processing’ it. I wonder if humans are eyeballing it for nudity or something.)

I followed a few celebrities, like Dave Matthews, and I sent out a call on Twitter, and got a few followers and following set up, for experimental purposes. Now when I look at ‘recent activity’ there are actually posts and activities from inbound stream (=those I follow).

(mostly everybody is following, and not doing much else yet.)

The integration of concert information associated with artists is very cool, and suggests how Apple expects social commerce to be a main source of revenue:

The instrumentation for Ping is spread throughout the store, so anytime you are looking at music for sale you will be able to ‘like’ it, rate it, buy it (d’uh) or write a post (stream based) or review (album based).

In the future, all online commerce will be socialized.

I find the fact that reviews and posts aren’t the same thing sort of strange. But we’ll have to see what gives after some more rooting around.

Lastly, everything I am saying about music could be extended to the other sorts of media that iTunes markets: TV shows, movies, books, whatever. But it hasn’t been at this point.

I have only fooled with Ping for an hour or so, so my empirical analysis will have to be delayed for a few days, at least. However, the largest glaring gap to me right now is the fact that my own music — the stuff I have on my hard drive — isn’t part of the Ping experience. If I want to ‘like’ or post about something I am playing on my local iTunes instance I would have to open the store, find the song or album there, and then make my gesture. This is just a pain, but could conceivably be remedied when Apple allows me to upload my music to that enormous cloud server park they are building. Then all my music will be indexed, cross tabulated, and sharable.

Recall that a few weeks ago a new release of iDisk that included the tantalizing capability to stream audio from the cloud to my iPhone or MacBook (see Apple Takes A Baby Step Toward iTunes In The Cloud). There is no doubt in my mind that we are headed in that direction.

Imagine a future release of Ping where I could share playable playlists, or live stream a Stowe Boyd radio station, or I could listen to a new track recommended by a friend and comment on that streaming recommendation. Or imagine streaming movies in sync with my son Keenan, with Facetime heckling superimposed so it is like a living room experience, although he is in his bedroom at college.

Apple is on the threshold of something fundamentally transformative. It turns out that some commentators agree:

Om Malik, Why Ping Is the Future of Social Commerce

Ping may function like a cross between Facebook and Twitter for iTunes by allowing you to follow celebrities, create social cliques and get artist updates via an activity stream. I think it could have tremendous impact on social sharing and commerce.

From a content perspective, there are three different types of media we love to talk about: movies we see, music we listen to and books we are reading. These are accepted social norms. In fact, many relationships are made on the basis of collective love of a movie and many friendships have started with mixed tapes.

It makes perfect sense for a music service to be social. I’m not alone: The popularity YouTube, the fast-growing MOG and the sadly defunct iLike and Imeem show that people gravitate towards music as a common, collective experience. A recommendation from friends on Last.fm often resulted in me buying many-a-few music tracks. My friends who listened to Thievery Corporation turned me on to The Broadway Project and Chris Joss, which I ended up buying on the iTunes store or via Amazon’s MP3 store.

This click-and-go-somewhere-to-download model of affiliate links can never match a unified experience. Amazon, for example, encourages bloggers and others to link to things they like and then get a piece of the action. This separates social from commerce and treats them as two discrete activities. On the post-Facebook Internet, I don’t think anyone can afford to keep these two actions distinct.

I agree with Om, and obviously Amazon will have to rethink its ‘enormous catalog’ model for commerce, and scramble to make it all social. And Apple and its competitors will have to provide hooks so that I can take my Ping stream and embed it in my blog, direct it to Twitter, and so forth.

I have been saying for years that ‘in the future, all online commerce will be socialized’, and Apple is showing how this is going to be realized.

Apple apparently considered integration with Facebook, but couldn’t come to terms, according to Kara Swisher. Strategically, Facebook is likely to become a direct competitor with Apple, so Jobs is playing go with Zuckerberg, and has won this game.

Amazon might make the devil’s bargain with Facebook to counter Jobs, but that’s a matchup that might just not do much. We’ll have to see if Bezos is impatient.

But there are many doubters out there too:

Sam Diaz, Ping: Apple should leave social to Facebook, Twitter

Ping is an interesting idea and music is something that we have been sharing with friends for the longest time. It strikes me as interesting that Apple has come up with a way to allow people to “share” their music tastes but not the music itself - which I never would have expected Apple or the record labels to do. Is this one way to make “sharing” music OK?

Apple is good at what it does - hardware, software, design and, of course, marketing. But social networking? Even if it is tied to music, I just can’t see widespread adoption of Ping - even if it’s forced on us through iTunes.

Man, Diaz will regret this a year or so from now. Maybe he missed the experiment with streaming via iDisk? Did he miss the launch of the new Apple TV? Can’t he imagine a Flipboard channel based on what’s happening in your iTunes network, with embedded videos, photos, music samples?

Another oddball take on Ping:

Chris Matyszczyk, How Apple’s Ping dings Twitter, Facebook

Ping picks at the nice parts of Facebook and Twitter—friending and following—and offers these benefits to its users without the generalists’ pains.

Unlike Twitter, for example, these are all real people. Unlike Facebook, you can just wander around and see who or what you like without having to become someone’s friend and without having to like anything at all.

This is real people with a real enthusiasm meeting in a bar and talking about a subject they love, rather than about a subject they often hate—themselves. There’s very nice music playing in the background, too.

How many truly passionate, fundamental enthusiasms do large numbers of people share? Movies and sports, probably. Books and food, perhaps. (I wonder if there really are all that many.) Right now, these are often all being talked about on Facebook, each fighting with another for sufficient attention across very mixed groups.

It might not happen that hundreds of niche social networks will suddenly become enormously successful as people decide to fragment themselves across their various enthusiasms. But there are a few core subjects that arouse passion, conversation and the spending of money. Music is one. Apple is another.

Why do the passions have to be shared by large groups of people? Isn’t it sufficient that there are many small groups of people sharing passions? Oh, and don’t leave out TV, which is an enormous passion, as are sports. And yes, people will tolerate — or even seek out — fracturing their social being across multiple services: the post-modern identity is a network of identities, a multiphrenic sense of self.

Are these tech mavens completely missing where this is headed?

Zuckerberg Is As Puritanical As Steve Jobs, It Seems

@RossDawson asked why I and others in the US had not blogged about Facebook’s recent censorship of photos involving dools with nipples. Honestly, I hadn’t seen or heard anything about it.

Sheena Goodyear, Facebook censors nipples on $40K doll

Australian jewellery designer Victoria Buckley posted pictures on her Facebook page showing naked porcelain dolls modelling with her jewellery. Facebook told her take them down. (HO/<a href="http://www.victoriabuckley.com" target="blank">victoriabuckley.com</a>)
Australian jewellery designer Victoria Buckley posted pictures on her Facebook page showing naked porcelain dolls modelling with her jewellery. Facebook told her take them down. (HO/victoriabuckley.com)

Facebook does not allow images of female nipples on their site, including breast-feeding nipples and expensive doll nipples.

When Australian jewellery designer Victoria Buckley posted pictures to her Facebook page that showed a naked porcelain dolls modelling with her jewellery, Facebook told her take them down.

The photos were in contravention to their terms of service, Facebook’s message said.

[…]

Nevertheless, she didn’t want her Facebook page to be taken down, so she put black censorship bars over the offending bits, and re-uploaded them to a new Facebook page called “Save Ophelia — exquisite doll censored by Facebook.”

Facebook shut down the page within 48 hours.

She’s tried to contact them, but has so far been unsuccessful.

Facebook did not respond to QMI Agency’s request for comment.

Seems like small-minded puritanism — like Apple’s blocking of pictures or games involving girls in bikinis — rather than a big brotherish censorship of political dissent, though.

Steven Johnson Goes Deep Into Steve Jobs’ Head

Steven Berlin Johnson riffs on some conventional wisdom from Robert Wright, who suggests that Jobs is repeating the mistake of not licensing Mac technology, since he’s doing that same play with the iPhone:

The Microsoft approach harnessed positive feedback. The more models of Windows computers, competitively priced, the more people would buy Windows computers. And the more Windows computers people bought, the more programmers would write their software for Windows, not Apple. And the more Windows software there was, the more attractive Windows computers would be. And so on. That’s how Windows wound up with around 90 percent of the desktop operating system market.

With the iPhone, Jobs is again forgoing this positive feedback. He’s not licensing the operating system to other handset makers. There’s only one kind of iPhone — love it or leave it.

Meanwhile, Google is following a variant of the Microsoft strategy…. Why is Jobs choosing the same path that, last time around, kept him from conquering the world?

Johnson separates the two parts of this, pointing out that Jobs was dumped at Apple after inventing the Mac. It was Sculley than fumbled the future he teed up. As Johnson says

I’m not so sure that Jobs thinks his Macintosh strategy failed. I think the way Jobs looks at it is this: he built a beautiful, revolutionary machine in the Macintosh, attracted incredible hype for it and passionate early adopters.

And then he got fired.

I’m sure somewhere in Jobs’ head he thinks that if he had been running Apple instead of John Sculley, the Mac could have out-innovated and out-marketed Microsoft through the late eighties and early nineties, and kept Windows from dominating the planet. In other words, it wasn’t that Apple erred in following the closed platform strategy. They erred in that they had the wrong guy running the company. That may well be delusional, but the fact that AAPL now has a larger market cap than MSFT, twelve years after Jobs’ return to Apple, has to give one pause.

Exactly. The ‘Microsoft won because they licensed Windows’ argument is an untestable theory: we can’t go back in time and let Jobs keep his job and see what happens.

Even more compelling than AAPL’s market cap versus MSFT is the rise of potent new game-changing strange attractors, like iTunes, iPhone, and now iPad. Jobs has demonstrated his ability to out-innovate, and Microsoft now looks like a one-trick pony.

To do so, Jobs has had a very closed model of product, but one that delivers truly deep value. Microsoft used a more open model — at least in distribution — but the benefits of their approach only work based on mass adoption and low cost: it’s shallow value.

Ballmer admitted today that Microsoft is — at best — in fifth place in the phone marketplace. The ‘fight everyone on every battlefield’ strategy that Microsoft has relied on is starting to look a lot like the last days of Rome.

Jobs and Apple are meanwhile moving from strength to strength: dominating digital music players and distribution, then the smart phone market, then the tablet, next the battle for the living room with a next generation Apple TV device/service that will build on the strengths of iPhone, iPad, and iTunes.

But we continue to hear the wisdom of 1999 repeated, that Apple blew it and Microsoft triumphed. I wonder how many copies of Microsoft operating systems will be sold in 2020?

Steve Jobs on Privacy

Privacy means people know what they are signing up for in plain English. Some people want to share more data. Ask them. Ask them every time. Let them know precisely what you are going to do with their data.

- Steve Jobs, at D8 conference (according to Jason Calacanis)

Is Open Dead? No, But This Metaphor Is.

Virginia Heffernan conflates a number of trends into some sort of funeral march to the ‘open web’. This is confused by the fact that she doesn’t start with any sort of definition of the open web, but instead launches into a tumbling metaphor:

Virginia Heffernan, The Death of the Open Web

The Web is a teeming commercial city. It’s haphazardly planned. Its public spaces are mobbed, and signs of urban decay abound in broken links and abandoned projects. Malware and spam have turned living conditions in many quarters unsafe and unsanitary. Bullies and hucksters roam the streets. An entrenched population of rowdy, polyglot rabble seems to dominate major sites.

People who find the Web distasteful — ugly, uncivilized — have nonetheless been forced to live there: it’s the place to go for jobs, resources, services, social life, the future. But now, with the purchase of an iPhone or an iPad, there’s a way out, an orderly suburb that lets you sample the Web’s opportunities without having to mix with the riffraff. This suburb is defined by apps from the glittering App Store: neat, cute homes far from the Web city center, out in pristine Applecrest Estates. In the migration of dissenters from the “open” Web to pricey and secluded apps, we’re witnessing urban decentralization, suburbanization and the online equivalent of white flight.

The metaphor of the web as a city may be occasionally insightful, but not in this case, I fear. There are no ‘districts’ on the web, since the web is not distributed in physical space. The ‘rabble’ that seem to inhabit the web actually live in the real world, and communicate through the web: in part by creating web pages that are connected to each other by links, but increasingly communicating through web or mobile applications — like Facebook and Twitter — that are not ‘open’ in a municipal sense like city streets. To the extent that these apps are ‘open’ they are more like sports stadiums, or bars, which are privately owned but must accord with laws laid down by governments about the management of public spaces.

It may be the case that some segment of the web population visits only under duress, but I bet that it is fairly small, and those that are in that situation spend as little time online as possible. So Heffernan’s characterization of iPad and iPhone users as suburbanites fleeing the inner city is just dumb.

Yes, Apple is controlling the apps that can get into the app stores, but among all the others — like Twitter and Facebook — there is the browser, which opens the door to all the immensity of the web, again.

Heffernan continues to fall down the stairs, tripped up by her metaphor:

But a kind of virtual redlining is now under way. The Webtropolis is being stratified. Even if, like most people, you still surf the Web on a desktop or laptop, you will have noticed pay walls, invitation-only clubs, subscription programs, privacy settings and other ways of creating tiers of access. All these things make spaces feel “safe” — not only from viruses, instability, unwanted light and sound, unrequested porn, sponsored links and pop-up ads, but also from crude design, wayward and unregistered commenters and the eccentric ­voices and images that make the Web constantly surprising, challenging and enlightening.

When a wall goes up, the space you have to pay to visit must, to justify the price, be nicer than the free ones. The catchphrase for software developers is “a better experience.” Behind pay walls like the ones on Honolulu Civil Beat, the new venture by the eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London, production values surge. Cool software greets the paying lady and gentleman; they get concierge service, perks. Web stations with entrance fees are more like boutiques than bazaars.

The far more significant development, however, is that many people are on their way to quitting the open Web entirely. That’s what the 50 million or so users of the iPhone and iPad are in position to do. By choosing machines that come to life only when tricked out with apps from the App Store, users of Apple’s radical mobile devices increasingly commit themselves to a more remote and inevitably antagonistic relationship with the Web. Apple rigorously vets every app and takes 30 percent of all sales; the free content and energy of the Web does not meet the refined standards set by the App Store.

Heffernan twists privacy and pay-walls together, and considers the result some sort of exclusionary and immoral policy, like redlining Blacks or Asians out of all-White neighborhoods. Is she cracked? Privacy is about keeping personal information concealed when free access to that information might be damaging to those involved. It is nothing like a Whites-only country club.

And pay-walls are erected as a means of making money: they are not an attempt to exclude some stratum of society, or religious or ethinic groups. Generally those creating pay-walls are not trying to block access: they hope everyone pays. So her suggestion that these are like redlining is off base.

The sole element of her argument that makes any sense is her sniping at Apple, but she should have gone after Jobs for blocking porn, which is a hallmark of the rough-and-tumble web that he is (partly) excluding from iPad and iPhone app stores. But again, the browser is still there, so it is a paper barrier at best.

In the final analysis, this is just Sunday supplement mumbo-jumbo and a waste of ink: an evocative metaphor that ultimately goes nowhere, but seeming to say a lot.

David Carr on The Lost iPhone Affair

David Carr, A Lost iPhone Shows Apple’s Churlish Side

More broadly, Apple’s behavior and choices in the Gizmodo affair threaten to interrupt the séance between the company and an adoring press, who have looked past all the frantic secrecy and reverently stared in wonder at what was eventually revealed behind the curtain.

The media’s crush on Apple has always been an unrequited love affair. The company has a few familiars in the press whom it favors, but Apple has “no comment” programmed on a macro key. The company has unsuccessfully sued bloggers who, it believed, had punctured its veil of secrecy, and important tech news organizations like Wired have been shut out as a result of coverage deemed ill-mannered.

I wonder if Jobs has convinced himself that being so closed is the reason for Apple’s success, rather than great design?