CTO Blog

I cant agree more. I rcvd dis on capgemini twitter update. M sittng n hv coffe wen i get dis n follow it on my cell phone. Twitter has many business potentials

I cant agree more. I rcvd dis on capgemini twitter update. M sittng n hv coffe wen i get dis n follow it on my cell phone. Twitter has many business potentials

wonderfull post in full Twitter style too!

Interesting PoV Vinesh. I only looked at twitter recently and can't quite work out how it would evolve. Your question "Will Facebook do to Google what Google did to other search engines?" is interesting.

I have come across a Satelite channel lately which made me think of a similar question viz-a-vie Google, YouTube and the MSM. Called Current TV (http://current.com/), it is a smaller, more discrete version of You Tube with one difference. It seems that the TV channel becomes an outlet for popular video documentaries put together by citizen journalists. The latest one I saw yesterday was very well put together. Has potential to give the MSM a run for their money!

It's amazing that we are witnessing a true and rapid evolution taking place within our very own lifetimes--indeed, within a matter of months.

If you think about this in terms of Richard Dawkins' meme theory, these trends remarkably exemplify the mechanism of "fittest for the purpose". The "best" memes on the Internet are winning rapidly, and they are phasing out older, less fit memes.

In another level, the internet has become both the thing that is evolving as well as the catalyst that is spurring this evolution in information.

Raj, Very valid point. I stumbled onto Current TV some weeks ago, and must say it is interesting. Though it is in its early days, i am sure we will see similar channels croping up - esp when we look at the Convergence space between TV, Computer & the Internet. Also, your comment is well timed too, Microsoft has just announced another deal in the Interactive TV advt market!! (http://tinyurl.com/5v5mpk)

Jerry, Could not agree more with you. Product lifecycles are becoming increasingly short in the Web2.0 space. To use an analogy, the Web 2.0 space is a bit like walking down a supermarket's aisle which stacks bottled water. While all of them address the same need, all of them proclaim different (real or perceived) virtues. Besides, new brands keep appearing at an alarming rate, while others disappear without a trace. The only thing that sets them apart is their brand equity - else how do you differentiate between Parisian spring water with Norwegian glacier water or something bottled at home.

...how do you differentiate between Parisian spring water with Norwegian glacier water or something bottled at home...

Immediately reminded me of Del Boy's Peckam water. Brits will know what I mean:-)

Good point Jerry. Being an eternal optimist, I think the future will judge this particular time in mankind's history on the planet as one of its finest. IF we (collectively) take advantage of the opportunity we face. Big if!

Imp. Thing here is how v capgemini as group r responding 2 these changes? Wt r v dong? Employees r already usng new channels 2 connect n collaborate. Are v just being passive commentators or participatng n change takng place? Do v need 2 move faster n harness it better 4 group? Pardon my text as m usng my phone browser.

Thanks for the post. While I cannot provide an official response to your post, I can share somethings that are happening around the group. Capgemini is definitly leveraging some of these cutting edge technologies. For eg. you can subscribe to the CTO blog via Twitter. My original post was a product of using some bleeding edge Web 2.0 thinking at our clients. Another example is the Mashup Factory being pioneered by Capgemini Netherland. You can also visit Capgemini in Second Life, which recently did a recruitment campaign. Given the size & diversity of the Group, such things can be difficult to spot. Finally, in case you get an opportunity, would recommend that you check out the Capgemini Web 2.0 based Intranet & knowledgebase.

Disclaimer: I'm the OpenSocial API evangelist, so I'm biased:-)

* Re: lack of Facebook in OpenSocial: you can run an OpenSocial application in facebook using a bridge service called opensocket: http://www.opensocket.org/blog/ I wish Facebook would ship their own version of that:-)

* Connecting social networks together: this is more a business than technical issue. OpenSocial may actually provide a nice data format for these interactions if the players agree on doing this. Take a look at Google Friend Connect as a good start in this direction: http://www.google.com/friendconnect/

Patrick Chanezon, Google Developer Advocate
http://wordpress.chanezon.com/
http://opensocial.org/
irc://irc.freenode.net/opensocial

Have a look to this interview from a director at Google Joe Kraus:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1982

an interesting thing about stickiness on the internet is that it is either very tight and keeps on attracting more and more very fast and erodes also very fast. There is a Core Critical Mass that carries the stickiness around.

My story: In 1998 ,99 : I was stuck to hotmail , practically everyone I knew had a hotmail account. then came the Microsoft acquisition , MSFT screwed up on user experience. I held on to my account like my phone number. Saw some improvement in yahoo mail , but still held on to my account.

then came gmail. Started realizing that all my friends had started moving to gmail , the spam killer was the killer app for gmail.I was probably one of the last ones to move to gmail completely.

The point of my story is that dont take stikyness for granted. With a few more mistakes like Beacon facebook could well be out of the window. Also understand that Facebook has not got into the blood of 30's to 50's crowd(the professional's) who are difficult to latch on to but who also are the key folks that keep the stikyness

Thanks for the interesting and thought provoking inputs from Pierre-Denis and Niraj. I think there is a bit of an overlap, hence am responding in one go. So far we have seen a lot of social graphs being created, and there is a bit of fatigue when you get an invite to yet another social network. Niraj has a very valid (& hotly contested) point around the ‘core critical mass’ and I do subscribe to that theory. However, I am seeing a trend wherein this core mass is becoming very transient and is keen to move onto the ‘next shiny object’, and we will continue seeing this as an ongoing trend. Stickiness has to come from a central subject. This is where Sermo.com seems to be a very good model.

The second point was around monetising social networks. This is a challenge to both the network operator as well as for businesses trying to leverage this as an advertising/marketing media. If in the real world, I don’t fancy being a multi-level marketer and selling to friends, then why would I do this in the virtual world. Beacon did falter on that altar. While, I can give a friend a hug or poke on Facebook, there has to be a way in which I can buy a beer or coke for my friends. A business should then be able to fulfil such a gift economically, by either shipping the coke (unlikely) or redeem the coupon at the local store (likely). This is where Second Life shows the way where ‘Linden Dollars’ can be converted to real dollars and vice versa, though I think such a business will have to be in the ‘micro-quantity’ business i.e. cost of a gift should not exceed the psychological barrier of USD 1. While this is an example of ‘push’ marketing, I think a similar pull model can also evolve e.g. Micro-finance. Consider what might happen if you combine a Facebook with Zopa?