Archive for the ‘Gillmor Gang’ Category

Gillmor Gang 10.22.09

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

Stream Splicing — Threadsy’s Rob Goldman with Kevin Marks, Robert Scoble, and Dan Farber. Recorded live Thursday, October 22, 2009.

Full transcript below the video, courtesy of Simulscribe.

Mr. STEVE GILLMOR: Hi. This is Steve Gillmor and welcome to the Gillmor Gang. It worked this time. Oh, before I forget which I did the last time, I want to thank our sponsors Rackspace and the fabulous people at New Tech who have produced this wonder machine called the TriCaster. This TriCast is one of many that is starting to emerge on the network and we’re pretty excited about - about the technology and how it’s started to have an effect. Our show today is going to be about, of course how our assess is dead, but specifically another one shot. Scoble shakes his hand like, oh wait a minute, FriendFeed is dead not some …

Mr. ROBERT SCOBLE: It’s all dead. Everything is dead.

Mr. GILLMOR: Exactly. But that’s, you know, you have to turn things to oil in order to be able to get the new stuff in, right? So, we’re going to be talking about the death of email and to help us with that is Rob Goldman. Welcome, Rob.

Mr. ROB GOLDMAN (Creator, Founder, Threadsy): Thanks. Happy to be here.

Mr. GILLMOR: Rob Goldman, you have a software package called…

Mr. GOLDMAN: Threadsy.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. And tell us a little bit about what Threadsy is.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Threadsy is the world’s first integrated communications client. So, we combine email, Facebook, Twitter and a bunch of - about 40 other social services into one integrated UI. So, it’s sort of a one stop that - that does more than just sort of aggregate things. It integrates them so it gives you a kind of holistic view of not just all of your communication services but the entire sort of online life of the people with whom you’re communicating because as sort of things progress and especially at social media and social network is kind of start to displays the place in our lives that we had for email, we’re finding the people we communicate with are spread out across a bunch of different surfaces. They got their Twitter accounts, their Facebook accounts, their Flicker accounts to their Picasa accounts and they’ve sort of left traces on themselves all over the social web. So, we try to pull those things together so that you - you get kind of a complete picture of the person that you’re talking to.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. And speaking of one stop shops, Robert Scoble, welcome.

Mr. SCOBLE: Hey. How are you doing? So, I’m trying to get Threadsy loaded but it’s not loading for me today. So, but I’ve used it quite a bit and it’s pretty interesting service and that it’s - places together all your email and social networks into one - one long feed which makes it a - I find it interesting because I can just put it up on my vertical screen here and just watch the world go by and choose even more stuff to engage with.

Mr. GILLMOR: Also joining us on the phone are Kevin Marks. Welcome, Kevin.

Mr. KEVIN MARKS (British Telecom): Hi, there.

Mr. GILLMOR: And Dan Farber of CBS News. Welcome, Dan.

Mr. DAN FARBER (CBS News): Good afternoon.

Mr. GILLMOR: And Mike Arrington is not joining us. He is at - at the Web 2.0 Conference. I just saw him a little while ago. But I think this is going to be what the team will be for today’s show. So, Dan Farber, just before I forget, we had an interesting conversation last night with Tim Berners-Lee, didn’t we?

Mr. FARBER: Yeah, I thought it was, you know, good to catch up with him and kind of find out how he’s evolving as thinking in regards to semantic web and Twitter and other things.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, you know, it was way over my head what he was talking about. We were luckily joined by Nova Spivack of Twine Fame who was translating in both directions I think. But I think I can characterize one thing about that conversations that I think would be interesting for today’s show which is that there is definitely an interest on the part of Tim around the notion of the PubSub aspects of Twitter or not specifically Twitter but he was talking about Identica, for example, which has the ability to be able to emits or to at least transport RDF or you know, sort of so called semantic objects. And I’m not a big proponent of RDF mostly because I don’t understand it and I think that’s one of the reasons that I think it’s had some trouble in terms of adoption. But clearly as we get to a sort of the intersection of things like PubSubHubbub, and you know these micro messages being carried over, transported - could be integrated and federated. We’re getting to the point where there’s going to be tremendous opportunity for us to regain control of the micro message based than we have - just been sold down the river by Twitter to Microsoft and Google yesterday. So, anybody jump in and comment on what they think about the Twitter moves and what it imports for, you know, for the climate of micro messaging. Robert, I want to hear from you first.

Mr. SCOBLE: I think it’s huge because it brings a whole new audience to Twitter first of all. Saying all I got on the lot - another round of hype. I mean, I was listening to ABC News yesterday and all they were talking about was this - these two Twitter deals with Microsoft and with Google. But I’ve see - I talked about on my blog yesterday that I see a new place for real time news like Twitter because if you got a Google and search on Palo Alto Sushi for instance and then you look at Google, there’s a list of restaurants there but it’s very cold and there is nothing there that’s live or human and if Google can figure out how to add in, you know, information from both the restaurants and from users, I think that will make that list a lot more useful. And that’s what I’m hoping to see…

Mr. FARBER: Google also hopes…

Mr. SCOBLE: Go ahead.

Mr. FARBER: Google also did introduce social search.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. FARBER: Where they are, just kind of taking from your friends and adding it to search queries. and something they’ll be releasing in the next few weeks. I just wanted to add something about what Tim Berners-Lee was saying about things like Twitter offset(ph) which is - if he usually has a Twitter is the fact that there’s an ever - real URL and doesn’t have much meditated with it. And without that, you know, you really can’t drop it into the bigger stream to not able to use that content and in different ways, more semantic ways.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, but I…

Mr. MARKS: Well, sir, I - I haven’t pushed back on that.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, go ahead, please.

Mr. MARKS: Twitter does have real URL. The each (unintelligible) does have a family link. It has the cut back structure then can have its involvement.

Mr. FARBER: A short - a short URL which you know is not only (unintelligible)…

Mr. MARKS: Oh I think, obviously as the proper link, yet. The links are bad and I agree with. We’ve debated on it.

Mr. FARBER: Yeah, the links are. It’s not that, it’s the links out.

Mr. MARKS: OK, got you. Yeah but that’s - that’s I think that in fact that is a structural flaw but I’m - you know, I push back on Nova and it’s like, we need more meta data to go with the data. Well, the thing is we’ve - meta data - these things with meta data and data is many cases a mistake because if there - if they - suppose a meta data is hidden away from us in some parallel things we can’t see, then it ends up getting with out of sync with the real data and if it pushes us anything, is that even with a 140 characters, we can climb in a lot of intelligence pickling(ph) and later about the data which by using this - by using as tags, by using short links and so on. We’ve actually come up with a lot of ways of having a very compact discourse that is still human readable and machine readable. And that’s - and that’s the tension between the sort of the - that’s the hyper abstraction of RDF which is - is now abstracts to having develop abstraction. And that’s - as you said, that tends to be intention with people that are actually understanding what’s going on. And if you look at what’s - you know, what’s worked and what hasn’t, what’s worked is when you’re able to - when people are able to add data and singling themselves in useful ways but the data is not some sort of abstraction that stuck on the side of it. The people - the people can’t see and understand, if some of these articulated directly to them in a form that works for them. So, you know, so Scoble’s restaurant example that is - things like FourSquare work very well for that because you’re obviously articulating time at this place now or you’re running a little tip to it saying the fish is really good. And those stuff - that those stuff show back to other people and it’s not in some sort of gigantic abstraction. It’s in - so in a way that banks have used. So, I think there’s, you know, audience had seen the future of the web for a long time allegedly and in fact it has not - that it was on its promise over the last you know 10 or 15 years where it’s actually we spoke - what we have seen is more and more people incorporating richer data into the streams that they are already using and that’s the trend I see improving.

Mr. GILLMOR: Rob, why don’t you jump in here and translate some of this into your you know, coming from Threadsy.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Well, I mean I guess I view it a little bit less from the sort of technical prospective of the you know, the PubSubHub and sort of RDF and the standards and more, just the news yesterday struck me as important practically, you know, for two reasons and I think that it have, you know, indirect impact on what we’re doing at Threadsy but I think a much bigger impact on what’s happening with Twitter and sort of short messages in general. I guess the first thing is, I mean, I think it points the way for a business model for Twitter. You know, and suppose there - there was some, it sounds like pick out some interference there.

Mr. MARKS: Something like that.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Hello?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, keep going.

Mr. GOLDMAN: OK. Yes, I think its points to - I mean, obviously I think there was some revenue involved in both of those deals. Probably meaningful revenue when your company decides a Twitter and I think more importantly, it sort of presents the sort of Twitter body as a really interesting application for search. And I think to the extent that people interact with tweets and the Twitter database in a search oriented way, that’s a good thing for their sort of a long term revenue prospects because with search comes intention and I think the pathways to delivering values for advertisers. And I guess on the other hand, on the downside I think for Twitter is, it’s going to bring a lot more traffic across the tweets and the fact that you know people can tweet and find themselves on a landing page on Ding or on Google. I think it’s going to attract even more spam and I think they already have a really big problem fighting the spam that is happening inside the Twitter. I think this is going to make it a lot worse. So, when you put this kind of high powered traffic on something, I think you need a high powered control system to make sure that everyone stays honest and I’m not sure that’s there.

Mr. SCOBLE: I think it’s coming with the invention of the new list feature but it will take a while for Google to figure that out and it will first of all, it will take a few more weeks at least before Twitter shifts it. But I’m finding that I can - I can dream of searches based on my lists that I’ve subscribed to and I’ve subscribed to about 100 different list with - which cover probably about 90 percent of the tech industry. You know, you don’t have to subscribe to too many list before you hit almost everybody and now I could - if I could say search on my lists for something, I would get absolutely no spam.

Mr. GOLDMAN: And do you think that will part of the search engine implementation, the kind of keeping it personal?

Mr. SCOBLE: Not at first but that’s where this is heading. I mean, if you - really if you talk to the Facebook people they keep using this word of, we believe it’s your friends that really are going to affect everything in your life. And so, I would expect, the reason they buy a FriendFeed and that I’ve still have some optimism about FriendFeed is the guys there understood this search far better than Twitter did, right? We’ve had this kind of list based search for quite a while. We could always go to, you know, search Obama, search the word Obama in a title based on you know Tim O’Reilly you know, what Tim O’Reilly wrote or based on what this list of friends that I’ve set up or list of people that I’ve set up. And if they move that to Facebook and Facebook gets it first and there - everybody in Facebook talks like this so I know they’re thinking about internally what is the impact of your personal friend graph or your personal social graph and why is that different than some guy you’ve never ever met before or is not closely related to you or closely related to your social graph. I think you’re going to see some really interesting things. The interesting thing yesterday on the Google search announcement was that they’re using a two level search based on you. So, you could - at least that’s what they’re saying is - and I haven’t seen the implementation so I’m going off of what (unintelligible) Mayor was saying on stage. But you could limit the search to only people within two levels of you and keep in mind for somebody like me, that’s a lot of people. I’m following 8,000 people and each of those people are following - some of them are following hundreds of thousands of people. Some of them are following tens of thousands. Some of them following just you know a few hundred. But if you take - you know, 8,000 people multiplied by even let’s say 200 people, that’s a lot people you can search through and that search will have very little spam because I’m adding my personal friend - you know people I know in the industry and brands I trust in the industry and that I’m seeing already an alternate universe from the regular Twitter that’s being built right in front of me. You know, there’s a guy who is one of the top iPhone app offers. He spoke to a list of all the app developers. And so you could just add his list and also you can get all the app developers in the world. It’s unbelievable like what you can do now and I’m sure Facebook is working on this as well. You know, everybody is on Facebook. It’s just how are they going to surface that social graph and make it useful. Right now, Twitter - I think Twitter is actually ahead. Most people probably don’t think that, right? I think what these search deals yesterday, that put them in the lead.

Mr. GOLDMAN: So yeah, I watched your walk-through of the list product the other day, the video you did, and I thought, I mean, this is the first I’ve seen, you know, an actual practice seeing the list product roll out.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GOLDMAN: And what struck me, which I think is super interesting, is the real power in Twitter. And I think the reason that, you know, it had sort of Facebook on its (unintelligible) for quite awhile is that information can move so quickly through it because there’s no barrier, there’s no limit to the way that the information can move. There’s sort of no walls in the system. It’s just this giant wave and if something important happens right near you, you know, you see some armed guy walking into a hotel in Mumbai, you know, that information travels fast.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. GOLDMAN: And it can’t travel quite as fast inside the Facebook because you’ve got these kind of walls of your friends. In order to take a status of an event, have it move across the sort of broader universe, someone has to kind of appropriate it from me and re-share it sort of explicitly in a way we don’t have to (unintelligible). I think…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I think that’s over stated. I really do think that’s over stated.

Mr. GOLDMAN: What was that? I mean the speed, it get over stated, yeah. I think…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. And just the issue of Facebook having this barrier that prevents it from competing ahead on in real time with Twitter, I just think that’s an artifact of, you know, what they’ve done to get to where they are, it’s not, you know, it’s not a technical problem.

Mr. GOLDMAN: I totally agree. And I guess what I’m saying is the list launch on the Twitter side is a step kind of in the other direction. It’s saying hey, let’s kind of erect some walls to kind of keep the spam out and focus the conversations and it feels like a different path down to smaller groups.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I’m not sure I agree with that either. I think that what less represent is Twitter’s attempt at monetizing at an early stage as sort of a hybrid between track, which they continue not to deliver in which they have now subsidized through Microsoft and Google and the, you know, sort of their client, you know, base of people including you, Rob, who are delivering, you know, a group functionality. What they’re trying to do is to sort of copyright the group functionality and make it a data type. And I think that will be somewhat successful, but the tension will increase on the part of their third party developers and entrepreneurs who want to access that programmatically over the APIs at which point, you know, Twitter’s differentiation becomes somewhat irrelevant. So I think that it’s a short-term way of, as Evan said on stage, boosting their flow again at a point where they’re plateauing a bit and beginning the task of setting up these sort of proprietary data types and I think they’re going to have a hard road ahead of them in terms of, you know, what happens when there was a problem that was starting to be talked about yesterday on FriendFeed about the pipe between Twitter items and FriendFeed slowing down and I, you know, basically just asked - in the common thread, I asked Paul and Brett to comment on that. And Brett replied basically saying that there’s some - I just spoke with him, so I’m not sure whether he said this in the comments or whether he said this to me. But basically, they’re a combination of economic program factors and just some technical issues that they’re working through and that they should be resolved in four or five days. So let’s say that what Robert hope’s going to happen with FriendFeed is that its capabilities are going to be absorbed into Facebook. There’s going to come a day pretty soon now where people are going to say oh, you mean Facebook can get high band, you know, full access to the pump, to the fire hose as a third party developer, you know, subject of course to (unintelligible) or whatever that is at the same level as FriendFeed did. I mean, effectively, ownership has already changed hands. So the question is, is Twitter going to allow that? And if they do, what is their differentiator? I mean, why do lists suddenly become important if anybody, including Microsoft, Google and third parties aggregating the other? If they can all do API access to these list formats, it’s, you know, its open season. Where is their value out there?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Well, so Steve, your take is that they want to box out the client apps by offering some differentiated functionality…

Mr. GILLMOR: No. I think that Evan was very clear about that, and he has been, you know, where the rubber has always met the road is that whether they thought that that’s what they want to do. They never really felt that they could pull it off because, you know, it would be abandoning the horse that brought them to the party, which is open access.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: So I don’t see how they get around that and when you do that with somebody like a Facebook, you got a real problem.

Mr. MARKS: I don’t see that. I think that the interesting positioning I had when I met him was he said twist some information that work another session at work. And I think what the goal of list is, is to expand on the - on following people who I’m interested in as opposed to I’m following people I already know. But with Facebook, Cheryl(ph) was saying, no, no. The social is the most important. It’s about your friends. It still - we’re focused on the friends list whereas, you know, Evan has grasp the power of a symmetric following of being able to follow sources as well as friends having a mix together.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. MARKS: And the list is where they’re expanding that, making that more straightforward. So that was what I think happened at those two pictures there.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. But…

Mr. MARKS: And I also think that…

Mr. GILLMOR: I think that, you know, I think that posturing on Facebook’s part. That’s pondering to their audience to say that it’s all about social and that is not about what Twitter is doing. I mean, they can do both.

Mr. MARKS: But Facebook is coming from a different place. You know, they have said, no. We let you control who gets to see this.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. If you say what this is is public - if you say what this is is public, then you’re saying exactly what you’re saying when you put something on Twitter.

Mr. MARKS: Right. There’s a question of whether - yeah, you know, the default performance is.

Mr. GILLMOR: So if there are 50 million public users on Facebook and 50 million public users on Twitter and, you know, and those two environments are synchronized and tools are used like Threadsy to normalize that flow, throw out duplicates, you know, add or keep and retain and maybe even thread, you know, cross talk among different services into, - I mean, that’s the big problem right now in Facebook.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah. And filters.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, exactly.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: That’s - we’re going there and we’re going there fast, yeah.

Mr. MARKS: Exactly. I mean, the other thing that we had last week was another set - round of activity streams and standard discussions and so on, and trying to come up with come away of expressing all these things so that they don’t balance to a particular supplier and that’s - you know, we can never expect Twitter as a lovely engagement from everyone including this space. So that’s - I think that’s a lot differently. It’s fairly clear to me that that’s something that lots will be very interested in making sense of and coming up with some standardization for that is a way forward.

Mr. GILLMOR: Scoble?

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m just playing around with Facebook and Twitter. I think Kevin is right. They’re coming at the world from a different place and that, - you know, in Facebook, I have all my friends and they’re personally-added friends and their friends who have added me and I’ve added them. It’s a two-way friendship, right? Now, that’s the private part of Facebook. In Facebook pages, you can just follow me without me being involved, but it’s hard to use your word of streams placing. Facebook hasn’t yet added streams placing from pages yet. I can’t splice the stream coming off of, you know, Oprah’s page and splice it together with…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. But…

Mr. SCOBLE: The stream coming off of Kevin Mark’s page.

Mr. GILLMOR: But you’re assuming that - you know, I think pages is a broken concept. I don’t think that that works. I mean, why do I want to differentiate as a user between an activity stream and a so-called promotional stream or whatever pages are supposed to be? It just makes no sense.

Mr. SCOBLE: Because some things - if you want to go to your friends, your family, your - you know, you want privacy on some things. That’s why I really like Facebook, right? Because I can have a Facebook where I just have my personal friends and it’s not going to be become a public item when I, you know, I post my baby photos. On Twitter…

Mr. GILLMOR: But here is - this is where - this is the intersection with email. I mean, email is personal as well.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yup.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. But, you know, I was supposed to have J.P. Rangaswami on the show, but the only way that I seem to be able to reach him is by direct messaging on Twitter.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: And I ran out of time to do it, so - but, you know, we’re moving toward a model and this is where - why Rob is on the show today, you know, not to mention the fact that Threadsy is a great product.

Mr. SCOBLE: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: Is because he is - you know, I’m starting to see stuff that shows up in my so-called inbox that I only subsequently realized it didn’t come in email. It came from say, Facebook, which is your point.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: So you know, the user doesn’t have to make these decisions each time. You know, if I want to go from here to the store, I’ve got basically, you know, two or three alternatives of ways of doing it. I can walk, I can take a bus or I can drive.

Mr. SCOBLE: But that’s inbound. You’re talking about inbound there. I’m taking about outbound. If I’m putting a baby photo up, I wanted to go to a different group. Then if I put up Google just about, you know, just, you know, made a deal with Twitter, I want that to go to the public group where everybody can discuss it…

Mr. GILLMOR: But you can - you know, you’ve got a computer. It’s not coming from multiple computers.

Mr. SCOBLE: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: I mean, it is in effect because you’re using your phone or whatever, but you’re making a distinction. You’re sending a gesture at some point about where you want this data to move to.

Mr. SCOBLE: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: And that separate…

Mr. GOLDMAN: Robert…

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead.

Mr. GOLDMAN: You’re saying, if I’m understanding you right, that you like Facebook better just because the privacy controls there are a little bit sort of more developed.

Mr. SCOBLE: I actually am a Twitter guy because I live my entire life in public, right? But my wife is on Facebook because she lives her entire life in private. She doesn’t want her - you know, she talks to her elementary school friends on Facebook and that’s all she does really. She doesn’t want to be a public entity all the time. I love being a public entity that’s why I love Twitter, right? Because the publicness, the way it came about was Twitter was mostly public. Yeah, you can DM me there. But when I’m talking on Twitter, it goes to the public and everybody can see it and re-twit it or comment on it.

Mr. GILLMOR: But you’re making my point for me, which is that as the amount of email that we actually process, you know, other than spam or stuff that we have to read or sort of glance up because we know that it’s part of our jobs or whatever.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: You know, as that starts to diminish, it starts to be factored into newer form factors like a Facebook or a Twitter when they adopt those tools. Now, Twitter is way behind in terms of email. They’ve got a huge reach because most people are on, you know, Twitter if there is - the nice thing about direct messages is they’re synchronized. In other words, if you want to send something to somebody, the chances are that you have a relationship with them and there is a reason why you want - it takes the spam out of the equation in the direct message requirement.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, you can’t - DM is different than email because anybody in the world can send me an email. I don’t - you don’t…

Mr. GILLMOR: Anybody in the world can send you a ping that you have to respond to on Facebook as well.

Mr. SCOBLE: No. True. But on Twitter’s DM, you can’t send me a DM unless I’m already following it.

Mr. GILLMOR: I just said that. So what I’m saying is that there is - the percentage of people that you want to communicate with via a DM that are not, you know, synchronized relationship with you is small. There’s a - it’s a smaller sample, but it’s a lot higher value.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: So the signal to noise is much higher and it’s easier to be able to do that and, you know, people - there’s a lot that’s said about differentiating the generations and the kids today are much more public facing and they’re less concerned about, you know, as Scott McNealy famously said, getting over the fact that we have no privacy.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: You know, I don’t think that’s about kids. I think that’s about all of us who, you know, work and increasingly work and play in this digital realm. The point is is that we all endlessly are searching for some sort of simple roll up of all these services.

Mr. SCOBLE: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: And that, you know, it’s like - why the RSS equation? It’s not that RSS is bad. It’s just that it’s slower. It’s for a different environment.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

GILLMOR: It doesn’t have an economic model that’s supported in this new real-time environment. And, you know, the best that they can do is to, you know, stand - you know, is to be stable and then slowly lose market share.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

GILLMOR: This isn’t a value proposition. This is an observation.

Mr. SCOBLE: Right. I think we’re not arguing with each other really, but Facebook today doesn’t support what I need to do. Well, for instance, here’s my new list of Tech news brands. You know, it has Wall Street Journal, and MacRumors and TechCrunch, and Daring Fireball and Wireless Week. And I’m not sure if you could see that too well. But I can’t do this very easily on Facebook. I can’t just subscribe to brands without having them friend me…

GILLMOR: But you can do it on FriendFeed, all right? You’ve been able to do it on FriendFeed for a longer than your career.

Mr. SCOBLE: Not really because a lot of these brands are - a lot of these brands aren’t done FriendFeed, and they’re not…

GILLMOR: That’s nonsense because you just pulled them in through Twitter.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, but not really. They’re not easily addable, findable, like they are here. To it - now, with list, you don’t even need to search for them. You just need to come to my…

GILLMOR: Right. And that’s true not just for Twitter. Now, they’ll be easy to search for on FriendFeede or Facebook, you know. The (unintelligible) the entry is just dropping like a stone.

Mr. SCOBLE: I agree with you in the longer term but not in a shorter term.

GILLMOR: OK. We’re talking three months instead of like two weeks.

Mr. SCOBLE: OK. Bu they’re not there yet, you know. Go ahead.

GILLMOR: Go ahead, Rob.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Can I ask you a question? So, what is everyone think the sort of real motivation behind the Facebook username kind of a land grab was? I mean, my take is that that was completely about getting you public and sort of providing you with a forum through which you can share information much more broadly than to just your friend.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, one thing Twitter did really well was that at name. I mean, how did I pimp the show today? I said, you know, follow@Steve Gillmor, you know, and his show is on it one at - and that @name becomes a link in my - in everybody’s, you know, tweet deck or Threadsy or - Threadsy makes it a link, right? So, you can just click on that at and go to Steve Gillmor’s account. I can’t do that really easily yet on Facebook. And the real name was so important way for me to communicate where to go into my friends, you know. Go to facebook.com/stevegillmor or, you know, my scobleizer page, you know. Go to facebook.com/ scobleizer. That was really an important step. But they haven’t yet linked it together to make it nice like Twitter has.

Yeah, I’m with you. And I think - I mean, I guess I’m with Steve as well, which I think that will happen really soon.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

GILLMOR: Well, I thought that this…

Mr. SCOBLE: Like I said, within six months, both of this move together, right? And Steve gets what…

GILLMOR: Six…

Mr. SCOBLE: You know…

GILLMOR: Six months. You really think it’s going to be six months? I mean, the second…

Mr. SCOBLE: It’ll take a while for…

GILLMOR: Of least word and that they stop, you know, fair(ph) well, you know, with it. It will be the - you know, the day that all of the third parties will start rolling it up and providing value-added services. And then, there’s going to be a discussion about what is the third party service. Kevin Marks. Is Google a third party service for Twitter now?

Mr. MARKS: Yeah. I think it is. I think, you know, Twitter has a very expensive(ph) user. I’ve heard that this week from both (unintelligible), which is that they see the multimodality of Twitter but doesn’t made (unintelligible) of the fact that there are lot of this while(ph) getting at it. I think that’s, you know, one more reason that the (unintelligible) work is that they route toward to SMSs. So, it gives you a way of explaining to people SMS you without being able to (unintelligible). Or without having a direct phone number, in some that you can route(ph), more than one way. And that’s - that does work very well. So, there’s I think a lot of this is - is about multimodality in both directions. And that’s sort of - for me, that’s a lot – a lot of the interesting part that is connecting these pieces together. I also, you know, getting back to the - it has the real time. I think it’s also getting back the interplay between immediacy and history. And that’ - a lot of that is where the interest into this kind of way. But if you got all the stuff learning part but you also got (unintelligible) you want to keep for later and that you want make a sense of, a bit of it that will come back and being able to point out of the instantaneous flow into something broader and gather that is a key part of that too. So, we’re starting to see this with the other. And, I think, yeah, the difference between the Facebook and the Twitter or (unintelligible) search was that Facebook were exclusively – I’m not saying that they will let you search them. You know, they were – they were – they’re so very weary of that.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

GILLMOR: Well, they were saying that when they released it that they - I think there’s some nuances about what they are saying about interaction with Google. I don’t think - I think that they have a congenital mistrust or a strategic sort of opposition to Google which I think is going to go away pretty quickly now the Twitter has basically leveled the playing field between the two major players. You know, Rob, do you agree with that?

Mr. GOLDMAN: I think it’s going to be super interesting to see how that plays because my take is that the Google’s kind of worst case scenario, you know, biggest fear is huge amounts of information accumulating in places where they can’t(ph) organize it. I mean, their mission is to organize the world’s information and if all of a sudden really important relevant information to me is starting to pile up in places that they can’t see, I think that’s the threat to their mission. And I think that was happening in a meaningful way on Facebook. And I think Twitter’s kind of public approach is creating a real wedge between what I think Facebook wants to do, which is to try to keep the information proprietary and organize it for you. And what Google wants to do which is to try to be this kind of thin layer on top of the world’s information that make sense to it. I mean, as long as the information is spread out I think there’s going to be a really important role for people who try to reassemble it. And, you know, that’s what Threadsy is trying to do. We’re trying to do it as a communications tool. And I think that’s what - of course, that’s what Google’s trying to do as a search tool. And I think right now the Twitter news this week I think is probably, you know, causing the Facebook execs to have some, you know, long emotional meeting.

GILLMOR: Yeah. Except that - that doesn’t take into account the FriendFeed acquisition. Because if there’s anything that FriendFeed is about, it’s about this kind of aggregation and the sort of blurring or the normalizing between different data stores. So…

Mr. GOLDMAN: Yup, I can’t wait to hear what FriendFeed’s up to. It may be that they’re the search team that’s going to try to figure out how to surface as much of the information as they can.

GILLMOR: Robert, go ahead.

Mr. SCOBLE: I totally agree. I can’t wait to see whether what Paulo is going to show me soon. He’s already said that he’s going to give me an interview and show me something he’s working on, you know…

GILLMOR: Before he does that, I hope he - that they deliver Stream Splicing which they promised from before the…

Mr. SCOBLE: Well, that might be what he is showing me, right? Because he has promised one other FriendFeed feature that he was supposedly thinking on for a while and Stream Splicing was one that he told me - you that he was working on so. I wouldn’t be shocked…

GILLMOR: But that was in the road map so I wouldn’t be surprised if, you know, the fact that Gary Burd has left the company may or may not have had an effect on that.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

GILLMOR: Either that means he’s ready or that is not happening.

Mr. SCOBLE: But I think Stream Splicing is really important for getting Facebook into this new world of giving me one feed of all the things I want to watch. I mean, why are we talking of Threadsy, right? Threadsy is doing stream placing of email and Facebook and Twitter into one stream that I can watch on my screen. It’s very useful. And right now, I can’t watch Oprah’s Facebook page along with, you know, TechCrunch’s Facebook page and mix them together into one stream that I watch. I can’t do that. I can sort of do that with, you know, some of these tools but not easily. Here, you know, here on Twitter I can just click, click, click, click, click, add them to a list and now I have those streams spliced together in a useful and easy to manage way.

GILLMOR: We you can’t splice list together.

Mr. SCOBLE: Not list yet but you can sort of see where that’s going to go.

GILLMOR: Right.

Mr. SCOBLE: You know, I’m guessing. You know, this is a race between both tech teams, right? FriendFeed is going to have things that Twitter can’t do easily. I mean, Facebook already has comments. Twitter doesn’t have comments and people keep complaining - I mean, that’s one legitimate thing that we’re still doing on FriendFeed, you know. Over here is my FriendFeed window with the Gillmor Gang. I can’t do that on Twitter and I can do that on Facebook to some extent before it rolls up. The problem is I can’t find that thing on Facebook again.

GILLMOR: The other thing.

Mr. GOLDMAN: I mean, I think the bigger question is just, is it going to end all centralizing in one place? And if it doesn’t, you know, what’s the role of the integrators who are going to try to connect this thing? I mean, to just look at it in practical terms over the last year. I mean, the number of people using social media and regularly updating their status is just - I mean, exploded. I mean, it’s probably 200 million people have come to this in the last 18 months with just huge volumes of new content. So, you’ve got lots of new stuff in lots of new places, and the places are open via API. And to me it’s just a natural - you know, it’s a natural opportunity for integration. And, you know, that’s where we’re playing at Threadsy. And, I think unless it all centralizes in one place, the people who are trying to make sense of it across your sources are going to have a really important role to play.

GILLMOR: So, when you say that that’s where you play, you know, what do you see as the landmarks for your company in terms of what’s you’re going to try and accomplish next?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Well, I think it’s - in a high level, what I can say, is our position is a very special sort of privilege spot on top of all of your communication services. And if we want to sort of deserve that position in your life, we have to add value that you couldn’t get by going to anyone of those services. You know, we’re never going to be able to be the best that everything we do, we’re not going to be the best email client, the best Twitter client, the best Facebook client,, the best social web browser. What we’re going to be is the best integrated communications experience. So, we’re going to try to do things that no single service could ever do. And I think, you know, if you look at great integrators, I think that’s what they’ve done in the past. So, Mint is a good - I think a recent example in the lots of our minds. You know, they had access to all of your financial accounts and they gave you things you couldn’t get at anyone of them. Play like for example your net worth, and so we want to do similarly. We want to integrate all the people you talk to and all the things you’re saying across your services and try to provide value that you wouldn’t be able to get anywhere else. I mean, to Robert’s point, maybe that’s just slicing streams between Facebook and Twitter. And, you know, who knows it might look like something much more complicated.

Mr. SCOBLE: Are you guys working on any curation features? Because once I get everything into streams and I get it my system all working really well and I’m really close to that with Twitter and I’m still working with that on Facebook, but I assume, let’s say that Steve is right, in the next three months we’re going to get all the toys we need to manage our friends and our streams and splice them together and make them usable and make search work and life will be great. The next step is curation. I want to take all that stuff coming across my stream. I want to pick this little tweet or this little Facebook item and shove it out to my audience and explain why that’s important and explain why the person is important who said it.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Yup, yup. So, you mentioned this yeah, once before. I mean, so, we’re very interested in the sharing aspect of your social media kind of command center. And we’re thinking a lot about sort of what the best ways to facilitate that. I mean, so far, we don’t have any meaningful sharing features of our own. We let you, you know, favorite a tweet through Twitter or like a post to Facebook, we’re using the underlying services.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yup.

Mr. GOLDMAN: And, we’ve been talking a lot about sort of what we might do to kind of make that happen with a lot of good kind of sharing tools that are out there, posters and the lots of other things. And so, you know, it’s on our minds but if not, at the top at the road map right now.

Mr. SCOBLE: OK.

Mr. GOLDMAN: I mean, what are you using and what would you like to see?

GILLMOR: Hold on a second.

Mr. SCOBLE: Go ahead.

GILLMOR: Kevin, send video, please. Sorry, Roberts. Just - OK, good. Thanks. Go ahead Robert.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, there’s no good tool yet. You know, for instances, I’m looking at Twitter, right? And I want to share this tweet. My choice is to either re-tweet it out or click favorite on it which will put on my favorite list, or I have to copy - I have to make almost a screen capture of this image, copy the screen capture, and then put it somewhere like Flickr or something, and then link it in and then link in everything, which is really over on word press run posters or something like that. And then, I want to write a blog underneath that, you know, tweet. The tweet is the news. And it’s amazing how much news is breaking in Twitter now. I mean, Marissa Mayer announced the Google deal on Twitter, right? And that was the top - that should have been the top item on everybody’s blog is start there, that’s the news. And then we fill in the details where put in more screen captures, where if I met her in the hallway I’d ask her to demo it for me a record a video. Or I – how did I found about FriendFeed’s news, right? I was walking around the Alamo in Texas and I was looking at my tweets come really - and somebody said, you know, somebody said Twitter or Facebook just but FriendFeed. Well, I immediately re-tweeted that out. And then I immediately got on Blog Talk radio with Paul and the Facebook team and recorded an MP3 file which got put in to FriendFeed. But there was no real good way for me to put it all together as one, long stream and to keep adding on to in. So, as Techcrunch add an article or read, write web, or you know, or see or, you know, anybody in the community as they added more information on I can’t just keep adding on to that item. FriendFeed got really close that’s why it goes - I’m still…

Mr. GILLMOR: What do you mean it got really close? It is really close.

Mr. SCOBLE: FriendFeed does not give the ability to curate without other people involved. I’m sorry. It doesn’t. It does not let…

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t know what that means.

Mr. SCOBLE: I want to write a blog post without you being able to put your comments in between.

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, this is the fabulous control of the universe.

Mr. SCOBLE: Absolutely. Does TechCrunch let…

Mr. GILLMOR: As Craig Burton says, get over it.

Mr. SCOBLE: Does TechCrunch let me write a blog post? Give me a break.

Mr. GILLMOR: Get over it, Scoble. It’s just absolutely not going to happen.

Mr. SCOBLE: Do you let me enter into your blog when you’re writing a blog?

Mr. GILLMOR: Do we have to re-run that show for you to…

Mr. GOLDMAN: Yeah, again?

Mr. GILLMOR: I think you at the end of that show and said OK.

Mr. GOLDMAN: No, I didn’t say OK.

Mr. GILLMOR: Why didn’t you say you’re back to – tell me honest - how are you going to control…

Mr. GOLDMAN: So you could be your repress - Steve, can you give me your passwords so I can edit your blog while you’re writing it?

Mr. GILLMOR: It’d be fantastic. I don’t have to do any more writing.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. SCOBLE: If you believe that…

Mr. GILLMOR: If you update everyday…

Mr. SCOBLE: There’s no feed…

Mr. GILLMOR: As long as you…

Mr. SCOBLE: Just give me your – just post your WordPress…

Mr. GILLMOR: You just have to keep, you know, a steady flow of content and I’ll give it to you right after the show.

Mr. GOLDMAN: OK.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. SCOBLE: Just post in the form that -your password – just post it there so that we can all…

Mr. GILLMOR: No, I didn’t say I’m going to give it to everybody. I’ll say I’d give it to you.

Mr. SCOBLE: Oh…

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. SCOBLE: (Unintelligible) is a control, too, huh?

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: No, I’m into free content.

Mr. SCOBLE: OK.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: Kevin Marks, what about Google Wave? Do you think that they’re a threat to Threadsy? I’ll ask you Rob in a minute.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, potentially in some ways in terms of the e-mail cyber. The Wave is small group collaboration. That’s what is – that’s what its weak spot is. It’s not plugged in to the public, web in the same way. It has the – if you have my Wave address you can send me stuff issue. So, it’s not…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, they actually do have a public thing that…

Mr. MARKS: They have this sort of send - yeah, (unintelligible) thing…

Mr. GILLMOR: You can add to public identity and it’s available to everybody who’s not – who’s on Wave.

Mr. MARKS: Right. But it doesn’t have…

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s kind of like that other thing that Scoble’s so freaked out about. Sidewiki.

Mr. MARKS: Sidewiki. I ran into Ward Cunningham this week at Web 2 Summit, who’s the mentor of the Wiki, had a chat about this. And he said Google has two parts they call. Wiki’s the arm - Sidewiki and Searchwiki - and one that is a Wiki which they don’t call a Wiki, which is Wave. So his take was that Wave is a Wiki and it feels very like, you know, the first iteration of Wiki that he built where the comments were into leave with the document you’re editing. And then you had to go back and clean them up by hand and so on. So, he was seeing it as sort of an evolution of Wiki Space rather than as an evolution of e-mail.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, you know, we were – Alex(ph) and I - we’re visited by the Wave team this week. They were sort of, you know, giving us an update on what the progress and so on. And I was sitting next to, or behind Steph’s machine and this is just about the time of the Apple announcement broke. And then they kill this just for the plain(ph) to go by. Hang on a second. And the – it’s just her screen is - you know, she’s got 5,000 Waves that are – that she’s tracking. I mean, probably not that many but a lot. And it’s what Scoble is talking about. It’s kind of what Threadsy starts look like. It’s this – you know, you can see these stories kind of bubbling up and painting themselves at various points on the screen. It’s very interactive and, you know, I think too much is made of, you know, interruption problem and, you know, people jumping in as Scoble is talking about, and writing all over your blog. But, there is at some point what we’re looking for here, when we talk about stream splicing, we’re talking about, you know, what AJAX-enabled, which is this - you know, the stuff it goes back to what Robert care was doing with PubSub and, you know, opening an HTTP connection back on the peer to peer(ph) days. You know, and basically painting little bits on the screen that added up to provide an interactive, socially-aware reference into what’s happening. So, you know, this is where we kind of got bugged down with what Robert’s concern is, and I think they went it as well, about, you know, taking over your page. It’s not your page anymore. It’s the page of the user and how they orchestrate these bits to be able to provide information. It’s not under your control. It’s under their control.

Mr. MARKS: I think - I mean that was - to me that was the interesting thing about the (unintelligible) announced it was social search, which is saying everyone does not have to see the same results page for the same query, which has been true for a little while with local search and national-based result changing and geographic-based result changing. But to say that you now see different results depending on who you’ve told us your friends are that’s very important – for Google…

Mr. GILLMOR: Does that change the economics of – I imagined that it’s both less of a broad reach and also much more of that targeted, therefore, you know, more likely to click kind of audience. So, the - probably the economics go up.

Mr. MARKS: I – well, this is more the search side than the @ sign. So, the primary value there is that you get better search results, I think. Setting ad against social stuff has always been harder but with Google – with Google – when you’re searching on Google we do the term intent of saying I’m looking for X. So, drawing that through your friends that - that – it maybe a wash on the commercial side. You may actually find it, oh, I’m going through my friend’s click as much more compelling than this broader advertising-based on the other side they may see attention that cause it the other way. But overall it should provide more useful information for people searching.

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t understand why people think that search is about - you know, social search is about your friends. It’s not about – for me, it’s not about what my friends think…

Mr. MARKS: So, you…

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s about who my friends are interested in and what they think. It’s like at least three, you know, separations removed.

Mr. MARKS: Right. But do you think what the – you think it’s about…

Mr. GILLMOR: I agree that is what the listing is about. Unfortunately, there’s no tools. Tthey’re (unintelligible) once again to the third parties to develop all those tools. And once the third party has named Facebook they’re going to have a real problem.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: Rob?

Mr. GOLDMAN: I mean, so there’s a lot there. I guess – well, so starting with Wave, if you wan to go back there, my take on Wave is very similar to Kevin that is primarily a collaboration tool. I haven’t seen anyone using it in the way you describe Steve where there’s, you know, hundreds of conversations kind of percolating. You know, I imagined that’s probably only the Wave PMs at this point who have that kind of used pattern for it. I think it would be….

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, you know, the reason that’s relevant is that they’re the ones that are designing the product. So, they’re designing from the perceptions of somebody who’s actually, you know, knee-deep in the environment. So, I mean…

Mr. GOLDMAN: Sure. I mean…

Mr. GILLMOR: Other the right and this is going to be a useful paradigm for the wrong, in which case we don’t have to worry about it.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Yeah. I mean, my take is that they’ve done really interesting things with the communication protocol underneath kind of building these Waves and message together, the ability to kind of see what happened over time, rewind and playback. What I think they’re missing is what Threadsy is trying to do, which is pull people together across their services and Wave, you know, say what you want about what it can do. It can’t do that, at least not yet. And I think there’s also something kind of important that they’re missing in the way that people are sharing concept today, which is by and large not through small group collaboration and more in the sort of broadcast model either the Twitter style or the Facebook style. And I was surprised to see that more or less missing from Wave. It’s kind of a very slight extension of the e-mail-sharing models as supposed to kind of whole field adoption of the new more sort of social-sharing models. You know, in terms of the way social search is going, I’m with Kevin as well. Again, you know, I think different search results based who your friends are is more interesting in many cases than searching your friend’s stuff. And I think Google is in a very unique position to be able to kind of experiment with that.

Mr. GILLMOR: And what about you? Are you starting to see synergies? What’s your user-based right now? I’m sure you’re not going to tell me but…

Mr. GOLDMAN: Web, the user-based?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Oh, we’re still in private data and, you know, not talking about using up (unintelligible) anything like that but I guess I would say is that if anyone wants a second out(ph) go to Threadsy (unintelligible) and we’ll send out invites (unintelligible?).

Mr. GILLMOR: I think Google is trying to jam your signal when you said your – give your – say that once more. How do you get there?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Www.threadsy.com and sign up for an invite.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, that’s to be approved personally by you?

Mr. GOLDMAN: That’s to be what?

Mr. GILLMOR: Does that have to be approved personally by you?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Absolutely, not. No. We’re sending them out to, you know, everyone who’ve comes right now.

Mr. GILLMOR: But you won’t tell me how many?

Mr. GOLDMAN: I won’t say how many. Lots.

Mr. GILLMOR: And what are your plans in terms of going, you know, broader, so that people can – once they’re in this system they can invite people.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Well, so it has been fantastic to talk to these early passionate users and see how they’re using the products and what they want from the product, and we are trying to respond as quickly as we can. So, we just added last week the ability to talk back to Facebook so you can now comment back on your Facebook streams and like things directly from Threadsy. We’re bringing your wall post in now and that was a very frequent request from the users. And we have a bunch more of the sort of top-of-the-list needs that we want to take care of and then we’ll open it up.

Mr. GILLMOR: Can you pipe Facebook comments out to the broader network?

Mr. GOLDMAN: No - like re-tweet of Facebook comment essentially?

Mr. GILLMOR: Uh-uh.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Not right now.

Mr. GILLMOR: Is that a violation of the Facebook Connect terms of service?

Mr. GOLDMAN: You know, I think - that’s a good question. I mean, you can cut and paste and do whatever you want with what’s in your stream now. There are limitations about how you can store it on the server side. So, I mean, my sort of quick off-the-top-of-my-head answer is it would depend on the implementation.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, if it was, you know, a status stream of somebody who is - declares themselves the every one status, in other words, open it would follow logically that somebody who’s commenting on that is essentially dealing(ph) that conversation element to the open space.

Mr. GOLDMAN: You would think….

Mr. GILLMOR: Right, so…

Mr. GOLDMAN: That you would think they spoke – would be, you know, excited about having that spread.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, wouldn’t you like that, Robert, if there was some sort of way of being able to - I mean, I find these orphaned Facebook conversations incredibly annoying.

Mr. SCOBLE: Oh, they’re horribly annoying, you know. When you - when you, you know, chat in Facebook conversation - I was just doing that - it disappears and then you can’t get back to. You can’t even search for it. It’s ridiculous.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. So, what do you think it’s going to happen there? Is there going to be a third party’s? I mean, even…

Mr. SCOBLE: No. That’s something on Facebook themselves has to solve and I think that’s why they bought FriendFeed. And that FriendFeed always left me get back to my old conversations. Every conversations had a permanently. Every conversation was searchable and I can’t do that on Facebook. It was very frustrating. It’s one reason I haven’t put a lot of effort into Facebook yet. When I do get that then I’m going to re-look at Facebook.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, Rob, what is the – how do you walk up to Facebook data? How do you manage this kind of confusing on ramp(ph)?

Mr. GOLDMAN: You mean, how do we integrate it into Threadsy?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I mean, you’re using Facebook Connect, right?

Mr. GOLDMAN: We’re using Connect and we’re being really careful to make sure we’re staying in compliance with all their terms of use. And we’re trying to give you as much control as we have kind of inside the playing field that they have set for themselves. And, you know, I think there are big limitations on what you can do with Facebook Content that don’t exist in the case of Twitter Content. And I think right now, that’s a challenge for Facebook.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, in terms of this Talk Back, you’ve just enabled the ability talk back into the Facebook stream, correct?

Mr. GOLDMAN: That’s right. And, you know, it wasn’t like a super straightforward easy API use case but it’s there now, it’s live and it’s working really well. So, yeah, you can comment. You can talk back on wall post. You can comment on things in the stream. You can like things, you know, all the sort of everyday use cases for Facebook you can do inside Threadsy.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, inside Threadsy, you’ve got what we’re all looking for outside of Threadsy.

Mr. GOLDMAN: I guess you could say it that way. I think you all wanted inside Threadsy.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, that’s fine…

Mr. MARKS: So, what’s with me(ph) of Threadsy was that I go there and it says give me all your passwords and it’s not using delegated (unintelligible). And I went on that page and I thought, hmm, no, there are better ways to doing this - this way.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Yeah. Well, I saw your comment there. Well, so – I mean, we are implementing Twitter OAuth right now and we implement Facebook Connect. So, in the case of that social media service that has sort of developed, you know, password policies with OAuth, we don’t know your passwords. We don’t want to know your passwords. We just want to do whatever you want us to do with that content. In the case of e-mail, we’re kind of stuck in sort of yesterday’s, you know, authorization architecture. And there’s basically no way for us to get your e-mail without your password today and as soon as that’s available we’re all for it. I mean, we’re not - you know, we’re not anxious to fix things you don’t want give us. We just wanted to deliver the service and right now with e-mail there’s no other way to do it.

Mr. MARKS: I thought there was a pre-based API for e-mail.

Mr. GOLDMAN: I’m sorry?

Mr. GILLMOR: What did you just say, Kevin?

Mr. MARKS: I feel there was pre-based API for e-mail but I may be wrong there.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Well, so you can OAuth with Gmail but you can’t…

Mr. MARKS: Yeah.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Get messages and just get headers. And that - that doesn’t really do it if you want to be an email client.

Mr. MARKS: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert, you’ve been following the chat, right?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Any interesting questions that are bubbling up there that you want us to put here?

Mr. SCOBLE: One was that Ken Sheppardson asked if Facebook still prevent developers from caching data for more than 24 hours. What’s the terms of service - the state of the terms of service? We should do a blog post on that, by the way. What’s that – what’s that looked like…

Mr. GILLMOR: That was the Facebook Connect contract, wasn’t it? So is, right? Rob?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Yeah. So it’s covered in Connect, you should check the terms on. I can’t speak to what the current terms are in detail, but what I can say is Threadsy uses the client’s side version of the API so our servers are pretty much out of the loop when it comes to Facebook. It’s all happening down on the client.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. I just want to walk around the table one more time and then we’re going to wrap this up.

Mr. GOLDMAN: We’re not going to talk about Windows 7 or Flickr tags or anything?

Mr. GILLMOR: Windows? How about server leg(ph), huh?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Looks pretty good.

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s getting better all the time.

Mr. MARKS: Flickr – Flickr people APIs do about – people (unintelligible) people tagging us it’s nice. But it does point out the issues that in each of these cases you could only point to a person whose number does the service. That makes that more obvious when it’s Flickr and with Facebook as well. Certainly what these - and got all these photo tagging things but they’re all bound to the members(ph) of a particular service, you know, the bridge across services that’s going to be a bit more important. That’s why - I thought what was exciting about Threadsy is potentially you’re getting a bundle of different identities from me and correlating them. I think that’s a very useful concept. But the fact that we’re doing it through giving all your passwords it was – it gave me a pause. That said, OK, that’s…

Mr. GILLMOR: Right.

Mr. MARKS: I’m not ready to give you the ability to impersonate me on Google yet.

Mr. GILLMOR: We walk before we run, right?

Mr. GOLDMAN: I promise we won’t.

Mr. GILLMOR: But I mean – you know, real question…

Mr. GOLDMAN: You would know my (unintelligible) account.

Mr. GILLMOR: I mean, the problem with that Flickr thing, I was sent an e-mail. They’ve got some new marketing campaign around this new tagging feature, right? And I wasted about half an hour trying to find out what my Yahoo! Id is and getting wrapped(ph) for the 10th year in a row.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: I mean…

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, Yahoo! use two-week time out is already a bad idea.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, how about a 10-year time out? When do I get my name back? I mean, I entered it on some email address that I’ve long since been fired from and…

Mr. MARKS: Yeah. We’ll that’s why, you know, she bundles. This is one of the things that frankly got very right, which was when you sign in with your old Google ID, your old Facebook ID and your old Twitter ID, it wraps them together and then you can use them again overtime with – and you (unintelligible) with anyone you need to pull it back together again. Which means that you don’t have - you don’t have this - oh, I don’t have that email address anymore because the bundles are wrapped together. I expect to see more of that every time as well.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I’m still - how’s that blocking of Scoble going? I block Scoble the other day just so we could test out the - whether or not that was, you know, propagated across Lists and it turns out that it’s kind of broken, right?

Mr. SCOBLE: Somewhat. First of all, I can still go to Steve Gillmor – you know, twitter.com/stevegillmor and I can still obviously see your page even though…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I can write Scoble too, but that doesn’t mean that it’s going to be…

Mr. SCOBLE: And I can’t - oh, this user has blocked me from following them. So, I can’t follow you and I can’t put you on a list ’cause there’s no list here because you blocked me. But, if I went to a list that you’re listed on - let’s see if I can find on that has a small number of people. So, this easy Julie trend has list - has put you on a list.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. How do you spell that? I got to block them too.

Mr. SCOBLE: No, I’m not going to let you do that. And I can see you - you are still - I can still see that you’re on this list. And I can still click on you. I just can’t - you know, I can’t automatically, you know… I can see that…

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. So, there’s a hole there.

Mr. SCOBLE: I’ve (unintelligible) you’d blocked me. But it’s on like FriendFeed – on FriendFeed if you blocked me I couldn’t see you. I couldn’t - you wouldn’t show up in search…

Mr. GILLMOR: That’s why I mentioned in the context of what Kevin was talking about. FriendFeed really closed the holes in this architecture and Twitter continues to have these weird side cases.

Mr. MARKS: Well, I said the thing that I found wrong with the Lists stuff in Twitter is that if we make a Gillmor Gang list, it filters out as acting each other. It doesn’t show us talking to each other within that list, whereas, you know…

Mr. GILLMOR: As you know, I don’t really consider that to be a limitation since the @ sign I think is broken to begin with.

Mr. MARKS: You know, but that’s a separate - you know, that’s a separate debate. The point is that hiding a chunk of the stuff we say even if we’re talking to each other. So actually…

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. So, you have to put a period, and unless you’re like me and you just take the @ sign off and everything is fine.

Mr. MARKS: I think – that doesn’t look at all. Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: No, it works fine. And when you have clients like Threadsy respecting, you know, doing a look-up on Twitter for a name, a username, and lighting that up, then the @ sign goes away too. That’s then would rack a 139 characters.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah. But my point is that the way to do what List does at the moment is to make a new account and follow a bunch of people and then you can use that account as a proxy and you can share that with other people.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right I don’t understand it. That’s what Scoble says, right?

Mr. MARKS: So that’s - I mean – well, if you’re using what – if you’re using…

Mr. GILLMOR: To get over the 200 limit or the 500 limit or - what is it?

Mr. SCOBLE: For what? For numbers, it’s 500 officially, although I found out last night that Twitter can white list you into a longer least limit. So, we’ll talk about that…

Mr. GILLMOR: You know what? I can’t wait for - I can’t wait for the suggested user list list.

Mr. Mr. SCOBLE: Well, it’s not – it’s suggested they mark the special user list web…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. There are two people on the suggested user list list, right now. Microsoft and Google.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. They get their full feed. That what we all want, we want to feel those – suck down that 10 terabytes of a bit or a gigabytes of data a day and…

Mr. GILLMOR: Let them eat cake. All right. So, Rob, final thoughts?

Mr. GOLDMAN: You know, no, it’s been a great conversation. I mean, my take is that, you know, at a high level, everything we talked about is really kind of part of, you know, logical and expected sort of expansion of innovation as all of this communication stuff is kind of shifting underneath our feet. It’ll be interesting to see how that goes over the next couple of years and then it’ll probably comeback together we kind of have our patterns established and we have a kind of winners and losers. So, I think right now, you’re going to see lots of exciting new things and you know, Threadsy is just kind of one of the voices that are emerging to kind of put these things together.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert?

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m having fun out there looking at all the stuff and playing a bit. I don’t have too much to say other than I have Windows 7 behind me and say, I want to go play with that.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. And you got FriendFeed in front of you.

Mr. SCOBLE: FriendFeed, Facebook Twitter, and a few other things. Threadsy.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Threadsy.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, I’m playing with it. First of all, I can’t get in for some reason even though I deleted the cookies like you suggested and the UI is still (unintelligible). And the other problem with U is I’m doing - I’m doing probably somewhere around 80% of my social networking on my iPhone. And it’s tough for me to see a role for Threadsy there until you get an iPhone client.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Oh, yeah. So, you know, you’re not the first person to have said that. We’re thinking a look about that.

Mr. GILLMOR: And what about support for FriendFeed?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Threadsy support for FriendFeed?

Mr. GILLMOR: Uh-huh.

Mr. GOLDMAN: Probably will happen first with RSS.

Mr. GILLMOR: How do you mean by that?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Well, I mean, all the FriendFeed search and lots of the FriendFeed stuff is just available via RSS so it’s just the easiest path in, I think.

Mr. GILLMOR: What’s the delta in terms of delay?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Oh, I don’t know. That’s a good question.

Mr. GILLMOR: So you haven’t explored South or PubSub PubHubbub?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Well, we looked at it but - I mean, not seriously. We just have too much on the plate.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, you don’t see yourself as competitive with them?

Mr. GOLDMAN: No. I mean, I think it’s an enabling technology that we could integrate and should, you know, especially once there’s some consensus.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, you might wait until some of those feature service in Facebook?

Mr. GOLDMAN: Yeah, I mean. I’m - I think we’re all, you know, waiting with bated breath to see what happens to FriendFeed.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, the reason I asked you is that if you do come up with an iPhone client, there’s a hole you could drive a truck through for a decent FriendFeed iPhone client. So, you could solve a number of problems with a single shot. OK.

Mr. GOLDMAN: I’m making notes.

Mr. MARKS: So, I - have you looked to the activity stream stuff yet? That’s another push-push over the Threadsy is. The activity stream spec is designed to do this kind of intra-operation that has a chunk of interesting stuff and it’s already got MySpace, Facebook, NetFlix and a bunch of others who are outputting stuff in that format. So, I think that would make sense for you to look at that that may give you a way to do a sort of feed-based integration that you can then use in several places.

Mr. GOLDMAN: OK. We’ll look. We’ll take a look. Cool.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. This is Steve Gillmor. This has been the Gillmor Gang. I want to thank everybody who showed up. Robert Scoble, Rob Goldman, Kevin Marks, a brief appearance from Dan Farber, driving my director crazy with - I never get this right. Again, I want to thank Rackspace for sponsoring the Gillmor Gang Live on Building43.com. And this TriCast is brought to you in conjunction with New Tech. And I want to thank everybody who showed up and especially those who didn’t. We’ll see you again next time. Bye-bye.

Mr. MARKS: Thank you.

Mr. GILLMOR: Thank you.

Gillmor Gang 10.15.09

Saturday, October 17th, 2009

Location, location, location — foursquare’s Dennis Crowley, drop.io’s Sam Lessin. socialmedia.com’s Seth Goldstein, and Robert Scoble. Recorded live Thursday, October 15, 2009.

Mr. STEVE GILLMOR: Hi. This is Steve Gillmor and this is the Gillmor Gang. Welcome to an edition we are going to continue some of the things that we have been talking about over the past few weeks. Of course, this entire show is about whether RSS is dead and of course it is. But we don’t yet know how this relates to that fact and we are going - I’m sure getting argument from Robert Scoble who has a son named RSS.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: But I’d like to welcome some special guest here. First of all, this is his second time on the gang or actually he’s been on before but second on this new gang is Seth Goldstein who is the – you are CEO and founder of SocialMedia.com, right?

Mr. SETH GOLDSTEIN (CEO, Founder, SocialMedia.com): Yes. Hi, Steve.

Mr. GILLMOR: Hi and welcome.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Hi, everybody.

Mr. GILLMOR: And Seth and I had a conversation, actually it was a chat while he was flying west from New York yesterday afternoon. He suggested that we might bring in someone who he had some conversations with in New York and so joining us from New York is Dennis Crowley of Foursquare. Welcome, Dennis.

Mr. DENNIS CROWLEY (Foursquare): Hey, how’s it going? Thanks for having me.

Mr. GILLMOR: Thanks for being here. And also from, I guess, it’s Brooklyn, right?

Mr. SAM LESSIN (Drop.io): Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Sam Lessin of drop.io who is going to contribute some commentary about all things identity I think and how people…

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. LESSIN: Oh hey.

Mr. GILLMOR: Excellent.

Mr. GILLMOR: And of course we got some sort of simulation of Robert Scoble coming through us from - Yes.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. So, I’m going to have - since I’m - I’ve tried to keep myself blissfully ignorant of all things Foursquare and location in any case, I would like to have Robert Scoble describe for us a little bit about why he thinks that this is such an important technology.

Mr. ROBERT SCOBLE: Because it lets us - first of all it let’s us check in and tell other people where we are like I just checked in at the Ritz down the street and that let’s all my friends who have subscribed to me or followed me here at Sea(ph) where I am. And that - on one level that’s pretty cool but that’s been around for awhile. What Foursquare has really done is at a game on top of that. So, here I just checked in and it says I’m still the mayor of the Ritz in Half Moon Bay. And that make - and you get points for check in at new places and there is badges and here’s the badges that I have so far unlocked which isn’t like many compared to some of the kids and…

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. SCOBLE: Or like in San Francisco. But as you - as you add more things to the system or do more things or add more things that add more badges and that’s pretty cool for cool kids who want to play game. But what’s really need and what really got me to be a huge fan is when you get to Hermit(ph) City as long as it’s in square, people can leak tips and hears the tips for Half Moon Bay that are on my screen. And they include all sorts of things like you know, tres - three amigos has the best tacos in the Coast side. And Pasta Moon said - you appear at the Pasta Moon Restaurant and says get a book or magazine next door and read it while having good wine and doing that kind of stuff. And there’s just tons and tons of little tips on the cities that you landed and I found that - this is much different than Yelp. Yelp tells me what great restaurants to go see but it’s very cold because it’s not from my friends. My friends have left these little suggestions for me. And I really love friend with that…

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. So, it’s fairly…

Mr. SCOBLE: Square foot.

Mr. GILLMOR: Basically he loves it. Dennis, is this what you - did you design this for Robert Scoble or…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Are there other reasons?

Mr. CROWLEY: It seems like it, right? No, I mean I think Robert that’s kind of the best pitch you could have - you could have ever given instead within the job that I do a lot of times. And you know, this is the stuff that we have been working on for awhile. It’s like you know, trying to build tools that kind of intersect in the middle of, you know, how do you make smarter friend finders and how do you make smarter social city guides and really that’s how do you engineer software that can encourage you to do things that you wouldn’t normally do and make you - rewards you for doing this such, for being more adventurous.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. Seth Goldstein, what’s the important of all this?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: I think the important thing is going to come checking in and you know like the most powerful consumer services and social media seem to be able to top into some basic latent human gestures so that Facebook…

Mr. GILLMOR: All right, we’re having a little…

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: (unintelligible)

Mr. GILLMOR: Crisis here today.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: Could you repeat that last, Seth?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: On the hills of people’s (unintelligible) based on people’s inherent (unintelligible) can meet, update the status. Right, they top (unintelligible) to something that was here and I think and just people wanted to share information at themselves and that, and Twitter is being built upon people’s needs to tweet. And I think what Foursquare is topping into is this sort of third - third generation social gesture which is checking in that people for whatever reason want to check in their whereabouts in a social environment and it’s very simple as Dennis himself will tell you in the applications on themselves aren’t phenomenal but they’re topping into something right now. It’s primal and it’s scaling like crazy and that’s why I think it’s important.

Mr. GILLMOR: Dennis, you’re a little jerky because of the bandwidth issues that we seem to be having.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yes, has the audio come through or?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, the audio is fine. So…

Mr. CROWLEY: OK.

Mr. GILLMOR: We’ll just have to live with that. Any comments on this checking in, you know, philosophy and that…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead.

Mr. CROWLEY: Well, yeah, I mean we’ve been using the stuff in New York for years and you know, I mean you know the previous version or incarnation of this was The Dodgeball Project that we are working at Google and it was - you know, we are kind of, it was very lowest common denominator worked on you know on mobile phones with SMS. And you would check in just to know where people are and you know, it was one of this like creed(ph) Twitter things were just like having a sense of what your friends are doing whether they are in or out or where in the city they are or who they hang out with. It just turned out to be like a very, you know, there is something very final about it. You feel like you have like a six sense where you can, you know kind of see around corners and see through walls, just knowing you know what’s going on around you without having to leave your desk or leave your apartment. And you know, like a lot of what we are doing is trying to build on top of that stuff. So, you know a lot people have than done this stuff in the past. They generally stop at the check in. It’s like, oh yeah I checked in and that’s the end of the story. But that’s kind of a beginning of it, right? What you want to know is like where people have been over time and what does it mean that I’m at this particular place at a certain time and that’s all the stuff that we are trying to explore. You know, like dragging off trends like what is it mean that a lot of people are going here right now. What does it mean that a lot of people have been at these places over the last couple of weeks? I think one of the most interesting things we can get in to is in the same way that Amazon or Netflix can make recommendations based on the types of, you know, movies they watched or the types of books that you buy, we can do the same thing for people in places. So, you know, if you’re you know you typically hang out with this group we can - and recommend you know, places to going other people here to meet. And you know it’s - a lot of the technologies are the same which was applied in a different way. And you know, I think on top of that just a lot of things are different now or much different now than they were the last time we’re doing The Dodge Ball like everyone understand - we have spent half time on Dodge Ball trying to explain to people why you would ever want to do, why you would ever want to check in. And now, with, you know in a post twitter world, they twitter and redone that like every - Twitter has explained to people why it’s important to know what you are doing for lunch and what you did last night and what you are doing right now and we get the piggy back off of a lot of that way common knowledge that other people already have now. I think that is why the stuff is taking off in a way that it did not take off the first time that we try to.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: You mentioned Google. Were you at Google in the past?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, yeah. The last thing we worked on Dodgeball we sold it to Google in 2005 where therefore like two years.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, well did you actually work at Google or…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, I was there for two years.

Mr. GILLMOR: And what were you working on.

Mr. CROWLEY: I was working on The Dodge Ball Project.

Mr. GILMOR: And so did they abandon it? I mean, what happened?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, it just. I don’t think it was the right fit for that product at that time, you know and so we try to make it happen there. It just didn’t work and then Alex Rainert, my co-founder, you know, we ended up leaving about two years afterward we both went on to different things.

Mr. GILLMOR: Let me bring Sam into this. Sam, what - do you have any comments on what we have heard so far and…

Mr. LESSIN: Yeah, I mean I think Dennis can confirm this but I think I’m probably one of the first few hundred Foursquare users. I’m a huge fan. I heard Seth completely at the social gesture and you know I actually working with a few friends most notably with John Steinberg and Bill Tall(ph) who are kind of driving this forward. I think that is really confirms, I think we actually built the first app on Foursquare that is called Social Great and actually aggregates at city rebels(ph), all the data into almost real time guide based on now Foursquare and Brightkite and Graffiti Go what’s going on in getting space. It’s super powerful. I’m actually cut the data myself with a few hundred thousand check ins and you know, I’m excited too. I think there’s a lot of depth that you can pull out of it and a lot of really interesting trends and you know I think that you know just as Twitter does an ecosystem format, you know Foursquare and a few other of these great applications that are really started harnessing capture the check in vocabulary and going provide a really interesting open - in some cases data set to drive some huge insight out of it. So I’m pretty excited about it also.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert, drop in.

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m just listening because I agree with everything, you know, there is some serendipity. A lot of people go - this is lame. Why do I want to tell the world where I am right now and once you are on the system you start to understand because you start having meetings with people who are just showing up in your area or like if I am in San Francisco, I had checked in and then I see has anybody checked in within a couple blocks of me at a coffee shop or something like and I have had meetings like that, you know, I see like right now I see Miranda(ph) just checked in.

Mr. LESSIN: Here in Strawberry.

Mr. SCOBLE: Was it?

Mr. LESSIN: He’s in Strawberry. I just saw him check in to Strawberry.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, Strawberry Shopping Center and let’s see MG Siegler(ph) just checked in on 2nd Street and you know and so I can see who is checking in and I can have this serendipitous meetings. But that’s only one piece of it that there is something to the game play. I have played with other systems that are competing with Foursquare like Gorrell(ph) and I just like to game play. I like you know competing with friends in hard away over the local pits(ph) to get - to be the mayor. It sort of a fun little poke that we have back and forth who can go to the pits more often and then check in and who can become the mayor, you know. And it’s also fun when I get in some place new and I see who is the mayor. Sometimes I know that person sometimes I don’t and they usually have their Twitter address so I can Twitter them and say hey, I’m in your spot. What else should I do? You know well, I’m here and that starts with different conversations. Then you also see people twittering you know about their conquest about their badges or about you know, I just became mayor of you know this cool spot, and that there is some conversationality to this…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah but I mean you guys are forcing me into the – into the (unintelligible) role but…

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: So what? I mean you know I…

Mr. LESSIN: So in any case or what?

Mr. GILLMOR: OK, so there’s a lot - You have a lot of free time here I think so.

Mr. SCOBLE: OK.

Mr. GILMOR: Steve.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Well, sorry.

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead, Seth.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: OK. So, I was talking to one of my investors today George Zachary at Charles River Ventures and what you are seeing, what you are looking at. And he said you know not surprisingly that he’s looking at a lot of things connecting. You know the internet world to the physical world. And it reminded me of the stuff that we were doing at (unintelligible) in 1999. We launched the pervasive computing fund and it was early and it was around things like Cosmo.com and Vindigo(ph) where Dennis was in a couple life times ago which was the first - it was just - you know, the first mobile city guide for the Palm Pilot and there was a company called Modo from Scout Electromedia that had a city guide that was based on our pager bandwidth that they could buy in the store, open it up sticking that battery and you got automatic content. And as I thought back about all these businesses and a lot of them failed after the Dot Com Bubble crashed. What surprising to me somehow on this social, you can have social - a social network and a social graph and certainly these identity systems have now made this pervasive computing idea much more we owe. I’m still that, you know, augmented reality in itself, not so interesting, augmented reality simply with, you know, list of local pizza joints that you can see through your iPhone camera, not so interesting. Augmented reality that connects real people that you know or that you have known in the past, you’ve kind of see them through rotoscope or superimposed over the virtual world gets really, really interesting.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right so basically ….

Mr. GOLDENSTEIN: But it’s something.

Mr. GILLMOR: Basically what does began to start to make sense here is the notion of swarming around, you know, businesses, conversations you know the sort of group awareness, a social graph as spread across a bunch of services that start to, sort of, populates. It’s the minority report vision but it seems to be…

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Correct.

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: In the (unintelligible)…

Mr. GILLMOR: (Unintelligible) your bandwidth again. (Unintelligible) your bandwidth again. Now, it’s - turn off the BitTorrent. Sam, Seth mentioned identity. You want to jump in with - where you’re coming from as far as that’s concerned?

Mr. LESSIN: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, this is something that I think about from a lot of different directions. It actually drives forward. The truth is, it’s even behind drop.io, believe it or not. And it’s that what you’re witnessing in the online world is that conversations have three fundamental components. One is identity, who’s speaking. The second is content, what are they saying. And the third is distribution or who’s listening. And kind of each piece influences the next in a really nice way. Historically, you know, if you think about email or well-formed applications like Facebook, communication happens on single platforms that are all raised together in a very kind of nice holistic way, and what I think is so interesting about, you know, in some cases, Foursquare and kind of a gaming element and how that place is generating content, and will drop your focuses which is being kind of the best in breed, next generation, kind of well-timed, cross platform type for content, is that this is all verticalizing. And so, you know, just as Netscape used to sell web servers in the late ‘90s, logically, because there was no internet. So, if you’re going to sell browsers, you have to sell the internet along with it. You know, now, we’re witnessing the fact that, you know, e-companies like drop.io in the content space, companies like Facebook in the identity space, companies like Twitter in the distribution space, and Foursquare, I’d argue(ph), you know, has an identity component and a content component and some days(ph) has a distribution component and we’ll see how that ends up sorting out to know inter-plating(ph) really, really, interestingly and nicely. So, I just think that it’s a really interesting question about how each of these pieces when you chunk it out influences the next and how services, you know, seem to be kind of verticalizing to these different pockets.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. So, unpack drop.io, the description of the company alerted me.

Mr. LESSIN: Sure. So, drop.io, you know, at its simplest is a private way to share files and rich media in a really light wave(ph) fashion with exactly whom you want, how you want. You know, you post files on us through a URL, we convert them, we have kind of an XMPP background behind it, and we let you share things in collaborated real-time. That’s great and we love that and we’re happy to watch it grow. What really excites us in the - for the point of over-viewing and kind of what Seth and I are talking about earlier is we - is, you know, we strongly believe that as the internet verticalizes, you see companies again specifying in these different areas. And one thing that’s been pretty neglected in a lot of ways is companies that focus on facilitating content for content’s sake. And so, companies like YouTube are incredible in the public sharing space. And what they say, based on what the users say, here’s the deal, you know, content’s expensive, we’ll upload it for you, we’ll convert it for you, we’ll close it for you, we’ll serve it for you. But in return, we’re an advertising-driven model, so we want to control the content and we’re going to spread it all over the place and harvest the page used. And, I mean, that’s great for public content. But, you know, 90% plus of the content in the world has a private component. What we’re basically trying to do and go out there is facilitate all that other content and basically give people a plug and play content facilities that are real-time and cross platform and allow you to move things between different inputs and outputs, but then you can kind of raise(ph) into your own work flows and applications. So, it’s really just taking to the point that we don’t do distribution, we don’t do identity. We rely on email for the ad, piece(ph) of our Yahoo! Mail integration, we rely on, you know, Facebook for that and Twitter for that and lots of other things. And it’s just - you know, that’s kind of what we’re after is this kind of verticalization that we (unintelligible) foreseen everywhere. Does that follow or…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. That helps a lot. Let’s turn the tables a little bit and, Dennis, can you comment on what you just heard?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, it’s - you know, we’re thinking about it in the same way, too. And you’re talking about, you know, all these different companies kind of going after different things. We look at it and we’re doing just like assembling - I think, assembling Lego, it’s like pieces that other people have already built or have already tried, you know, like we’re taking, you know, like even (unintelligible) back in the day, it was, you know, taking a little bit of Friendster and dropping it on top of mobile phones, right? And so, I think the stuff we’re doing now is like taking a little bit of Facebook, you know, combining it with Twitter, combining it with Yahoo!, you know, shaking it all up and see what comes up and adding some gimmick and (unintelligible) will happen. Anyway, even to what Sam is saying, it’s like, we’re beyond using just Facebook Connect and, you know, the Twitter Connect stuff just for, you know, bringing people in and they can sign up processes easier. It’s like, you know, we don’t want to build an internal messaging system for our users to communicate with one another. Why would they do that when they can just communicate through Facebook and they can communicate through Twitter (unintelligible), and then that way, we get to kind of offload all of the, you know, the privacy settings that go over that stuff to the privacy controllers that Twitter has already built and that Facebook has already built. And then, you know, it just makes things a lot easier for us and we can focus on things that, you know, that we’re really good at and the problems that we really want solved.

Mr. LISSEN: Yeah. And that - just from our perspective, you know, again, you know, we thought exactly the same concept. What we’re good at and what we want to do for people is facilitate content. Meaning, an XMPP probably can hook into an asset conversion and IO services. When you’re building an application, we want to take care of the content piece of it. But we don’t want to do the distribution piece and we don’t want to give you identity piece, and someday, you know, we’d love to make it so easy that Foursquare can drag and drop rich media right into their application just by calling us back and forth in a really simple way.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, kind of a widget platform?

Mr. LISSEN: Well, I wouldn’t quite call it a widget platform as much as I would call it kind of a way to verticalize and unpack some of these services that are normally considered bundles. So, widgets to me are interesting first step in kind of the interconnectivity of the web. So, they were an interesting version of one. But to me, kind of a concept in a way the other (unintelligible) sits on a page or sits on a (unintelligible) fashion, you know, service is really not as interesting of where the web is going as much as really a seamless connection where you might be using drop.io, you know, inside Foursquare or inside of that application and not even realize it, right? We’re just powering stuff for them and if the connections work properly, that’s great and we’ll go from there. And because we are a premium service model, we’re happy with that. You know, in other cases like Facebook or Twitter or some of the other big audience(ph) examples, the implicit deal with the API is that it gives something and you get something, right? You might, you know, get a lot of distribution and you might get some great services, but ultimately, you know, they have either advertising or a question mark, you know, models behind what they’re doing that you’re obviously going to be compounding. So, but I do think that this is what’s so exciting about where we are in the internet is that we can all build services that talks to each other, which means that everyone can develop much more rapidly better stuff. And (unintelligible) issue…

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. What’s the - you know, what’s the mechanism for walking up to another server or something? Is that a private business deal? Is that an API - developing API, provide access and then wait and see what happens? Or it sounds like this is more of a - this has to have some sort of an intermediary eventually. Seth, do you agree with that?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: What’s the question again, Steve?

Mr. GILLMOR: Do you think that this is going to bubble up as sort of a platform where intermediaries are going to stitch these services together into sort of, you know, mashups? How does this…

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. I think, you know, in the last show, and this is actually when Sam and I first met after the last show, I talked about sort of the similarity - I mean, APIs are obviously, unregulated - there’s no regulated body for APIs and so they’re more and more rampant, and the number of businesses that are being built on top of other people’s APIs(ph) in this unregulated environment reminded me of the strange way of the growth of derivatives and complex financial instruments the last 20 years in Wall Street and so with that platform…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, that’s exciting. That’s going to end up in a financial crash in the widget business.

Mr. LISSEN: Yeah. Well…

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, there’s going to be probably some API meltdown in the coming years. In the meantime, there’s going to be - like there was in the CDO market, you know, a lot of money being made and a lot of platforms coming into being incredibly quickly with a huge amount of leverage and a huge amount of scale with very, very little - with relatively little risks themselves but a whole bunch of risks systematically. Does that make sense?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, yeah. So the question is, are we going to see the so-called, you know, guerillas, and I don’t mean the Microsofts and the Googles so much as the Facebooks and the Twitters and whoever is going to basically neither the on-ramp to their stream. Are they going to be in control of this or is there going to be a third party? I mean, it occurred to me the other day when I was looking at what MySpace did with iLike, was that they were - I think that their current model is pretty much toast, that they were going to do an M run(ph) and basically start acquiring companies or services or features that exist across Facebook and MySpace and other sites and basically build up a sort of an intermediary rule(ph). Do you see that as being what’s going to develop here?

Mr. LISSEN: Do you mind if I jump in?

Mr. GILLMOR: Not at all.

Mr. LISSEN: This is not - I think it’s absolutely fascinating and I couldn’t agree more with the concept of this that’s exactly like the financial system in Wall Street. I wrote a blog post about this in - about a year ago almost now, and this is kind of what we were connecting on, Seth and I were connecting on a bunch recently. You know, I think, it’s very hard to see the concept that some sort of regulatory agency or board or everyone agrees to the same rules and all of a sudden we have real regulation. I think what’s going to happen is some people will regulate; there’ll be kind of transparent pockets and non-transparent pockets. And people will have to make their own decisions in the next phase about, you know, how much they trust any API that are working. And so, companies will have in their incentive to build in lots of ways to be trusted, because the more and more you’re offloading and the more we verticalize and (unintelligible) depends on each other, you know, we basically are both getting a lot of leverage, you know, as we’ve been pointing out and, you know, potentially causing a lot of risks if you’re not sure what exactly it is that’s three layers deep in the financial product or in the API. So, you know, I can’t see a way - although, you know, I’ve been wronged many times in my life - that this problem goes away. I think it’s just going to be one of those things we have to be aware of and be properly evaluating the risk of.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. But when you say trust, that’s a loaded word and it also means different things to different people. What are you talking about? How do you (unintelligible) for us?

Mr. LISSEN: Well, you know, there’s a probability every second the Twitter will go down. And I have a guess on what that probability is and (unintelligible) what other guesses and what they might be and that has a dollar impact in some certain way. And based on the window and the availability, there’s obviously compressions, and the curves are all linear in terms of what the dollar impact is. And so, you know, if, for instance, you know, Foursquare were to start using drop.io as a rich media pipe so that I can move video and pictures through locations and not just textual updates, you know, we are now, intimately linked and they could ask us for an SLA, we probably couldn’t provide one in the way that they’d want because, you know, we’re on Amazon’s (unintelligible). And so, you basically have to figure out, you know, basically, the levels of abstraction below that and make your own bets in terms of what the dollar impact cost is of different, you know, essentially runs on the bank.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right, but, you know, the failover of the internet, you know, basically, the 404, you know, maintains some degree of uptime for somebody somewhere. So, if Twitter goes down, typically, what happens is that people move over to FriendFeed for a while until the services restore. Obviously, I think, Facebook will adopt that as, you know, a certain value proposition for them.

Mr. LISSEN: So, sure. The ultimately - the people, you know, no one dying, we’re not talking, you know, and luckily no one’s losing necessarily trillions of dollars right now, whatever the estimate was in the financial crisis, but someone is losing money when Twitter goes down, right? You know, because now, all these services are agnostic(ph), the Twitter and…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, but, you know, turn it around, somebody is making money when Twitter goes down.

Mr. LISSEN: Yup.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. So…

Mr. LISSEN: But if you’re the guy who has exposure and you’re only making - and you’re losing your - money(ph), isn’t that something you should be evaluating risk-wise and figuring out?

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I think that what we’ve seen and, you know, obviously, you guys can correct me if I’m wrong, but the tendency of, you know, spreading the danger and the risk across multiple streams is - that’s going to become a very valuable strategy and very correctly(ph).

Mr. LISSEN: And so, that means that again, if I’m building, for instance, a Twitter code or service, I have to evaluate whether, OK, if Twitter goes down for this type of the Window, is it worth to be spending the time to also integrate FriendFeed.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. LISSEN: Is it worth the money or is it not? Because I can afford to let Twitter go down and maybe for a day I don’t have ad revenue. Whatever it is, like there is, you know, there’s a really interesting inter-relationship which mean API has built on it – (unintelligible) built on APIs and, you know, ultimately schemes of revenue built on streams of revenue built on streams of revenue. You’re going the trust the guy who’s downstream from you.

Mr. GILLMOR: Somebody was jumping in. Who was that? Dennis?

Mr. CROWLEY: Right now, I was going to say that, you know, we think of this stuff all the time, like we’re starting to pull in some of Twitter’s, you know, Geo API stuff and it’s not mission critical to what we’re doing on, you know, about like let’s say that we were using the Yelp API to pull in over when we did, you know. Well, that does go down, our service is generally – it’s totally – it’s really not an option for us. And you know, as Sam is saying, we have a good weekend until we have a backup provider like, oh, we try Google then we try Yelp and we try Yahoo. At least we have three sources of it there, you know. But maintaining the code that makes those connections all three of those and managing, which has become of a nightmare like you’re tripling the amount of work that you have to do.

Mr. GILLMOR: You know, I’m not sure that this is a job for you, guys. I think it’s a job for the client, basically.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. I mean - well, someone’s got to build it. I mean, it’s…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I mean, these aggregated clients are already effectively providing fail over for these services.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: You know when the guy is going to be on next week, Rob Goldman from Thread (unintelligible) that I hear that thing going off from the background.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t use it a lot right now, but it’s – soon they’re building up, you know, data, you know, much the way the FriendFeed when we adopted it, it became their repository for sort of fail over insurance, if you follow me. It seems that if you combine that with filtering, you have what is probably the next generation of a lot of so-called Twitter apps as they start to migrate upstream to being Twitter plus whatever Microsoft is doing plus, whatever Google is doing et cetera.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. It means obviously (unintelligible) place up. We haven’t - we have no time to play in that space yet but we’ll going to be – we’ll get there eventually.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, what are you doing right now in terms of your development? Is it all about being (unintelligible) of my Starbucks or are we going to see something along the lines of what Seth - and I think Robert have already suggested this - the Sweet Spa where these cooperating services start to swarm around people as they move around?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. I mean, I think – I think we know that the Sweet Spa has been working the space for awhile because we’ve been working in the space for awhile and it’s, you know, how do you – it’s less – like we’re just conditioned to take our phones out of our pocket and ask our phones questions like, where is the nearest Italian restaurant, like what should I be doing right now? Really, the phone has enough, you know, enough sensors in it to kind of gauge your context, are you’re moving or not, are you with people or not? Where were you coming from? In order to – we really make some of those decisions for you. So, I think that’s the space that we’d like to go into or we’re just, you know, we’re making some smarter applications for the device that - you know, as the devices will be coming a lot smarter. You know…

Mr. GILLMOR: But, you know, the thing that happens from these conversations that I find interesting is that not only are we talking about what we were talking about, but we’re also sometimes branching and talking about things that we haven’t thought we were going to be talking about.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: And in the same sense, you know, the shifting nature of services that become available and, you know, based on location can change the conversation and move it in different directions. So, that’s not so much monitoring where people are as allowing some sort of interface that suggests where they are in the - both physical and the larger kind of interaction space.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. I mean, getting that contextual party is more interesting, like people talk about, you know, the difference between location and place. It means, one thing to know that I’m at this, you know, latitude and longitude, but I get a lot more context out of that if you know that, well, you know, I’m in my office with five other people and two hours from now, I’ll be at the - you know, the bar across the street or the cafe out the street. I mean, it says location versus place is, you know, something interesting to think about more definitely, more not like in that place for you, like trying to had context to everything that before doing.

Mr. GILLMOR: Seth, you jump in.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. I just going - maybe reduce it to a sort of simple statement that maybe we’re moving from description to prescription, which is the social jest on Twitter and Facebook, you know, what are you doing? And I think what Dennis is saying is, you know, based on what you are doing, here is what we think you should be doing.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. CROWLEY: I find that a little chic(ph).

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. You don’t want to be too, you know, big brother ask about it but, you know, very cool things can come out of the, you know, types of queries that we can run where, you know, I’m coming to San Francisco next week and, you know, of course, where knows the types of places that I hang out in New York, and it knows who my friends are in San Francisco and where they have been going. So, as soon as I, you know, as soon as I - making recognitions, oh, these are the bars that you’re going visit, the places we should do these and the taco places that you should head. It’s just, you know, interesting stuff that a lot of people haven’t done. We do that prescriptive type of behavior. And then you kind of weigh on some of the game mechanics that we’re doing on top of it, so it’s like, oh, yeah, my job want me in San Francisco next week is to check of the 10 things that Foursquare prescribed for me to do. And it’s like get turns into a little bit of game, it’s forcing me to do things I wouldn’t normally be doing and just like it’s a different way of interacting with people and kind of looking at, you know, social data and, you know, specifically like City Guide’s all data.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert?

Mr. SCOBLE: I don’t have too much to add to this. I do have a bunch of bugs that I want to report but – what’s that, Steve?

Mr. CROWLEY: And so do I.

Mr. SCOBLE: What’s the Steve?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. Go ahead, I mean, as far as I’m concerned this…

Mr. SCOBLE: Some of the things that are - I mean, the obvious ones are if you are not in the city that’s in Foursquare, you can’t check in officially because it says, you know, you’re not in a place that’s…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: Part of the - that’s the major complaint that we hear out on Foursquare. So, how – you just added more cities today, right?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. We added 15 more cities today. We’re going to have a bunch more next week, a couple of more after that. You know, the goal eventually is just to be everywhere, you know. It shouldn’t matter where you are, just be able to work - you know, work everywhere. You know, but that - a lot what we’re doing is we’re writing all of the infrastructure like - in order to get this thing launched in South by Southwest and to get to the point of that is at now we just - we’re rewriting all of that stuff now. So, you know, the bugs that are on that site, oh, they’re awful but we’re getting pretty close just fixing all that stuff.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. The other thing is when I do try to check in sometimes it doesn’t have the place that I’m at even though I know that place has already been added to the data base. See how the – the local - and here is a sub-bug of that same bug. But, so we got a local Pete’s and it’s – the local Pete’s is in there twice.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: Somebody entered it as Pete’s HMB and somebody else entered it as Pete’s Half Moon Bay.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: And the Pete’s Half Moon Bay is the official one, but the Pete’s HMB keeps popping up, and I don’t know how to get rid of the second entry, you know, et cetera, et cetera.

Mr. CROWLEY: Have you seen what we’ve been doing with some of the crowd sourcing, so far?

Mr. SCOBLE: Not yet.

Mr. CROWLEY: So, you know, we’ve been – yeah. So, basically, we look at the user logs and we look at who the best, you know, the best users are. And we’ve been promoting them, giving them like admin capabilities. So, they go in and they fix the venues and they suggest some mergers. And then all the people that are kind of better that those users are more active or more helpful, we promoted them to another level and we allow them to merge those venues. So, like we – it’s funny we have like 2,000, you know, duplicate venue request, you know, an hour before we launch that merge venue tool for the users and I’m like, you know, an hour it looks all done - all those (unintelligible) will fix less. So, it’s nice to have - it’s like basically we have users baby-sitting our data set in the same way that, you know, Wikipedia has people baby-sitting their content, and it’s been working out pretty well so far.

Mr. SCOBLE: The other thing is when I try to check in with the chain, like the local Safeway, I put, you know – first of all, I didn’t pull up Safeway, which is really weird, you know, because you think Safeway is there. And then I typed in Safeway and it checked me in in San Raphael which is two hours away.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: And it didn’t make sense. It’s like, why did it pick San Raphael to check me in? I mean, it should be…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. It’s just we do a horrible job matching chains. But the two big fixes - the two big things that you’re going to see like before Thanksgiving time, hopefully, way before Thanksgiving time or, you know, the everywhere issue, like just use it wherever you want. And then, better venue matching so I cannot - going to have a chain problem. I mean, it’s two big things that are in play right now. We’re rolling like super, super close to fixing them.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. We should also pull in the conversation I had over on my blog between you and Gowala(ph). Gowala makes a point that their system forces you to use the GPS…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: So that you can only check in at the location you’re actually at.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: What’s your take on that? I know what you’re take is because you read it on my blog, but I think it’s good to get that out and not - open here so that we can have a discussion of it.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. I mean, we don’t want to prevent people from using the service. I think, you know, it is a lesson to be learned from, you know, Friendster way back in the day when they saw people making fake profiles and they flipped out and just deleted all the users. And so, you know, we see people using Foursquare in all sorts of ways and you don’t want to prohibit people from doing that. Sure, occasionally - in places that they are not, but – you know, at the same time, you can do some stuff in the backend that flags them. It’s like this kind of a suspicious behavior. And if we see a lot of suspicious behavior from a certain user, we can say, well, we’re not going to count these check-ins or we’re going to remove them from the leader board, whatever happens to me, you know. So, there’s fixes for that that we can do. I think they’ll…

Mr. SCOBLE: The reason I like the Foursquare approach better because you can be fuzzy about your location.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: We talked about this on our earlier Gillmor Gang. I think Kevin Marks brought it up or maybe Seth did where…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: Part of the – when I show people location-based stuff, a lot of them get freaked out. They’re like…

Mr. CROWLEY: I’m sure.

Mr. SCOBLE: Why would I – why would I let somebody know exactly where I am? You know, this is the Google Latitude problem.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: Where it shows you exactly where you are right now if you have it on. And a lot of people want to be a little fuzzy. Like for instance I…

Mr. GILLMOR: A lot fuzzy.

Mr. SCOBLE: I checked in at the Ritz. I don’t check in at my house because I don’t want people knowing my home address, right?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yes, sure.

Mr. SCOBLE: And so by checking in at the Ritz it adds - it’s close enough that you know I’m in the neighborhood, so if you’re at the Ritz you can call me up and say, hey, why don’t you come over and have a drink. But it adds some fuzziness to my actual location…

Mr. CROWLEY: So you’re not - you know, a person who doesn’t know me closely if they accidentally - or if they get added to my friends’ list, they won’t know the actual location of my house.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. Well, I think there’s two things that’s right. So, there’s the difference between like active tracking – or, I’m sorry, the always on tracking like Google Latitude does and then the Opt In stuff like Force Word does. And – I mean, there’s no question in my mind that for doing social apps you really needed to be opt in tracking. And, you know, the situations that we’re talking about where people not wanting to disclose their location it’s not - I think it’s less about – of crime and danger, but it’s more close – it’s more about awkward social situations, you know. Sometimes it’s just awkward for everyone to know where you are because you’re, you know, you’re on a date or you know, you skipped someone’s birthday party and you’re suppose at work and you’re not. You know, it’s like all these little – I don’t always think they’re white lies, but there is - you know, there is like the fuzziness to location that goes beyond than just, oh, I’m in this neighborhood but like, you know, oh, maybe I’m not where I’m supposed to be I don’t know need to necessarily disclose that. Because - go ahead.

Mr. LISSEN: Sorry, to say – I mean, I started doing this thing early on which I’ve actually done to a few friends jokingly which I call four crashing where you’re just near them, I just show up. And I - once or twice, I actually fore crashed some dates and it is awkward. So…

Mr. CROWLEY: People – people learn over time that there’s some situation you check into and there are some situations that you don’t. And I think it’s important for us, as long as we have those tools that people can use, you know. It’s not like we’re scrambling to build them people will learn, oh, I’m not suppose to, you know - I’m not suppose to broadcast my location when I - you don’t want people coming in, knocking in, you know, the glass outside the restaurant.

Mr. LISSEN: And then of course, you have for Four (unintelligible) thing, which is when you check in someone you’re not actually at to get people to fore crash you there, and then, you know, you ended stranding them. So, it’s…

Mr. CROWLEY: It’s – man, I wrote like a paper on this once in grad school about all like the, you know, the weird things that people would do with dodge ball that seems to translate over the Foursquare to avoid like awkward social situations, you know. Like you got like the pre-check in where people will check in like a - you know, 20 minutes before they go to a party, you know, to get other people there so when they arrive they’re not the first ones in. You know, and there’s all these like little weird ways of, you know, people have co-opted the tools as their own, you know, to get the desired effects out of them that if you…

Mr. LISSEN: You can even do fore closing, we came up with the other idea which is if you’re the last person to check-in and no one ever checks in after you, you’re probably not a very good person.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right, Seth…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. It’s a funny thing. You got to build the tools that are flexible enough to like, you know, to take into consideration all the critic things that people want to do with them. You know, you just don’t want to push people away from checking in, so…

Mr. GILLMOR: Seth, this is what you wanted to have happened, right? This is the discussion that you find fascinating, right?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: I’m interested in this. I’m interested because…

Mr. GILLMOR: I am too. I just want you to say why you’re interested.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: OK. I’m interested. I’m interested because it feels like on the spectrum that checking in is a bit easier gesture than tweeting. Because when you’re in, it knows more about your context that you can choose or - you know, you can choose to not check in but there’s less friction. There’s, you know, the issue with tweeting or without doing your Facebook status is what are you going to talk about? You know, what are you doing now? As oppose to checking in where, you know, in the world of a GPS and (unintelligible) iPhone or whatever, it sort of already knows it can begin this (unintelligible). Now you may augment it with a shout or something, but it’s becoming more and more implicit. (Unintelligible) the services that have gone over the line, whether it’s Google Latitude or Beacon, in its first instantiation where – or even some of the stuff that (unintelligible) with Quick Stream syndication Steve, a couple of years ago with attention trust. Clearly, there are these lines that if you share too much too soon, too automatically, too implicitly, there’s going to be backlash. But, what seems to be working is this slow, incremental approach where it is opt in but you’re taking away more and more friction by virtue of, you know, the mobile social devices that you have available to you. Some make sense?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. What comes after checking in? What is the next gesture? I don’t know, obviously. Otherwise, I would be trying to figure that out. But…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I think it has something to do with what seems he’s talking about.

Mr. CROWLEY: That’s opt in. That’s opt in that - but that leverages a lot of implicit momentum so you’re not starting from a blank slate every time.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. There’s some sort of, you know, profile that’s captured to this, you know, a dynamically update profile that takes into account multiple services. It seems like, you know, is what we’re talking about.

Mr. CROWLEY: I think we’re - you know, we’re pretty close to being able to pull some of the stuff off. So, you know, Foursquare – you know, just to the checking data we know – like we know that you’re in a café and we know a couple of people that checked in before you, and we know that you’ve been there a lot. And then once we start, you know, aggressively tying stuff to Twitter we can say, oh, what are the things that you tweeted about at this time? Oh, you must have been at a movie, the movies you saw, oh, like, you always go to the movies with these particular people. Or we can tie it in post – you know, after the fact with Flickr. Like, oh, well, we automatically know that these Flickr photos are, you know, tied to this venue because we were checked in at that time, and they probably have these people in there so we automatically tag us up too. There’s this, you know – there’s really interesting ways that – not the services necessarily but just the data over our lap. And so Foursquare can – you know, Foursquare can fill in the missing location information from a tweet. And Foursquare can fill in the missing context information from a photo that you’ve taken. And, you know, all these things can kind of work back and forth.

Mr. LESSIN: The interesting part about checking in versus loyalty of friends is there’s actually a lot more information per bid in a check in and there is in latitude, right? Because you’re seeing - not only you’re exclusively checking in, that carries a lot more information in a passive location.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: And I wondered what a lot of these services like – it’s interesting like tagging a photo is an explicit gesture that actually carries information, right? And so there’s like this interesting dynamic between how much of the stuff should be automated or optimizes automated and how much of it. Actually, what you’re doing is each those clips have like an implicit dollar value or like whatever, a retail value and then you exchange it. So one thing I always find interesting at Foursquare is, you know, there is a social value exchange to checking in with other people, right?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: You’re actually telling a story and it’s interesting because that’s – it’s a story because we all are doing it actively like we’re all clicking. Whereas if it’s just passively said hey, you’re with other people, there’s no explicit gesture that actually play less valuing. I don’t know. I mean, I just think it’s really interesting dynamic because there is this kind of tension between - you know, Facebook friend tagging, that’s an explicit valuable action, right?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: Like actually tagging everyone automatically isn’t necessarily the idea, right? We’re actually removing information from the system

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I don’t think we’re doing it automatically, but you know, you make it easy for people to leverage the data that we’re collecting and then push it to other services. You know, like Geotag these tweets, Geotag these photos, tag these photos of people if I want that stuff to kind of to occur. I think you’re totally right when you – like, it goes back to that - you know, we talked about a check in being more valuable than a check in on Foursquare than - you know, an update on latitude, for example. It goes back to the location versus place thing. Like, there’s one thing to be (unintelligible), there’s another thing to be a venue name, but then it’s a completely different other thing to say oh, not this venue, you know, with six other people and here they are. You know, it’s like a little bit out of context that you get for free and you can determine a lot from that information. Are you on a date? Are you at a birthday party? Are you with a lot of people? Are you with a couple people? I mean, that’s just - there’s a lot of information that we can pull out.

Mr. GILLMOR: Have you thought…

Mr. LESSIN: You’re sharing social credit back and forth. It’s what you’re doing?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, totally. You’re making…

Mr. LESSIN: If I don’t want to check in and everyone else is checking in, then I’m basically telling everyone else in the room that I don’t want to admit that I’m with them, right?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, there’s a social pressure effect.

Mr. LESSIN: The conversation I have with Dennis, that’s great. I want to tell everyone on my desk.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: What about the kind of virtual check in? I mean, have you thought about, you know, sort of a Second Life type of integration with this between so-called real and so-called virtual worlds?

Mr. CROWLEY: Not really. You know, There’s really – there’s some – I like the fact that Foursquare is a software that like overlays very nicely with the real world, right? And so, you know, when you go to a place, you dip into your phone for a second, but the information you’re getting is about what’s going on in the real world. Like, I’m not into – not really big into the, you know, dropping fiction on top real life type of part of it. I’m going to say…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I’m not talking – I didn’t mean to imply by the use of Second Life (unintelligible).

Mr. CROWLEY: OK.

Mr. GILLMOR: I’ve never been in Second Life except – I think I was dragged into a room once by somebody with IBM, but it was forcibly – I was kidnapped. No, I’m talking more about – I mean, what we’re doing here for example is…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: We’re establishing a place.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s kind of a virtual place that does have, you know, a certain amount of social dynamics to it as well.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: And I guess I’m asking Sam this more because what you’re doing with Rich Media types here – I mean, what component of streaming are you involved with right now?

Mr. LESSIN: Yes, I’m with Drop.io. You know, the goal is that we can ingest any digital asset. So any type of picture, video, document, whatever, in whatever format you want to push it to us in. And then we’ve kind of built out, you know, the kind of conceptual back end lobby applications for figuring out what it is and then turning into whatever other format you want that you can then move out in kind of a real time, you know, basis. You know, (unintelligible) background via push or, you know, right now also VRSS if you wanted. And you know, for us, the whole point is that Rich Media, people still think of uploading and downloading a file, the bits themselves. That’s not the point. The point is moving information. And so a video or a document or a picture, these are just container types. And our job at Drop.io, is to basically make it totally seamless for end users, for small businesses and consumers now, you know, through email and other formats, but also for people building applications and work flows to basically leverage that so that, I mean, everything streams not only kind of over the web which, you know, is valuable obviously, but basically based on where you are. You can pull down that information from whatever container it was originally in and whatever container it’s best to consume it in that moment. So it’s all about kind of just - we really have to - it’s like very old paradigm of the importance of a file and what a file is, and what we’re trying to do is kind of re-contextualize and generalize it as saying, you know, there’s signal in the world, there’s valuable information and it’s unfortunately very tough to move it right now if you are not willing to broadcast it because every model today and most models today on line are fundamentally based on the broadcast model in order to harvest the adults.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: So we just want to give people that flexibility to move signal efficiently.

Mr. GILMORE: Seth…

Mr. CROWLEY: Can I just ask something that’s kind of (unintelligible)?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, sure.

Mr. CROWLEY: OK. So Sam, I think you guys have this. But you know, we talked about geotagging content. I can take a photo on its tie to, you know, New York or its tie to the street address. But Sam, I think you’ve done something where you have drops that are tied to location that can only be unlocked at that certain location. Is that correct?

Mr. LESSIN: Yeah. So basically, we have this metaphor called “the drop”, which is a point of exchange. And you – it’s just addressable space. So on the web, we talked about it as a URL. Drop your system is all about making this points of exchange and then typing information in and out of them. So I can make a drop that exist at drop.io/ - you know, heydennis.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: But - which can also do because it’s just a different way to describe a location and say, I actually know. This drop is at 68 J Street. And you literally drop a pin in it, essentially. And so instead of describing it with URL, you describe it with a physical location.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: And you can do all sorts if interesting stuff around that by saying, OK, well, you can only open it if you’re in a certain radius of the information or you could say instead of - you can go to your mom and say hey, mom, it’s not the files (unintelligible), drop.io/heydennis. I just put them on top of your house. Why don’t you go open it, right? Because what’s the difference between a location and the URL? Actually, very little. There’s just ways of describing somewhere.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: And so that’s where the drop is. It’s the container that has the description and some interesting inputs.

Mr. CROWLEY: I mean, that’s a really big idea. You know, when we think about - you know, if we’re talking about how to cross phone services here - that’s kind of what the last question went back to. It’s like, what does the check in actually unlock? And there’s no reason why - like, if you want to unlock the new JC track, you specifically have to the go to the record store, check in, and then you get it sent to your phone.

Mr. LESSIN: Yeah. So that…

Mr. CROWLEY: It’s such a huge idea like no one is playing with you.

Mr. LESSIN: So we’ve actually – we should talk because the answer is like, we’ve actually had some really interesting conversations specifically with record labels about that.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: You can also layer another type – so we have also this kind of concept that - she accessed a drop that has a location and then you can have parameters on top of that like a password. But the other thing you do with drop is actually drop a pay wall on top on it. So you can say, you must be here, which is where the information is, and you must pay me five dollars in order to open this, right?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: And you can kind of do these relationships about moving content. And yeah, I mean, it’s interesting because really, you talked about the physical versus the digital and the convergence between the two. It’s really just space, right?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: It’s just ways of describing areas that you interact with in different ways and then moving content bits and context through those spaces.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah.

Mr. LESSIN: And so we like, do the content and you guys do the contest.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, so Dennis…

Mr. CROWLEY: That’s awesome.

Mr. GILLMOR: It will be interesting to - for the people who watch this on YouTube to be able to scroll back about 10 minutes and then listen to what you just said.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. Looks like, you know, Scoble knows how, you know, how engaging the mayor aspect can be, like to be the mayor of a coffee shops or a hotel or whatever and - you know, right now, like we have a couple of places that will give out like a free hot chocolate or free appetizers, free beer to whoever is the mayor the place. But being - to tie it to like, you know, digital properties like – yeah, you get this album if you’re the mayor of this place and you can only get it by becoming the mayor of that place. I mean, that’s like – it’s just a really interesting idea that a lot of people haven’t really explored yet. Thanks for showing out there.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. Well, I think that - you know, Seth, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this as it gets into the advertising room.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: I’m sure you would. That’s what we do here at socialmedia.com. However, I’m going to talk about something else, which is…

Mr. GILLMOR: All right, just as long as you get back to what I asked you.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Sure. I always do at some point.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: The (unintelligible) comment and the fact, you know, I think that well, Foursquare just for this early adopt the market to relatively small audience relative to the number of Facebook users, et cetera. I thought a scale a couple of weeks ago that just arrived yesterday, that’s a wide vast scale and it’s now in my bathroom. And when I step on it, it sends my weight and my body mass to a web server, and so all my kids got on it. They all configured it now. Over breakfast, we’re looking at each other’s weight on my iPhone that was listening to what the scale was saying in the other room. And I don’t know what comes on that. I don’t know. I’m sure Sam and Dennis have a much better idea how to connect that to the fit that’s coming to Foursquare or the restaurant recommendations to the fact that I should be eating more (unintelligible) as opposed to more bread meat. I don’t know. But we’ve gone beyond the – it’s moving into our houses, right? You know, iPhones are not for small matured anymore. More and more people have them. There services are syndicating. They’re connecting with each other. All these APIs are talking to each other and just it is what it is and it’s happening, it’s pervasive, and I do think at the edge of all these different APIs, I think what the challenge is - kind of back to the earlier question around, you know, this sort of coming API apocalypse, is the investors love – I mean, I’m sure investors love the idea that Dennis and his team with four people, right? Five people?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. No. Four of us, you know.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Four people, I mean, have tremendous leverage. You know, given - you know, you build a very leverageable business. We’ll see if you can monetize it properly but with very few people, with very few - not a lot of code, you kind of move up, stag at a really important place. And so I think it’s going to be – I think the same thing I can say about Drop.oi and others, which is with some smart quoting on the front-end into 10 APIs, you create some substance. And Mint is a great example of that. Mint was built on top of Yodlee. Yodlee spent 10 years building all the hooks and the anchors and the connections to all the banking infrastructures. What they did exceptionally well is put a front name on top of it. It was really useful (unintelligible) and hid behind the scenes all the (unintelligible) coming and (unintelligible). And so I think we’re going to see it with $170 million exit. That’s the kind of investment that early stage venture capitalist want and they’re going to support and publicize. So I think there’s going to be more and more of these services that do nothing other than connect other people’s APIs and put something on top that is an input. So in the case of Foursquare checking in and the case of my scale, I step on it and without even touching a button, it just knows how to send, you know, my weight to web server. So I’ll check it out later and share with people.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. You know, what I’m thinking is I want an API for your scale so that when you gain – well, I’m sorry, when you lose 10 pounds I can give you the Congratulations You Lost 10 Pounds badge.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, just as long as you never get that data from me.

Mr. LESSIN: Dennis and I were out actually a few weeks in ago at an event and I actually was playing around with a garment heart rate and location watch that I have. And we were drinking, just not too much, but you know, we had a glass of wine or two that dinner. And we were checking in and then I was watching my heart rate change, you know, as I had a lot of alcohol on my system and I think that, you know, when you start to – when you talk about an API that would will be interesting. I mean, there’s all sorts of crazy data in the world that you start mashing up, you know, you can have - you can give out badges for.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah. Oh, that’s - I love that stuff. I mean, if there’s no – I don’t want - like – of course we establish hugely inspired by Nike Plus, you know, the thing you put in your shoe and, you know, you plug in to the bucket, the bottom (??) and then you go running and then track how many miles you ran and you can compete against other people. And you know, have this experience with the Nike Plus where it was like a rainy, you know, September day and I had no other incentive to get out of bed except to earn the points that it was going to take me to beat my buddy Alex, you know. And it’s like there’s no other way I would have one out of bed if it wasn’t for that little bit game mechanic.

Mr. LESSIN: Yeah…

Mr. CROWLEY: You know, I think that can - game mechanic as motivator can do lots of different things like to exercise more, to see more films, to meet more people, and to do any these things. It’s fantastically interesting and as we start to think about what can you do with other people as API it’s like, yeah, I watched 20 films this month through Netflix, let’s add a game mechanic to that. Oh, yeah, why read 10 books – presumably read 10 books through Amazon, let’s add a game mechanic to that. There’s a lot of - there’s a lot of interesting stuff we can do and there’s a lot of data that’s out there just waiting to be used.

Mr. LESSIN: Sorry…

Mr. SCOBLE: Dennis, are your APIs open? Because I know I was talking to the guy who’s building the South by Southwest iPhone app for next year and…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah…

Mr. SCOBLE: And we were saying why don’t you hook in all the bars into Four Square…

Mr. CROWLEY: Awesome, yeah…

Mr. SCOBLE: And let people check-in in your app and show where people are…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah…

Mr. SCOBLE: We just didn’t know what kind of API you had and whether that was, you know…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, definitely, put me in touch. We have an API. It’s kind of a private data and there’s probably 40 people that are playing with it. If you want to play with it you can always e-mail us and we give it out. We’re just trying to get the scaling issues in the site under control before we open up to everyone. But we are - it’s funny, we’re seeing our first round of apps come out that are kind of competing with their owns apps like, you know, different iPhone clients, different Android clients, you know, different clients for Four Square that kind of do the same stuff that we do. See the early days with Twitter again. You know, we’re - like they build this stuff and they’re kind of like competing against themselves until they just give up with that risk(ph). But we’re – you know, we’re still continuing with our own (unintelligible) phone app and try to make that as…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah…

Mr. CROWLEY: Awesome as possible.

Mr. SCOBLE: To go back…

Mr. CROWLEY: But for these guys definitely put me in touch because I love to see that built in and out.

Mr. SCOBLE: OK. To go back to the Dodgeball times, what did you learn from being in this - on the right target but having Twitter take the game away from you guys? And what are you doing differently with Foursquare to make sure that nobody come – you know, Evan Williams doesn’t come in and take away the game again?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, well, you know, I don’t think in the sense that we like we’ve lost out to them. We were doing two different things, right? But this time around if you can look at – like we’re just – we’re really into locations. It might just be the fact that we’re in New York and, you know, we have been conditioned like my list – my group of friends are being conditioned to use things like (unintelligible) Foursquare to make plans. It’s like there’s no other way to make plans, you just go with the checks in is the way to go. But I think the big thing that’s different this time around is, you know, we recognized that Dodgeball was a kind of crappy, one-player experience. Like - it’s like, you know, signing up to Facebook and having one friend, like that’s no good. And a lot of people sign up and they only have like three or five friends and so like how do you make that more interesting to them? And our approach to that was like you make it a better one-player game. You add game mechanics, you let people, you know, you reward them for discovering places. You reward them for doing something different and then hopefully, you know, that last long enough to get that, you know, get people to invite their friends and then it becomes an entirely different experience. So I think there’s a couple of things there that we can do.

Mr. SCOBLE: One thing Twitter taught us was the that game - the rules of the game can change, right? You know, Twitter is sort of a game. I mean, you can have a game over followers or number of friends. Let’s see who guys have more (unintelligible) follower numbers…

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, sure, sure.

Mr. SCOBLE: And they change the game by doing the suggest user list. What guarantees do we have that, you know, if I become mayor - you know, that you won’t change the term of the game and let people buy the mayorship away from you or something like that, you know.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, I guess it goes back like a trust issue, you know. We know that if we did that that would break the game for people. Like I had a call with an advertiser today that one of the bomb like, you know, super users up and they’re checking this count as twice as much. I’m like, no, that’s awful, that breaks the rules of the game, it breaks the promise that we made to the users. And so, you know, I don’t think of ourselves as a game designers, you know, but like, you know, that being said I think, we’ve got a strong enough handle on, you know, how to push people’s buttons especially after doing a lot of this stuff. Like seeing how riled up people get about cheating, seeing, you know, people make paycheck(ph). And it’s like we know - we know what to do that, you know, people really love and we know what to avoid. That’s what we’re going to, you know, upset people in some way(ph). I don’t think we ever want to break that kind of, you know, contract that we have with the user that kind of keep it fun and engaging.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah…

Mr. GILLMOR: All right, I think we’re going to start to wrap this one up. So, I’d like to go back to Seth and get the answer to my question that he never gave me.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: What about the advertising? Where it’s going to go? I mean, I hear a couple of things about the nature of companies that might emerge to sort of take advantage of this real time serendipity that, you know, these kind of social swarms that are going to start to take place. But, you know, since you’re – I’ve a hard time hearing you so you maybe locked up again.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: You hear me now?

Mr. GILLMOR: Try it again.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: OK. Can you hear me?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: In the line of best formation - I mean, the evolution from demand – fulfillment of the demand creation (unintelligible?) from Google as the information company to, you know, Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare and others as social media companies. And in light of demand creation it’s really about suggestion like we talked about before, move the description to prescription. And I think there’s an opportunity for advertisers to prescribe things(ph) want people to do. And so as the case of, you know, Twitter, we, as a social media built (unintelligible?) be interested in ad products that suggest people to tweet about certain things. And so, ordinarily, people are (unintelligible?) to give out with every (unintelligible?) and you don’t know what you’re going to tweet about. And if I knew that you were a runner based on your tweet history maybe you’ll tweet it out the new (unintelligible?) issue. And maybe you would - somebody wouldn’t because they’re not a runner. And so the Foursquare model, I talked to Dennis about this, is the opportunity for (unintelligible?) and for company (unintelligible) to get people to (unintelligible) recognized that might get you to checked in (unintelligible?). And you have social network for the (unintelligible) very beneficial as Starbucks you check in there. Like (unintelligible?) on this directions.

Mr. SCOBLE: Steve, we’re not hearing you.

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, he broke up…

Mr. GILLMOR: Sorry, yeah, it’s really hard to hear Seth, because of the bandwidth problem we’re having. Dennis, do you know what he was referring to in terms of the conversation you had?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, I think he was talking about like the way the context that you, you know, that you associate with Foursquare check-ins and really, the context we associated with tweets like, you know. Right now there’s not a lot of structured data in Twitter to know that you were talking about the movie or to know that you were talking about sneakers, or you know, whatever the topic happens to be. And you know, we have a little bit of that baked into Foursquare because, you know, we know the location and, you know, if you are in a movie theater we’re going to assume maybe you’re talking about the movie or whatever. But I think what he was getting at is that, you know, these things are kind of measurable. So, if we have people that check-in at coffee shops and then broadcast their location to, you know, a thousand, 2,000 followers and that’s basically (unintelligible?), hey, I checked in that thing coffee, you 2,000 people should also do that because that’s where I go. And right now, there’s no way to reward - you know, if I tweet that out or if I, you know, send to Foursquare check in that goes to a large number of people, like there’s no way that me as a user is getting rewarded and then maybe an opportunity for that at the future.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Because like maybe an…

Mr. CROWLEY: Where, you know, branch care…

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Problem?

Mr. CROWLEY: Is it what?

Mr. LESSIN: And so that’s going to be FTC problem, it’s like going to be $11,000 fine?

Mr. CROWLEY: Yeah, I don’t know how that stuff works out. We’ll let someone else get find that first then we’ll figure it out.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, asking a similar question of you, Sam. What’s the – it doesn’t’ sound like your company is particularly consumer facing at the moment or is…

Mr. LESSIN: Well, actually - yeah, I mean, it’s quite (unintelligible?) at the moment and what we’ve been kind of going through over the last two years since we started it is moving it from being a consumer-focused company, kind of up the change that we don’t only help kind of, you know, early adopters and consumers but small businesses, some large businesses, and now we’re kind of – we’re about to expose all the basically the entire system at API level so that you can hook in and use any of our services to power your kind of own ends and needs. You know, it’s interesting when you start to think about content to separate from identity in distribution a lot of the dynamics changed pretty significantly. And so, you know, it’s been really interesting to watch. I mean, the number one asset on the (unintelligible) photos because that’s what people have the most of. But really the diversity of uses to put – put it to everything from my favorite example of people sharing pictures – kid farmer sharing pictures of their pigs and videos of their pigs for auctions(ph), you know, through the kind of mom sharing baby photos and creative agency sharing video rough cuts, it’s been pretty interesting to watch.

Mr. GILLMOR: We just dropped our screens so I’m going to wrap this up on the recording.

Mr. CROWLEY: Can I just say – in the last few seconds Seth had sent me…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. CROWLEY: A link to the RSS feed for his scale. So that data is available, you can use a component if we want to play with it.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. So I want to thank Seth Goldstein. Thank you, Seth.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Welcome.

Mr. GILLMOR: And I want to thank – and particularly for the idea of having these two guys come on a show. It’s been fascinating.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Steve, it’s a part of the New York School. Let’s not forget there’s some really, really, really exciting ideas and companies being built in New York even though I left there for San Francisco couple of years ago.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I keep seeing you on Twitter, being on a plane to New York. So, I think that’s pretty obvious. You’re using Moreno’s bedroom community now from New York.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Correct.

Mr. GILLMOR: Sam, why don’t you get in touch with me and let me – you know, start taking advantage of your service I’d be interested in doing that. I’m still not going to touch Foursquare because you guys are just…

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: Just kidding. Dennis, thanks a lot.

Mr. CROWLEY: We’ll get to one of these (??).

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, it took me about a year to go into Twitter and it took me about three years to get out of it. Robert Scoble, thank you so much.

Mr. SCOBLE: Thanks and I’m carrying a fit bit – fit that too and we’ll report that on the web some time after I start exercising…

Mr. LESSIN: We’ll use some API, we’ll mix some magic from here.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK, this is Steve Gillmor. This has been The Gillmor Gang. I want to thank everybody who showed up and especially those who didn’t. We’ll see you again next time. Bye-bye.

Gillmor Gang 10.08.09

Saturday, October 17th, 2009

The Gillmor Gang — Robert Scoble, Kevin Marks, Dan Farber, and Loic LeMeur — talk Twitter with John Borthwick and Laura Fitton. Recorded live Thursday, October 8, 2009.

Full transcript below the video, courtesy of Simulscribe.

Mr. STEVE GILLMOR (Host): Hi. This is Steve Gillmor. This is the Gillmor Gang and we got a full house today, including, in no particular order so, I’ll start with the lady, Laura Fitton - otherwise known as Pistachio and evidently, having some interesting talks with one of our favorite micro-messaging services. But she’s not going to admit that. Also, on the call, one of…

Ms. LAURA FITTON (Founder, Oneforty.com): Sure, Steve.

Mr. GILLMOR: Our favorite micro-messaging services partners in a number of ways and probably the most prolific. I don’t know, I guess you aren’t a venture capitalist, but we’ll find out what you are. John Borthwick of Beta Works. Welcome, John.

Mr. JOHN BORTHWICK (CEO, Beta Works): Hey, Steve.

Mr. GILLMOR: Our regulars, Robert Scoble, coming to us from Half Moon Bay. There’s somebody behind him who’s got the keys to his ankle bracelet. And Kevin Marks.

Mr. KEVIN MARKS (Weblog Author, Epeus Epigone ): Hi, there.

Mr. GILLMOR: Welcome, Kevin. And Dan Farber on the phone from New York, CBS News Online. Welcome, Dan.

Mr. DAN FARBER (Editor-in-Chief, CBS Interactive News): Hi. Good to be here.

Mr. GILLMOR: Thanks for joining us. And last but certainly not the least, representing all things European, the fabulous, Loic Le Meur.

Mr. LOIC LE MEUR (Founder, Seesmic Web): Hi, everyone. Just not European, I hope, but hi.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well…

Ms. FITTON: I don’t think raccoons are European.

Mr. GILLMOR: We’ll get into that argument later in the year. We’ll see what Arrington has to say about that. So in any case, I wanted to continue the unraveling of the “RSS is Dead” theme some more. Over the past few weeks, we had some very interesting discussions with people from PubSubHubbub, Bret Taylor from Facebook/FriendFeed, and just - it seems like that the RSS and real-time space have collided now and we’re on our way toward actually seeing what parts of these various old systems and new systems are going to be able to work together. And I want to start by asking John Borthwick. John, what’s your take on the emergence of what I would - I guess you could call a bridge between the old word of RSS and the new world of micro-messaging? How do you think that’s going? Do you think it’s important, et cetera?

Mr. BORTHWICK: So I think it’s very important because I think that the infrastructure of sort of open - the messaging box has been opened up beyond the proprietary networks that, you know, formed a lot of the early stage innovation and so I think it’s really important. It’s - how is it going? I think it’s going pretty much as you would expect and there’s a bunch of innovation happening. There’s some efforts right now to standardize some of that. Most of it is moving in a sort of coherent, similar direction and I think it’s all good.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert Scoble, what’s your take on where we are in terms of integrating RSS with the real-time?

Mr. ROBERT SCOBLE (Technical Evangelist and American Blogger, Scobleizer): I think there’s been a lot of innovation in the last two months, you know, with the RSS Cloud and the PubSubHubbub, but I’m still waiting to see a real move toward a decentralized style of Twitter.

Mr. GILLMOR: Laura, do you believe there’s such a thing as a decentralized Twitter? And how do you see the real-time environment shaping up at the moment?

Ms. FITTON: Do I believe there will ever be such a thing as decentralized Twitter? You know, as much as I’m obviously a raving fan of the service and pretty deeply steeped in it, it’s hard to imagine it resisting all market forces to open up. I think interoperability and some form of federation will come in to play at some time and certainly the way - I mean, RSS offers one interesting standard and the way – obviously, I’ve been very, very focused on tools in the real-time web because of one for the - the way RSS is being used as the proxy for pulling all those together and aggregating them, it’s definitely interesting and emergent.

Mr. GILLMOR: Loic, you have with Seesmic Web and - I’m not sure about whether Twhirl is still an existing product or whether it’s been folded into the larger Seesmic family. But you’ve got an aggregator that moves across a number of these different services. What’s your take on decentralization and are you a part of that?

Mr. LE MEUR: Well, the way we see it is where you get as many services as possible in it on different screens, as you said. Desktop right now, with 2.5 million downloads of Seesmic desktop and the web, which is growing very, very fast, we’re very happy about it. And we have a number of mobile platforms coming and yeah, I think this is all converging and definitely needs RSS in there, so we’re definitely working on how to integrate RSS in it as well. I still read blogs and not only who links to me(ph) on Twitter and Facebook. So I think it’s needed, but there’s a lot to do. If you think about just following up with what Twitter and Facebook are building, if you think the retweet idea with your localization API on Twitter - Facebook just launched Dimensions. So that’s a lot, you know, for small companies like us. So just following that is really interesting.

Mr. GILLMOR: Kevin Marks, you’ve been at Google. Now, you’re at British Telecom, you got an interesting play there in Ribbit that I hope you’ll start to talk about at some point. Do you see these services as starting to inter-operate in some sort of - if not federated way, you know, an ad hoc federation of services that will - describe how you see that as actually happening as opposed to theoretically happening.

Mr. MARKS: Well, I’m seeing it happening already. I mean, you know, Twitter was down most of this morning, but FriendFeed was up and working because it was calling the APIs and routing stuff it was routing round and routing through. So those of us who were using FriendFeed can still talk to each other and see things in real time, but it was being fed out to Twitter and pulling back again. So that’s one example where that’s working. And what we’re seeing is that we’re starting to standardize on ways of expressing these messages and moving in between the services and the activity streams effort is part of that or PubSubHubbub couples with that and so on. So there’s a lot of stuff that’s joining this together because as people start building these things, people start, you know, wiring off and putting them together. Not all of them are exactly the same as Twitter, but you know, the feeds are how we couple them together at the moment and building on that is the easier way to do it, too.

Mr. GILLMOR: Dan Farber, you’ve been - you sort of moved over to the main stream media, but I know you do continue to follow some of the emerging technologies. What’s CBS Online’s take on micro-messaging, Twitter, et cetera? Are you using this? Are you going to use it more efficiently in the future?

Mr. FARBER: You know, we’re very avid users of the social media. You know, for CBS News, it’s just kind of a - for any news organization, it’s kind of part of the recipe these days, which is you need that kind of hyper distribution for your content and you need it to help connect with the community and to try to - not just try to bring people to your site, but to bring your site to other people through friends and through this mechanism, so it’s critically important especially if you look at the younger generation. The numbers we see that - you know, television viewing, for example, is not declining in general, but what we’re seeing is internet usage is rapidly increasing especially among, you know, 18 to 29 - 18 to 39. So you know, as any kind of business organization, you want to intersect with people and make sure that you’re mimicking the way that they’re using the tools. So, definitely.

Mr. GILLMOR: I’d like to get a little cross talk going here. I’ve sort of thrown these sort of soft balls out at everybody, but let’s start with John Borthwick. You know, where would you like to go in terms of this conversation? What do you think is interesting about this space? You know, tell us all about the things that you’re going to do to make lots of money and you know, seriously, what - you know, at the real-time conference, you and Ron Conway were really kind of defined I think a move, a general move toward filtering that we all anticipate is going to become significant. Where are we in that? And everybody else, just feel free to - you know, we’ll have to sort of catch up to you sometimes in terms of video, but let’s just try and have a conversation here. John…

Mr. BORTHWICK: Sure. So, OK. So let me just pick up where we - where you started is that - you know, from a starting point, I mean, I think that there’s, you know, there’s relative stages of openness that we’ve seen to market as they emerge online and I think that what we’re seeing today is more open an environment from a business standpoint, meaning that there are businesses who are driving this into market than we’ve seen to date on the internet. I think we’ve seen a bunch of protocols being driven to market that have been more open than this by businesses, but not businesses actually being driven to market. So I see that what’s happening today is that you’ve got - Twitter has defined a degree of openness that a set of the real-time sharing platforms are now trying to match and so the streams are colliding, being rematched, being reintegrated. That, in turn, is picking up the velocity of stuff within the streams, which in turn is picking up the need for filtering. And so I think that what you see today is you see - you know, in the last week, we’ve had, you know, quite a bit of stuff going on with the Twitter list functionality, which I think we’re going to see more of that in the next week or two. You know, on our side, TweetDeck is one of our companies and we’re doing a lot of work on that site. You know, we were the first guys I think to do groups and we pushed out a group directory maybe three weeks ago, four weeks ago on TweetDeck and so that’s going to evolve now that Twitter is going to have a list of APIs. So what you see is that you see these tools and lists as an example of it just because it’s a functional equivalent to, you know, a filtering mechanism namely by groups and then being able to share and syndicate those groups. You’re going to see all these stuff, you know, in the next six months, at least. You’re going to see an explosion of data coming to the stream. Last point is that I think you’ll also see a lot of data coming into the stream programmatically. So, another one of our companies is Twitterfeed. The MySpace guys enabled syncing into Twitter you know, 10 days ago, two weeks ago. You could see the volume of traffic that’s coming in now for MySpace. That traffic is coming in now in a programmatic fashion. So it’s people on MySpace who sync up their accounts and so they type things on MySpace like, I’m happy, which they put on their profile page. It syncs into Twitter and push out a tweet, which says, I’m happy, with a link back into My Space. It’s not clear that it’s an entirely, you know, beneficial user experience yet, but these programmatic - people are pushing programmatic content into the stream and that’s also going to push out the need for filtering.

Mr. GILLMOR: Laura, do you agree?

Ms. FITTON: I’m having actually a really, really hard time hearing. I’m getting pretty bad echo.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. Let’s see what we can do with that. Let’s just take a break. What is it that you’re - are you coming in on your headphones?

Ms. FITTON: OK. Now, I’ve got it fixed now. Sorry about that.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK.

Ms. FITTON: How about someone else take a turn and I’ll jump back in when I have something good to say.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. Loic, what do you think?

Mr. LE MEUR: Do you have a specific question or you…

Mr. GILLMOR: No. We’re you listening to what John said?

Mr. LE MEUR: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: I can see a couple of openings you could drive a truck through, but you know, you can do it.

Mr. LE MEUR: I have no - I think what John does is great.

Mr. GILLMOR: Are you doing anything to compete with some of his properties?

Mr. LE MEUR: You know, I think, of course, we compete. But I think it’s space which has a lot of empty space and it’s been…

Ms. FITTON: Yes.

Mr. LE MEUR: You can see it, right? We started with Twhirl almost two years ago as one of the very first Twitter client. And now with Seesmic, it’s going very nicely and well, many players. As we were just, you know, discussing with Scoble before the show, there is a number of applications which are on one screen. So Tweetie, for example, is fantastic on the iPhone and he’s also on the Mac. And our aim is to be on as many screens as possible, so we already have the web, which goes on many screens already. On desktop, we see (unintelligible) and we have mobile coming in. So I think what’s going to be interesting is to provide a way for the users to have a continuity in the experience. So if I leave my Mac, I like to find exactly the same content on my iPhone and that is going to take much more resources than building an app for one screen. And that’s definitely what we’re building right now and I think the next six months will be very interesting. We’ll be launching a few new products before the end of the year.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. Laura, now it’s your turn.

Ms. FITTON: I think that kind of, you know, “follow someone’s lifestyle” continuity between interfaces and apps is actually really important. I think people were hearing pretty disjointed when they have to interact one way on their phone and a whole different way on their desktop and a whole different way in their browser. The other thing I think and you know, this is a bit of a maybe naive view. Everybody is kind of looking for who’s going to be the winner, who’s going to be the big mass, who’s going to be the leading application. And I see this is going pretty niched as this goes main stream. I’m very fascinated by - what are the trends that will make Twitter truly catch on main stream? What will make the whole real-time web truly catch on main stream? And I think a lot of it is comfort level and familiarity, relevance to your particular life, and solving the types of problems you know you have. And I actually don’t think it’s going to go the way more mass forms of media have where there’s a few giant gorillas in the room that really sop up all the audience. I’m always - I love both John and Loic very much and when I see a…

Mr. LE MEUR: I love you, too, Laura.

Ms. FITTON: (unintelligible) of TweetDeck versus Seesmic, I laugh and go why don’t you guys turn back to back and go find niches within the market and yeah, niches in fact create a business strategy, but find the different unfilled space. I was very glad to hear you say that today, Loic - to focus on the unfilled space and solving the problems individuals have.

Mr. SCOBLE: One unfilled space, Steve…

Mr. BORTHWICK: I think that…

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead, John.

Mr. BORTHWICK: Sorry. Just to respond to both Loic and Laura, I mean, I think that one of the things that’s fascinating about this is that - and this is why we built and designed Beta Works in the first place. There’s an ecosystem emerging, right? It’s easy to set up and it’s always fun to do the sports, you know, game of one client versus another. TweetDeck is part of the Beta Works network. It’s doing great. It definitely competes along with Loic. The TweetDeck team think about that every day. Bit.ly, on the other hand - TweetDeck uses bit.ly, so does Loic. Loic actually integrated bit.ly in a manner - maybe eight to 10 weeks before TweetDeck did, the integrated user accounts. And so reviewing this, yeah, I see that there’s an active ecosystem that’s emerging. There’s a lot of competition on the client side. As Loic said, there’s a real push towards the server and syncing preferences and filters on the server, which in turn is pushing up investment costs and development costs. I think it’s going to distinguish a handful of players. I mean, in TweetDeck, we acquired a company in London maybe nine months ago expressly because of that SyncServer expertise. And so, you know, this - I think that is going to change the profile of the company. What you’re seeing is you’re seeing a lot of competition and you’re seeing a lot of cooperation.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert, go ahead.

Mr. SCOBLE: The area I was going to say that’s still open is curation. The apps now are getting so rich. I have Brizzly on the screen, I have TweetDeck, I have Seesmic, I have on my iPhone, Tweetie, and Simply Tweet. And the apps are getting so rich and so built out that now I’m looking at how do I take the stream of stuff coming toward me, make some sense of it for my friends and spit it back out to something that looks like Tumblr or Posterous and I haven’t yet seen anybody who’s done that from a client perspectives particularly on the iPhone because…

Mr. LE MEUR: Robert, first, you know, we could not do it for you anyway because you were following about 90,000 people. So now that you’ve just realized that you need to follow fewer people to make it relevant, we can walk with you.

Mr. SCOBLE: OK. Joking aside, because I was using FriendFeed for a long time while you guys were playing around with Twitter to focus on a small group of people, I don’t have that yet. You know, I’m on all these clients. I don’t have the ability to really curate and add some value to the stream that’s going by.

Mr. BORTHWICK: So when you say curate, can you unpack that a little bit? Because you know…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. So I’m watching 35,000 people come to me and I pick - out of that river going by, I pick a couple of tweets every hour that is really good stuff. And I want to put underneath that tweet almost like a blog post or a video or I even might want to turn on a community like a Google Wave or a FriendFeed community chat room like what we’re talking about, that’s on my screen right now. And I want to send that back out to my friends who are listening to me. I am sort of doing that today with Twitter’s favorite feature, but the favorite feature doesn’t let me add any value on to each of those tweets and doesn’t really let me retweet it back. The retweeting isn’t satisfying for what I’m looking for and blogging isn’t satisfying because it’s so hard to get a really nice graphical representation of a tweet into my WordPress blog and then blog underneath it. And a blog is not - it’s sort of real time now. Thanks to the RSS Cloud and the PubSubHubbub infrastructure. But you can’t really subscribe back to a curated blog into Twitter and so I’d really like to see a complete system that does all that.

Mr. BORTHWICK: So what I would argue, Robert, is that - I mean, I think this is emerging. It’s emerging sort of fitfully and I think in my opinion, too slowly. But I think that it’s emerging in the way that a market emerges because speaking - you know, looking at TweetDeck, even Twitterfeed, even bit.ly, everything has to - all the data that we flow back into the stream has to conform to the platform. And so the metadata that we insert in the stream like TweetDeck, you know started as a manner to be able to use the regesture. And yeah, the regesture is not a gesture that is being sort of broadly adopted by the community yet. And so what happens is that - I think this is gradual and organic process where innovation is happening on the edges. It then scales off and then the platform provider has to embrace pieces of it. This is what’s happening with the retweet functionality - is that it moves sort of into the infrastructure.

Mr. GILLMOR: What was the thing that you said was not being broadly adopted?

Mr. BORTHWICK: The refunctionality.

Mr. GILLMOR: You mean, retweet?

Mr. BORTHWICK: No. Re, R-E.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. In other words, threaded conversation? I’m not sure I understand you.

Mr. BORTHWICK: So if you - yeah, it’s a gesture which - and we help set up a thing called Microsyntax (unintelligible) to actually, you know, throw some - sort of conform and throw some - bring together the community on some of these gestures, but the regesture essentially means reference to a URL to something without having to retweet the whole thing. So if I look at my stream right now, I’m seeing somebody who said…

Mr. MARKS: Isn’t that based into the - app responses? I mean, it’s in API. It’s just that Twitter doesn’t service it very well. So if you add someone, then it knows which it’s in response so. It’s just that Tweeter itself is bearing that.

Mr. BORTHWICK: Yes, correct. But that’s the…

Mr. MARKS: (unintelligible) to do that better, right?

Mr. BORTHWICK: Yeah. But you need the platform provider to actually embrace this and to integrate it in so that you can actually - I mean, conversations. This tension where - on the client side, you know, people could add threaded conversations into TweetDeck, but then those conversations, if those don’t go back into the Twitter stream, if they’re not searchable within the Twitter stream, is that then a positive thing or not? So it’s - you know, I think that you’re getting sort of competition coming in and pushing innovation, and then the platform is gradually adopting those things, but it’s just - it is taking…

Mr. MARKS: The platform is backing that a bit.

Ms. FITTON: There’s also a lot of tension and latency between what can be done and what actually is done. I mean, the users have to also pick this up and make it go mass and that takes a long time. I mean, people still don’t really understand how app replies work and that’s been out there as prior art.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, another way of putting this…

Ms. FITTON: I’ve been three years on Twitter and you can argue for years before Twitter on other platforms.

Mr. GILLMOR: I mean, app replies don’t work.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: That’s what isn’t understood.

Mr. MARKS: Well, I think they added the ability to know which post you’re replying to. That’s in the API. It’s in the data structures, but…

Ms. FITTON: If you used the (unintelligible).

Mr. GILLMOR: If you use - yes, correct.

Ms. FITTON: If you used the (unintelligible) rather than typing.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, yeah.

Ms. FITTON: You know, I mean, we can design all we want. We can design these elaborate systems for how we want people to do this. But my everyday life is at the edge of people who are just starting to start and you know, I’m excited about the possibility and I’m also very weary about complexity of getting into a very sophisticated - you know, I love what Stowe is doing. It’s important, but I also recognize that from the time we figured out we needed Hashtags to the time they really started to get powerful was two years.

Mr. GILLMOR: The other problem with Hashtags and I think also what, you know, Stowe or anybody who’s trying to develop a separate ontology and then sort of graph it back on to behavior is that nobody really yet knows what it is that they’re doing with this entire space. You know, people have discovered that Twitter is fun, they’ve discovered that micro-messages can, in some cases, replace other functionality particularly email, and to some extent, IM. But they haven’t yet figured out - and I don’t know that they ever will figure out that there’s some sort of structure to overlay in order to do this. I mean, you know. Kevin, you’ve been involved in microformats from the beginning. We all know about the success of microformats or at least, supposedly. What’s the downside of trying to push these kinds of standards, you know, into the environment?

Mr. MARKS: The work is you’ve got to do it after people have already done the practices, as Laura was saying. You need people to start doing these things and evolving it and then you standardize and draw it in, in the same way as Twitter has been responding to the users and drawing it into the UX. It’s something you draw in into the specs and standards as well. I think I’m disappointed about the reply to stuff because I’ve been seeing that drop away. You know, I retweeted that very well a year ago and the previous Twitter search, before they bought it, actually showed you the threaded conversations quite nicely. And I know that the, you know, both these guide tools, when you do reply using their tool rather than using the website, they actually make the threading stuff work properly. So these pieces are all there, yet somehow, it’s not something that Twitter is paying attention to making more useful and so it’s sort of sitting there in the data stream without actually being, you know, fully implemented because Twitter itself doesn’t show what the things are in reply to except in that tiny link in the bottom that, you know, doesn’t display very well. So that’s an opportunity, but that part is to do more than they have and I’ve seen some - you know, we’ve seen tools that do more of that. I expect we will see more of that and I expect we’ll see more augmentation elsewhere as we have done with FriendFeed. But FriendFeed - you know, FriendFeed does a fairly - again, does a fairly good job of - if I reply to something on FriendFeed, it will send that back to Twitter and wire it up properly, but it doesn’t always pick up the ones from Twitter and feed it back in the stream as well. So you end up with this sort of tangled set of things that aren’t very well coupled.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, Laura, what’s your take on FriendFeed? I know that you’re much more of a Twitter person.

Ms. FITTON: Well, so this is where my radical honesty comes in handy. I’m actually quite dumb with software UIs. I need them to be very simple. I stayed with Twitter.com almost exclusively for a very long time. I still use Twhirl as my primary source of “my follow only” account. So I like a lot of simplicity and frankly, FriendFeed was a little more complex than I care to dive into because at the time it was coming up, there was sort of a large base out there that had a perception of being interesting in what I was doing, so it was hard to connect to a specific group, so it was hard for me to get started on it, but you know, on the same way with Facebook. So I’m an advert. I’m not a good one to go by.

Mr. GILLMOR: John, obviously, you’re a partner with Twitter. What can you say good about FriendFeed?

Mr. BORTHWICK: What can I say good about FriendFeed? I mean, I use FriendFeed some. I mean, I found - so Laura said it very politely. I always found the UI very difficult in FriendFeed. I don’t know why, but there was some sort of - it didn’t click for me. But you asked me to say something good about FriendFeed. You know, I watched FriendFeed and participated in FriendFeed. I watch all of you using FriendFeed a lot because I think FriendFeed broke sort of really important new ground in terms of tracking and sharing the gestures, which then in turn become the metadata, which then in turn become the filters. So I was fascinated by that. I was fascinated by some of the implementations they did around search. But for me, it was the gestures and the integration of gestures that was most interesting in FriendFeed and I want to see, you know, what happens, what…

Mr. GILLMOR: Do you see that in any way being usable over on the Twitter side? It doesn’t sound like there’s much uptake here. I think perhaps Facebook’s acquisition will drive more attention for being paid to some of the FriendFeed internals, but it is obvious from the (unintelligible) silos that sort of look past each other.

Mr. BORTHWICK: You mean, FriendFeed and Twitter or Friend…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. Basically, or Facebook and Twitter.

Mr. BORTHWICK: No, I think - look, I think that there’s - No, I think that these streams are going to connect. I think the streams are fundamentally different. I mean, I think it’s sort of when very much at the early stage of evolution of these things we’re looking at sort of a plankton-like life form and trying to - you know, trying to extrapolate from this emergence syntax as emerging behavior what the next - what the things are going to look like and, you know, that’s always hard to do. So, I think predicting how these things are going to evolve is hard. I do think that these streams are fairly different. I think the FriendFeed stream and the Twitter stream were closer to being alike than the Twitter stream and the Facebook stream. I think that the asymmetrical friend nature in Facebook makes it pretty fundamentally different. I think that on the - So, yeah, so that’s - I’ll shut up, that’s some - you know, I think I said some nice things about FriendFeed along the way.

Mr. GILLMOR: Very good. Yeah, you got a gold star. Loic, you’ve been working a lot with Facebook. What do you see is the differences in the potential integration opportunities between the two platforms?

Mr. LE MEUR: We won’t also integrate FriendFeed in Twhirl like the very, very early days. So, I’ve been a fan of FriendFeed very early. I don’t see - I mean, everything I hear from my antennas, which may be limited sometimes, is that it’s going to – that they are not looking on FriendFeed at all anymore, maybe someone can correct me further information. So, we will not integrate FriendFeed in Seesmic just because I think when you’re on FriendFeed, you will be on Facebook. And, yeah, we are working very closely with Twitter and Facebook and also our social software. And I think it’s very, very – it’s going in a way which is converging. You see, you have now Twitter and Facebook going closer and closer to each other, as I was saying, you have the re-tweets on one side on Twitter and you have a likes on Facebook, it’s very similar. You have the ad replies with the in reply to on Twitter and you have the thread already on Facebook. And these are on host(ph) too, but then you have Yahoo Meme coming. You have MySpace which has its feed. You have LinkedIn which has status of dates even though people won’t use it yet enough or not much. And I’m waiting for the news from Google that maybe getting them talk to us about it. My personal take is that it’s not at all Google Wave but that there will be some kind of a status of date on Google and Gmail and so on very soon. So, the question I think long term if we look more than six months like next year is how will these look like. Will that be that we abate all of those and then we get it all and these are all many duplicates? Will there be a clearing house of all the status of dates? Will they be converging pretty much like IM when we add – and that’s still kind of different but AIM and, you know, GTalk and so on. It varies a lot. It’s very, very new, very new sites, so.

Mr. MARKS: Well, I’m - you know, we’ll try to make them converge. That’s what the activity stream stuff is about. And that’s, you know, that’s one of those people sitting here and discussing how to label things which isn’t very interesting to watch, but the results end up working reasonably well. We’ve got MySpace and Facebook generating activity streams and feeds already. And we’ve got…

Mr. GILLMOR: But the other company, MySpace, I’m not familiar with that.

Mr. MARKS: Well, you know, we don’t all look through the world in the same way. NetFlix is going (unintelligible) of them. They are generating activity streams too. And the point is to converge – converge this stuff and express it in a common way and to bring this into the OpenSocial realm as well so the sites that are built on it in such a way were to generate this in a common way. That’s part of the discussion that’s going on, so that would mean that the Google stuff on OpenSocial and Hi5 and the other sites that are built on that would be able to do that, too.

Mr. LE MEUR: When will Google launch its own Twitter like in Gmail? That’s a question I’d like to ask?

Mr. MARKS: That is a question. I can’t answer it. I can’t answer and (unintelligible) yes or no. There’s bits of it there. There’s stuff there on iGoogle already. There’s bits of it in other places. You can see sort of bits of it poking out. There’s some of it inside Latitude and so on. So, you know, the infrastructure underneath is activity stream-like and there’s bits of that leading up to the different bits of Google over time.

Mr. GILLMOR: You know, this is so reminiscent. Dan Farber, are you still there?

Mr. FARBER: Yes, I am.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, this always strikes me as so reminiscent of the Y2K time frame when Microsoft had Exchange and Outlook and Lotus and IBM had Notes. And then Netscape came along and bought up a bunch of open source and, you know, different smaller players to try and cobble together a collaboration league(ph). You know, it seems like Google has got, you know, as Kevin puts it, a lot of bits that they are trying to stitch together or maybe trying to stitch together, it’s not hard to tell. And we all know what actually happened or I think we all know what happened in the Y2K run up and basically the market got split between Microsoft and IBM.

Mr. FARBER: The market for what?

Mr. GILLMOR: For collaboration. There are always stages of collaboration. Isn’t this what we’re seeing here as the next face of collaboration technology?

Mr. FARBER: Well, I think, you know, you’re talking about the fact that, you know, they go through these epics or these stages in which, you know, some large companies - and in that case, there was a period in which it was about business usage(ph). Now, we’re talking about planetary usage and it’s much more of a free for all, though obviously there are very large players that we’ve got here. You know, it’s still so early in the game that you know, that you could have a Google or a Microsoft and a Twitter can come out of nowhere. And yet, you know, while we’re talking about when is Google going to have it or when is Google Wave going to appear and when are they going to get all these features and yet Twitter still seems to have traction. So it’s very hard to predict. I think all we know is that this period of foment is really good because that’s where the innovation is going to come from and it doesn’t come from working in some laboratory in secret for years and years but by putting it out there and letting people play with it and see how people want to use it and how they deal with each rivers(ph) and how they deal with who is going to really solve the filtering problem and all the other issues.

Mr. GILLMOR: Somebody jump in.

Ms. FITTON: First of all, I - You’ve got what you asked for right there, Steve.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, well, it’s a real time stream.

Mr. FITTON: I love what Dan said about putting things out there and seeing what people do with them because ultimately it’s not what the software does, it’s what the user does, to quote Hugh MacLeod’s cartoon that I’ve had as my business card for like four years now.

Mr. BORTHWICK: I think the other thing that’s different here is that this is, you know, dimension that the majority of what happened before us in the enterprise base is that - I think the public showing aspect of this just makes it fundamentally different because the streams are now searchable, navigable and that there’s a lot of data going in but there’s also lot of data coming out. And so, I think it’s – I think what was seen here is different to what happened in the early stages of collaboration. It’s still collaboration. It’s still, you know, the mixing of communications and media and a whole bunch of some collaborative sharing. But I think it’s different now that it’s searchable.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. Well, I mean, there’s definitely - I mean, if people are looking at some sort of historical reference about, as I think somebody mentioned, about the IM streams coming together, well, that just didn’t happen. And I think maybe what you’re suggesting, John, is that there’s the possibility now because of the public nature of the stream that there’s going to be an ad hoc coming together regardless of what the individual strategies of the (unintelligible) are about.

Mr. BORTHWICK: But it’s happening. It is happening…

Mr. LE MEUR: No, I’m sorry, John, go ahead. It’s only right. On Facebook, it’s not public, we can’t search it right now. We can’t put it on clients and it’s the same on other social software. So, I would say that Facebook is still much bigger, so the majority of it unfortunately is not public yet and it’s great that Twitter is opening it. But I agree that’s what makes it very interesting, but we really need the Facebook search and…

Mr. MARKS: But there was a mixture of public and private. I think that’s part of the point. And yes, Twitter default public but you can be private on Twitter, too. I know several people who are. The other thing is bringing Microsoft in. I think that entry you posted with Ryosi(ph) today or last night, Steve, was very interesting on that. And that the fact that the live team at Microsoft, Rob Dolin(ph) and (unintelligible) and those guys are actually very focused on these streams that they’ve been building a front end to this. And yeah, they’re not fashionable and cool, but they’re actually hooking up to this stuff and making it work. I definitely asked them today with Lily and John(ph) being given a team to put together on that is very interesting because Lily is very smart and is very switched on to this stuff. And I’m excited by that, so I think, they seem to be picking up the border.

Mr. GILLMOR: And for a long time, Microsoft was probably playing more open than any of the other players. I mean, I think they still are, but there was a time when…

Mr. MARKS: In some ways, they are. I mean…

Mr. GILLMOR: There was a time basically when it was Google and Microsoft at the engineering level that were really focused on API access to these core fundamentals.

Mr. MARKS: Sure. You know, the Microsoft guys have been a big part of the activity stream stuff. They’ve involved with the Open Web Foundation things. They’ve been into many all of this stuff and places, you know. There does seem to be some kind of (unintelligible) change there. And yeah, it’s against the culture, that core because the cultural core of Windows and Office is not openness. But the development side of Microsoft is about getting developers working. And, you know, I’m seeing that they are picking up the need to interoperate with people much more strongly. That’s an encouraging sign. You just muted yourself, Steve.

Mr. GILLMOR: John, did you – you were jumping at some point? What were you going to say?

Mr. BORTHWICK: Can you hear me now?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I can. It was my fault.

Mr. BORTHWICK: OK. So, I mean, I think that the – I think it’s the evolution of the marketing right now where essentially new plans were coming in and defining these streams is driving a lot of healthy innovation, now whether that’s the Twitter level or Facebook or LinkedIn or to the TweetDeck or the Seesmic or Twhirl, whatever level. I think that the - you know, I was fascinated on the discussion that you guys did last week on Sidewiki, because I think that once Microsoft and Google stop playing here, which, you know, everybody sort of sits back and waits for it to happen. I don’t know whether it will happen or what it would look like. I mean, I’ll be hearing for a year and a half that Google is going to do something with Gmail or with, you know, some status integration and it hasn’t come yet. But I think that when those guys - their first move into the space is going to be really important because as providers of platforms like search, like browsers, they have a - like all poignant(ph) systems, they have a stake in this which is different to a lot of the edge based innovation that’s probably not. And so, you know, the Sidewiki conversation, to me, the thing that concerned me about Sidewiki is Chrome. And, you know, I saw it is a feature which is coming into the toolbar, but if it becomes successful, then it moves into Chrome and then that sort of – that makes me feel uneasy for a bunch of reasons.

Mr. GILLMOR: But why? Why would, you know, Chrome adoption isn’t going to go to, you know, more than say 30 percent in the next few years? I mean, what would the implications be of that? If people started to use the Sidewiki-like products, I mean, effectively, FriendFeed is a Sidewiki-like product that we use to tie on Building43, to tie these two streams together. I mean, this isn’t – it’s not a rocket science nor the problems of any individual lender.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, I think there’s this, you know, the highlander mistake that there can only be one, which we, you know, is (unintelligible) in this that actually…

Mr. BORTHWICK: I’m sorry, Kevin, can you say that again?

Mr. MARKS: There’s – sorry. That’s what I call a highlander mistake. There can be only one – one winner. Actually, what we’re seeing is this stuff is very mountain model. We do experience these things in lots of different ways. We read them as feeds, we read them in yoga’s class, read them on our phones and we switch back and forth between most to communicate with each other. And even - you know, Laura was saying she’s (unintelligible) doesn’t use these things, but she is switching between devices and doing that as well, because the primary mental connection is with the people and then we’re used to interacting with people through these different means and then we get better at navigating those. So, the assumption that Google can do something in the browser and take over everything or Microsoft can do something in the OS and take over everything, I don’t think is right. I think that they need to tap into the interactions that we’re having and help us do them – they had all the things that they could do in browser OS site to make some of those sort of blocking in and security stuff work better. So, we’re not always talking in prospect(ph) but there’s a bunch of stuff that that way they could do.

Mr. GILLMOR: So now that we have disagreed with you, John, what were you trying to say that you are afraid of?

Mr. BORTHWICK: So my concern is - I mean, if you look at Sidewiki today and the potential for the integration of things like Sidewiki into Chrome, my concern is that you’re essentially balkanizing(ph) the data set. And, you know, when I got – when I listened to your call, I think, last Saturday, the first thing I did afterwards was I went and checked that there were actually links to comments which were made in Sidewiki . Is it searchable? Is it navigable? Was it in a completely close environment? I mean, I think somebody on your call last week what a medium which was a toolbar, a Firefox plug-in that did some stuff similar to Sidewiki and that was fairly close. It’s - the balkanization of data and these data sets and these data silos - you know, Loic, was saying before how important it is for Facebook to make that stream searchable, is that this stuff has to be accessible, I think, by the open web, by the streams because then the velocity of interactions, the velocity of innovation is going to continue apace. And I think that the – we’ve seen sort of these ebbs and flows where we move from sort of centralization to decentralization and I don’t want to go back to sort of a rain man world, if you remember that thing.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. It’s something about underwear. Robert, you have to go?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, I have to run. I have a chat on Nashville(ph) in a couple of seconds. But, interesting conversations, right?

Mr. GILLMOR: Thanks for sharing that.

Mr. SCOBLE: This is - back to the FriendFeed stuff, the reason that FriendFeed has such a complex UI is we’re not in control of who I get to share with my audience there. And people have said this over and over again to me that they come in and it’s so noisy and I get the same feeling when I go to Google Wave now. That’s what I want the curation tool for it and it will have a community component of that, right? I will want to turn on a Google Wave on my – underneath a blog post on curating or telling you something about because I want to talk to everybody but I want to be in control of that and have it…

Mr. GILLMOR: Clearly you weren’t listening last week. I mean, you don’t have control.

Mr. SCOBLE: Well, sorry. I want it. So when I do get it, I will – we’ll all recognize we have something special. Twitter gives me control. I have control of who I see and who sees me. There you go.

Mr. GILLMOR: So in other words…

Mr. MARKS: You don’t have control over who sees you.

Mr. SCOBLE: Absolutely I do. Steve Gillmor has blocked me this week. I can’t see him anymore.

Ms. FITTON: You can totally log out and log in and look at this…

Mr. SCOBLE: Of course, but in my stream, that I do several times, I get to see only the people who would let me see them.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK, well. I’m looking forward to the day a mass delusion(ph) becomes a common place.

Mr. SCOBLE: See you later.

Mr. GILLMOR: But I don’t think it’s going to happen. Laura, what do you mean by you can just log out? On Twitter, you can just log out? I don’t know how that works.

Ms. FITTON: Yeah, unless you have a private feed, if you look at a public feed in a logged out state, you can see it whether the person has blocked you or not.

Mr. GILLMOR: And isn’t RSS - and remember RSS? Isn’t RSS – doesn’t that run counter to - for example, I’ve been blocked by a couple of people that - for quite a long time and yet through their RSS feed, I can just sign on to them and create an artificial identity or whatever it is it’s called on FriendFeed and I can monitor what they are saying to my heart’s content. Evidently, it doesn’t matter, I’m not logging in through FriendFeed through my Twitter identity because if I did, I would get a blocked visual. So, isn’t there a kind of an impedance mismatch between the old model and whatever the new one is going to be?

Ms. FITTON: Well, I don’t know if that’s sort of an impedance mismatch but I would think of the block function or the flagging function. You’re saying the old technology did let you block? I mean, what…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, you know, RSS, you know, syndicates this information and it doesn’t really have any kind of, you know, social graph attached to it.

Ms. FITTON: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, it’s a simple (unintelligible) around this.

Ms. FITTON: It’s very permissive.

Mr. MARKS: Right, well. RSS is like Twitter. It started out default public and adding permissions to that afterwards takes work. I mean, you could do it if you can use - I will have to decide who gets to see feeds which is, you know, the Facebook model. Facebook started the other way around which is you only see things if you are allowed to see them, and that the argument I made very strongly for a long time was we can’t let you draw the data right out of our site because our users are going to be able to delete it and put it down in their personal memory hole in the future. And they seem to be stepping away from that now a little, but that’s still an issue because, you know, people are nervous. You know, people naturally want to retail their own stories over time. They want to be able to have the illusion of control that Robert wants of being able to say, oh, I didn’t hear you say that, and tell a better story about themselves, and part of the issue of being - talking about yourself in public is it actually makes you examine what you have said rather than what you thought you had said.

Mr. GILLMOR: That’s not always true either, but somehow I don’t think that we’re going to see any kind of re-working of the RSS Fundamentals around OAuth or any other standard.

Mr. MARKS: Sure.

Mr. GILLMOR: To be able to – you think that’s going to happen?

Mr. MARKS: What about RSS, you know? I’m talking about these feeds in general. RSS is…

Mr. GILLMOR: (Unintelligible), you know, Adam, RSS something.

Mr. MARKS: Adam - yeah, it’s a separate layer. OAuth was a separate layer. It’s at the HTML layer - HTP layer where you say, I’d like to get to see this feed. Can I see it now or not? And different people see different things. Now, we’ve had that on the web for a long time. We were logging to Twitter, on the second(ph) page, you’ll see something different (unintelligible) and OAuth is just extending that so that the web services can do it as well, so that we can draw our stuff out of Twitter and each of us will see what we see from that rather than, you know, with the permissions built into the feed while they’re having a public feed and that’s all there is. So, it’s there, it’s built, it’s working within the social networks.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. What’s the market for this that’s going to actually adopt that strategy? I don’t see it. I think that, as you pointed out, Facebook’s moving away from that kind of control toward something which gives the control to the user.

Mr. MARKS: I think we’re going to have to end up having more than one control model because there’s a difference between what a Quizzat(ph) means to see about me and my friends and what we’ve done and what a client like these guys build, what weak(ph) links to see about it. There will be different modes that make sense. And we are sort of moving towards that now. You know, we have that issue with the Twitter OAuth stuff. You log in to Laura’s site with Twitter and OAuth knows who you are and that’s a great benefit. It says you only can set up yet another account. But they ask the permission to post stuff back and some people would say, why do you want to post stuff back, it’s because there were places on the site that sent Twitter and that makes life easier. But it’s hard – there isn’t any easy way of expressing - this thing can just see a little bit. This thing can see a lot. This thing can pretend to be me at the moment. And if you look at the way you have to log in to Facebook from Seesmic, you have to go through that $5 book, sister(ph), actually say no. Actually, I really do want it to be my client at the moment because their model for explaining that doesn’t fit very well.

Mr. GILLMOR: Loic?

Mr. LE MEUR: Dude, I really - Kevin (unintelligible) is still too complicated, and if you think this is reading but posting is the same when you post. If you think about Facebook, you have a lot of control now on how you post. You can post private, you can post to your friends, you can post to your group, you can post to – in public, you can post to a page which makes it even more complicated. You can post to several pages, and if you think about it from the user perspective, it’s getting more and more complicated and I think that’s also why…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, not really. Yeah, I mean, people will opt out of - I mean, that’s why I don’t use Google Reader anymore. It’s not because it isn’t useful, it’s just not as useful as other things which are faster and have some sort of social filtering that, you know, offloads the decision making from me and puts it on the people that I think are smart and might have a better look at what’s going on at any given time.

Mr. LE MEUR: Yeah, I think that’s what Robert is describing as in his curation(ph) and I think we’ll need to scratch the surface here because when you look at trending, for example, which we have not talked about, for me, it must be – it’s not very relevant most of the time and now the Twitter trending is also getting super spanned. It’s – if you see trending topics very often, it’s just, you know, people very smart and, you know, either doing a game that they can - you know, if you’re to win, you have to Hashtag something with something. And so this is just the beginning. I’d like to see what’s trending among my friends, for example, and so nobody is doing that. I’d like to, you know, I think we’ve…

Ms. FITTON: So, yeah, that’s come out. That’s been built…

Mr. LE MEUR: Right, at the platform level.

Mr. GILLMOR: Could you say that again, Laura? I couldn’t hear you.

Ms. FITTON: I have seen one or two apps that are starting because that’s something I’ve been fascinated about. I mean, think how valuable it is for a company to be able to track focus groups and then see what trends among those. Unfortunately, out of the 1,800 apps I’ve looked at in the last few weeks, I can’t remember the names of which ones, but I will try and track them down.

Mr. LE MEUR: Well, if you don’t remember, then…

Mr. FARBER: (Unintelligible) 140.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah.

Ms. FITTON: Well, Steve, that’s exactly what I’m shooting at and I want to plug my company. I thought that would be brazen.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, let me ask…

Mr. MARKS: So, Tune In is one. That’s – if you’ve seen Tune In, that’s one that a bunch of my old colleagues at Technorati are building, which takes your Twitter feed and then averages it and gives you out, here are the links your friends are Tweeting the most, and that’s what’s interesting…

Mr. LE MEUR: Well, there’s Tweeting to, right, which does that, it tells you how your content is spreading and being retweeted.

Mr. MARKS: That is the other way around. This is what are your friends reading and there’s…

Ms. FITTON: If you’re following a hundred people, what’s trending amongst those hundred people as opposed to trending among all Twitter, right?

Mr. GILLMOR: John, is that the other way around or are these technologies moving in the same direction even though they look different?

Mr. BORTHWICK: I’m trying to understand your question, Steve.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well…

Mr. BORTHWICK: I was going to respond to what they were saying. I wish I could do, but then I’ll try…

Mr. GILLMOR: MG Siegler pointed out, I think, that some of the analytic features that are on TweetMeme that were just discussed or released a couple days ago are some of the things that we’re starting to see from bit.ly , you know.

Mr. BORTHWICK: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Is that true? Are we going to be seeing some analytics from bit.ly that go beyond, you know, the original intent of the program?

Mr. BORTHWICK: Yes, I mean, that’s assuming that you know the original intent. I mean, it’s – this thing is being under construction for quite awhile and I think that, you know, now that as the services get to scale, the data becomes a lot more interesting. I mean, you know, there’s many, many ways to filter that – I mean, there’s a new version of TweetDeck that you’ll see in the next two weeks. It has a column which - it sounds really simple that I love which gives you new followers. So for a particular account, you could look at a column of people who have just started to follow you. So as we’ve been going through this call, well, I’ve been watching people who’ve been adding me and following me and it’s - you know, that’s a very simple filter, but a lot of - Loic, you’ve got to get to work on this. It’s an - there’s a 101 ways to cutting this data, so specifically, Steve, you asked on the bit.ly site, I mean, you know, there were - in September, there were billion and a half bit.ly links that would click on web wide, and I would - that’s about, you know, yesterday it was about 65 million. Most of those are happening within the real time stream, many of them and most of them within the sort of Twitter ecosystem and then some outside of that. And, you know, watching the feed of that on an aggregate level, apply an (unintelligible) extraction to it and so that we can pull out topics and (unintelligible) you could see it on a vertical level, you know, for a particular topic, and then, slamming that against your social graph so that you can then filter it by your social graph is, you know, that data is starting to get really interesting.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, what I was asking before was being discussed as some sort of social graph filter to, you know, trending topics around your friends. At what point do these two models intersect?

Mr. BORTHWICK: The two models. One model being the social graph and the other one being…

Mr. GILLMOR: Being the, you know, sort of mass data - I forgot the terminology. It was only a minute ago.

Mr. BORTHWICK: Yes, I think that they’re starting to intersect now. I mean, you pointed explicitly to the TweetMeme service that Nick launched in the last week which is a premium analytic service, and a lot of the data that we’re showing in that premium analytic service is from the bit.ly API. So it’s in the API and getting click counts. And then, wrapping that up into his analytic service. He’s also adding into that a lot of the data that he’s servicing from his retweet network from, you know, the bottom which he’s got around a whole bunch of publishers, a ton of publishers that is feeding a set of signals in that relates to retweets. So he’s mixing those two stream top because they’re fairly open. I don’t believe the Nick has access to Firehose and so, he’s not - he doesn’t have the mechanism and he may not even have the service to be able to slam that up against the Firehose (unintelligible) and actually resolve it against a full Friend Graph. So, I think it is - it’s happening, it’s happening sort of in bits and pieces but I think that, you know, what’s most interesting is these services that are large consumers of the API, of the Twitter API, many of them are starting to actually spit off out the back end.

Mr. GILLMOR: And it also sounds like they’re starting to interoperate with each other. I mean …

Mr. BORTHWICK: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: These companies are all companies that you’re involved with. There’s no special access that you’re providing to each other or is there?

Mr. BORTHWICK: There’s so, you know, we have, I mean, we’ve opted and all the Beta Works companies have opted to have an open API and to - we’re driving connections between these companies. TweetMeme is not part of the Beta Works network of companies, yet we do a whole bunch of things with them. You know, I think that over the next six months, 12 months, you’re going to start to see all these stuff get a lot more sophisticated, a lot more meshed-up, and you’re also going to get to see some rules of the road which will emerge in terms of data usage. So, you know, you’re reminding me that I’ve got to give Nick a shout because the fact that, you know, bit.ly’s API, you know, the terms of service of bit.ly’s API says you can use it in a 101 ways but the moment you start making money from it, you should come chat with us. So he starts to make money from that we should have a conversation.

Mr. GILLMOR: So that you can pay yourself a better - I’m not sure I understand that.

Mr. BORTHWICK: Well, I mean, I think that the standard terms of uses of many of the APIs in this network have been that you can - you have a very flexible set of terms if you are not in turn then selling the data. If you’re reselling the data then you should come towards the company. So, you know, that’s - I mean, that is, I think that that’s standard amongst many of these services and that’s something that, you know, bit.ly has many of the Beta Works companies have so.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, what I’m really asking is, can - if Loic wanted to, basically walk up to one of your services in the same way that some of your services are walking up to each other, there would be no problem with that, right?

Mr .BORTHWICK: There’s no problem at all. I mean, I think that, you know, I mentioned before that Loic used part of the bit.ly API which led to (unintelligible) authenticated access into bit.ly, you know, eight to 10 weeks before TweetDeck did. And so, you know, the principles under which we’re operating amongst the Beta Works companies that we’re driving these services into market and were driving interoperability between the data streams but we’re doing it in an open fashion. Why we’re doing it in an open fashion, because it accelerates the growth of all of the above. And so as an open network, it is driving far more connectivity and far more sort of remeshing and then reintegration of the data than it would in a closed environment. So Loic and I, we do not have a (unintelligible) contract between us. Loic uses a lot of Twitter data, use a lot of bit.ly data, use a lot of TwitterFeed data. I mean, there’s a lot integration. In turn Loic has integrated it in some ways with TweetMeme and with all these other people and it’s, you know, so this - there’s an integrated sort of embedded web of data sharing that is - I think, characterizes part of the real-time stream.

Mr. LE MEUR: Yeah, it’s very interesting that you’re mentioning that you look like (unintelligible) said that someone is starting to monetize data coming from bit.ly while you’re actually also using it from Twitter, right and I’m not taking sides here. I just said we’re very integrated with bit.ly and we’ve been including before TweetDeck absolutely. And we’re happy about it, happy to help bit.ly. But the question here is, those companies, I don’t know about your portfolio, but we’ll have monetize one day or we will all, you know, disappear. So, it’s interesting that when you stop monetizing, I would be - because you’re also taking the data from Twitter that doesn’t sell it to you, right? So…

Mr. BORTHWICK: Yeah, we use …

Mr. LE MEUR: So, how do you see monetization?

Mr. BORTHWICK: So, I think that’s a great point. I mean, I think that as, I mean, I said this before, but one of the things that we need to - sort of the rules of the road and understanding exactly how all these individual pieces will monetize most importantly the platforms at the center is vitally important to the evolution of the streams. I think that, you know, I didn’t say I was upset at Nick, I said that - when I - I should have a conversation with him about it. I agree with you. I mean, I said to our friends at Twitter is that, you know, if they - if a tweet is composed on TweetDeck, if it then goes to - obviously, the Twitter network, if it’s then consumed on Seesmic and then maybe it’s republished into Facebook, you know, the rights and ownership that relate to the activity in the link that was in that tweet is a very complex question. I mean, I think that …

Mr. LE MEUR: Right.

Mr. BORTHWICK: I think that bit.ly has, you know, what I refer to as proxy rights to that data. I think that Twitter has rights to that data. I think that the clients likely who interacted with it have proxy rights to the data and then last but not least, most importantly, I think the user has rights to that data. And so, I think it’s - yet, it’s very complicated and I think that the rules of the road of how monetization happens, it’s still very early days.

Ms. FITTON: But it is a huge blank because the data is among the most valuable thing that is floating around and when people come up to me again and again and again, say, oh, but Twitter has no business model, I shake my head in disbelief because certainly Google has proven the model of a rich stream of data script quite a lot. So it’s good to be interested, to see how that happens.

Mr. GILLMOR: So Laura, that - you just handed me an opening here.

Ms. FITTON: Uh, uh.

Mr. GILLMOR: Nice.

Mr. GILLMOR: I’m sure you won’t answer this but, I’m going to ask it anyway because this is TV so we get to see your expression.

Ms. FITTON: This is TV? I have no poker face whatsoever. So, I’m just going to …

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. If you think that Twitter has a business model, what would the business model be for acquiring OneForty?

Ms. FITTON: Well, I mean, I have not been secretive at all about the fact that one of the ways I thought of OneForty was trying to think, well, how could Twitter make money? Who is making money on Twitter? I knew as a consultant I was getting all my clients from Twitter. I knew plenty of business people who were building their networks and transacting and actually doing business with one another because of Twitter. So my thought was you build a market place and you enable those transactions you make them easier. You serve that community and I mean genuinely serve, not lip-service-serve. And if you make those transactions more frictionless and more valuable to everyone involved, you deserve to have a share of that.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, how soon do you think that we’ll be able to understand what if anything is going to be happening between you and Twitter?

Ms. FITTON: I don’t think people should be that concerned about what if anything is happening between us and Twitter. I think we have an interesting model. I think we have a ton to learn. We’re putting it out there very publicly, very fast so we can learn what the community needs and whether we become part of another company and Twitter is not the only company by far that we can easily become a part of. We have a pretty important company to build ourselves so we’re not getting distracted by all that hype.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I don’t think - I think a lot of the interest about this is, it comes from the fact that as a very public facing product that you’re delivering, that’s good news for people who consider the importance of Twitter learning how to grow into the ecosystem that it has been created(ph) in and be more open in terms of its strategies and you know, on ramps and off ramps to the Twitter streams. So, I think that people are excited about this possibility because you’ve been so, you know, open in terms of the way that you’ve approached the idea of, you know, a Twitter app store. I mean, basically, do you think there’s going to be a Facebook app store in the near future? Do you think that your model is going to be cloned just like so many of these other systems have emerged?

Ms. FITTON: There is something on CNN.com today about the proliferation of app stores. I mean, didn’t Facebook try and build its own app store, which is having that centralized application platform? I meant to say, what’s holding Facebook back from a genuine app stores that most of the apps in Facebook are pretty formulaic and similar and maybe the platform isn’t open enough to allow the kind of innovation that we see in the Twitter system.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. I think we’ll wrap it up. Kevin, any last thoughts?

Mr. MARKS: I’m, so …

Mr. FITTON: And thank you by the way, Steve.

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, please stick around just so that I can actually formally say goodbye and thank you for being here but …

Mr. MARKS: So, I’m going to back up what Laura is saying a bit. Obviously, I’m a big fan of OneForty and have been advising her on it. So, I have an interest in this - in that - but I want it to succeed because I think what she’s doing is very important. She’s going out and gathering this sort of vast ecosystem of applications, giving them a place to be talked about and spoken about. And you know, I joked that what OneForty can do is just put a little shopping list tag on each applications saying, here’s what it would cost Twitter to buy this app and incorporate it. There’s lots of little possibilities you can do with this once you start being able to find these things because - and it’s different from the sort of the iTunes app store model of – no, you have to sort of work hard and please us to be in it. It’s much more of a gathering together with all of the exciting stuff that’s going on and making a place people discuss and find out. And I found that - and that’s really interesting.

Mr. FITTON: And I know John, Loic and Kevin, you all know how adamant I’ve been that, you know, this has to be open. This has to be as impartial as it possibly can be.

Mr. LE MEUR: Right. So, how do you write(ph) the apps on popularity? I’m very curious about that. I believe she speaks…

Ms. FITTON: Oh, man.

Mr. LE MEUR: I know it’s one of the most popular products. And surprisingly, it’s not out there.

Ms. FIITON: I can comment that it is (unintelligible) up medical. We do have kind of a concept to Page Rank. It’s strictly mathematical. It is embryonic. It has lots for fast (unintelligible) that could get worked into the average.

Mr. LE MEUR: So you’re saying Seesmic is not in the top 15 mathematically most popular apps.

Ms. FITTON: I’ve got an email from Loic saying, but I am the number two app, how come I’m not in the number one slot? Loic. That’s what you said. But, no, it has to be open. Twitter has a tremendous open e-post. Twitter’s openness is wide. There is so much diversity in the applications and services being built. I think it’s fascinating how many just core pieces of software and websites and things that erstwhile had nothing to do with Twitter are now suddenly building Twitter integrations. And I thought I’ve a defined subset but that defined subset is exploding. You know with AIM coming out and everybody coming out saying, oh, and we also work off the Twitter API, taxonomy nightmare. Thanks a lot guys. But it’s really exciting.

Mr. LE MEUR: Laura. Laura. Seriously, it’s very exciting but how do you do your math?

Ms. FITTON: It is a mixture of offsite and onsite measures that would suggest quality and/or popularity. So, since it’s heavily based on onsite, yes it is, somewhat gameable if you get - obviously, it will be in our interest if you get tons of people coming to site and voting sort of the model that the - in words your friend John, your friend did with your words. I’m sure I can’t remember the name of. I apologize, I slept at the office last night.

Mr. BORTHWICK: Edo. Edo.

Ms. FITTON: Edo. No, no, the other one. They had the ceremony and everything. What was the name of that award ceremony?

Mr. BORTHWICK: The Shorty Awards?

Ms. FITTON: The Shorty Awards, right. That was truly purely (unintelligible).

Mr. BORTHWICK: (Unintelligible)

Ms. FITTON: And it was by intent completely gameable. So our metric is by intent, yeah, partly gameable and if you have a ton of traffic on your page. If you have a ton positive readers that kind of thing is going to affect it. We’re also working hard to identify third-party measures that suggest other people think the app is good and aren’t campaign based. And of course, I won’t comment specifically on what those are because then, they become campaign based.

Mr. BORTHWICK: So, Loic, I will help you with it.

Ms. FITTON: It’s embryonic now, Loic, but it should continue to improve and we will also divide up the content in many more different ways. We never imagined we’d have this big a user base this fast. So, luckily we have a fantastic engineering team rolling out features pretty fast.

Mr. GILLMOR: You’re going to help them, John?

Mr. BORTHWICK: Yeah, I was just going to help them. We got - I just looked at the most popular. We’ve got one, three and ten at Beta Works right now. So, if you were a Beta Works company you’d operating with me.

Mr. LE MEUR: Sure.

Mr. GILLMOR: Is that an offer?

Mr. LE MEUR: Is that some kind of offer, John? So no, yeah, I mean, Laura, I think you know how much of a supporter I’ve been but when I look at the 20 most popular apps that you’re prophesizing and we’re not in there. I, you know, you can debate about one thing like this but …

Ms. FITTON: No, no. Twhirl has frequently been in there. We’ve got …

Mr. LE MEUR: Yeah, Seesmic is bigger than Twhirl and it’s not in there. So, you know, anyway.

Ms. FITTON: Oh, I’ve seen studies looking at source tags that showed Twhirl much bigger in its market share that Seesmic. I mean, there’s a - nobody knows how to mess with this stuff yet. It’s an emerging science and lots of areas we can find.

Mr. LE MEUR: Laura, we have seen with Seesmic web direct access to data coming from Twitter so we have a pretty good idea of the market share as well.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, let me say that if you do get …

Mr. BORTHWICK: I was going to ask him …

Mr. GILLMOR: …it’s just going to get even more intense, Laura.

Ms. FITTON: It totally will. I mean, I put myself into an impossible diplomatic situation considering how many friends I have in the ecosystem. I had to completely accuse myself about all decisions about whether or not CoTweet would be a featured app and everything because I’m an adviser. I disclosed the heck out of everything and trying to stay as reasonable as I can and that’s the best I can hope for. By the way, I did finally find the name of the apps that will show you trends among your friends, not to change the topic but, I don’t want to forget this. It’s GraphEdge. It’s one of the Boston lineup that was profiled in the Boston Globe this past Sunday. Unfortunately, it’s in closed beta so you can’t see it.

Mr. GILLMOR: The Boston Globe still publishing.

Ms. FITTON: Well, I think it’s also for sale. Maybe we should put a little tag how much it’s worth on OneForty as well, right. There are also a couple a really specific ones, iAte will show where you’re - what the trends in restaurants among your Twitter friends are. There is also Trendsmap that will show you specific friends among your group. So, I’m excited to see more innovation and one of the hopes with creating OneForty was to make more innovation possible because we could finally see if there was already an app for that and then build out on new ideas, new features, new innovations, compare notes, see what works, see what doesn’t.

Mr. LE MEUR: Laura, just one point here is that listening to Loic. I mean, I think that it’s - I think you should put clearly on OneForty the fact that this is generated algorithmically and it’s not editorial. Because I think that one of the things that will help the acceleration and the adoption of a lot of services is that if there’s just clear transparent - if we understand, we as users understand when something is an editorial pick versus when something is actually been surfaced by using data from the stream. And I think there was a huge issue with the SUL and other things which should have been out there, which should have been editorially driven. And I think that it’s - if this is algorithmic, then that’s, you know, it’s good. It’s good for the market because it’s actually an indicator of the market.

Ms. FITTON: Yes, yes and we do actually have some of these covered in our FAQs which I’m sure you’re all familiar, probably more familiar than I am with the need to (unintelligible) FAQs.

Mr. BORTHWICK: Absolutely.

MS. FITTON: And honestly, this is one of the reasons we haven’t rolled out a lot of the commercial stuff that’s in the pipeline because certainly paid placement is something we’ve gotten tons of demands for. Until our users understand our rubric and are literate in terms of what is editorial, what is mathematical, what is paid, we don’t want those lines blurring because if we’re coming out there in an advertorial stance and like pushing, pushing, pushing, and being super biased, we’re not serving the community. We failed.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well this has taken a little time to gain some momentum but now I can’t catch you guys up so, I’m just going to say, I want to thank - first of all, I want to thank our sponsors. This tricast was developed and produced with the aid of NewTek and their fabulous Tricaster and it’s sponsored by Rackspace. And I encourage you to take a look at what’s going on at Building43 as we start to build out what’s called the real-time network and that’s at building43.com/realtime. There will be a transcript to the show as soon as SimulScribe makes it available to us which will be posted along with the YouTube version of the show on gillmorgang.techcrunch.com and I want to thank John Borthwick.

Mr. BORTHWICK: Thank you.

Mr. GILLMOR: Thank you so much for showing up. I want to thank Pistachio a.k.a. Laura Fitton. You can now consider yourself to be one of the gang.

Ms. FITTON: Thank you so much. Oh, you’re very sweet.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. And Loic has been a member of the gang although owing to immigration policies, he hasn’t been allowed on the show from time to time.

Mr. LE MEUR: I’m working on my (unintelligible) green card. Thanks.

Mr. GILLMOR: Let me know how that goes. All right. Yeah, thank you for …

Mr. LE MEUR: Well you don’t know if you won’t be admitted in French Customs either. That’s my surprise when you go to the web.

Mr. GILLMOR: I’m hoping that’s the case. And Dan Farber, are you still with us?

Mr. FARBER: Yes I am.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. Well, I assume that since you’ve been listening and enjoying. Thanks so much and the next time that you’re on the show I’d like to see the CBS News run in the background. So, let’s try and make that on video, OK?

Mr. FARBER: All right.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. Thank you and last - Scoble, you know, we all know how much we love Scoble and please don’t turn in to the show that he went and left us for. Kevin Marks, thank you, as always.

Mr. MARKS: Thank you. You know, it’s nice to be on it. Great conversation today.

Mr. GILLMOR: This is Steve Gillmor. This has been the Gillmor Gang. Oh, John, I thanked, John didn’t I?

Mr. MARKS: You did thank John.

Mr. BORTHWICK: You did. You did.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, but I’ll thank you again.

Mr. BORTHWICK: Thank you.

Mr. GILLMOR: Thank you. OK. This is Steve Gillmor. This has been the Gillmor Gang. I want to thank everybody who showed up and especially those who didn’t. But there will be another show in the pipeline. Thank you so much. Bye-bye.

Gillmor Gang 10.01.09

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

The Gillmor Gang — Phil WIndley, Craig Burton, Robert Scoble, and Kevin Marks — debate Google sidewiki and identity politics. Recorded live October 1, 2009.

Full transcript below the video, courtesy of Simulscribe.

Mr. STEVE GILLMOR: Hi. Welcome to the Gillmor Gang. I’m Steve Gillmor and we’ve got some - of the usual suspects and some of the way older Gillmor Gang regulars such as - let’s talk first to Craig Burton. Craig, welcome.

Mr. CRAIG BURTON: Hi, Steve. Thanks.

Mr. GILLMOR: Thanks for showing up here and somebody I - I don’t know whether Phil’s been on the Gillmor Gang or on the News Gang in the past.

Mr. PHIL WINDLEY: News Gang.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I know you’re on News Gang. But I’m trying to remember - I think you were on a - the original identity gang show back in 1987 I think it was. No…

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Fourty-three.

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah, back when rocks were new and we were talking about identity.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, exactly. So I think you were on the Gillmor Gang then.

Mr. WINDLEY: Mm hmm.

Mr. GILLMOR: So welcome back, Phil Windley.

Mr. WINDLEY: Thank you.

Mr. GILLMOR: And joining us from his bomb shelter in Half Moon(ph) Bay, Robert Scoble.

Mr. ROBERT SCOBLE: Hey, what’s up?

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. We’re waiting on Kevin Marks who seems to be green now. So let’s see if we can bring him in. We’ll just keep it a little lose here for a second. Sorry about the delays but - that’s very nice. OK. Kevin, give us video, please.

Mr. SCOBLE: It’s Google Wave.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. We’re going to talk about that as soon as I bring him in. Here’s your audio. And of course, Kevin Marks, the inscrutable, indecipherable, Kevin Marks.

Mr. KEVIN MARKS: Unintelligible. That’s me.

Mr. GILLMOR: That’s right, frequently or amazingly. So you - have you - we have to figure out some sort of methodology for having you to be able to proof the transcripts.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, here we go.

Mr. GILLMOR: So that you can at least indicate that it wasn’t you who said that.

Mr. MARKS: Right. Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK.

Mr. MARKS: It’s an interesting thing. It is.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. So let’s see. Let’s have a two shot with Scoble and Kevin for a second. Just before you, you got here, Kevin, you - Scoble was showing Google Wave. What’s the whole point of this, Robert?

Mr. SCOBLE: It’s like I am an email, had sex and had a baby. And so you have these waves that you can start and you can invite people in. So like this wave that says hello there. I could invite Kevin Marks in too and then we could have a real time conversation there and I could drag in photos and videos and other things. It’s almost like FriendFeed but coastered to email than FriendFeed was. FriendFeed and Twitter are meant for really public conversations. These are meant for working in a small group like, you know, at work. That’s how I would (unintelligible).

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. Well…

Mr. MARKS: That’s - yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Kevin, what’s your take on the…

Mr. MARKS: What’s my take on it?

Mr. GILLMOR: On Google Wave.

Mr. MARKS: I’m at…

Mr. GILLMOR: Now that you’re not at Google allegedly.

Mr. MARKS: What do you mean allegedly? I don’t know…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I’ve got something that I’m going to point out in just a second which will tend to…

Mr. SCOBLE: We all work for Google though.

Mr. GILLMOR: Cast incredible doubt on your credibility. But let’s go ahead.

Mr. MARKS: So for me, I think Wave is primarily about document editing and we have the (unintelligible) on top of that. So what it does is it lets you edit documents in real time which we’ve sort of had with Google docs and we’ve had with - somebody thread it and need a patent on these thing. But what it was, they take - they took that method into infrastructure and put a bunch of other things on top of that. So the sort of emailey(ph) IME behavior is actually on top of document editing. And that’s why this structure is quite different from Twitter or FriendFeed because there is a core document that you’re editing at any given moment and you switch between them, it isn’t just a flow of separate events that you stitch together afterwards. So that the - the world view is the other way up. Everything is a document with edits in it rather than lots of little messages that you’re trying to correlate and make sense of.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right, well the reason that I wanted you to sort of relate that to a more abstract or activity stream notion of what is - that we’re in - talking about here is…

Mr. MARKS: OK.

Mr. GILLMOR: The reason that we have Craig Burton and Phil Windley on the show and I’m going to get to Phil in a second because he kind of started this with a rather inflammatory post. But…

Mr. MARKS: Since (unintelligible) like Phil at all.

Mr. GILLMOR: And we all like - and we like it when Republicans get inflammatory. But Craig, you - what’s your take on this hijacking if you will of the email space on the part of Google? Do you feel threatened by this project?

Mr. BURTON: Wave?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. BURTON: Well, you know, I’m not even going to say until I get to play with it. I doubt I’d feel threatened by anything that Google would do at this point. There seems to be a lot of concern about Google but you know, I don’t think they could figure out anything to really threaten me but, so bring it on.

Mr. GILLMOR: So - all right, let’s get Phil in here and he can sort of state the thesis and then I think Craig, you have a sort of a little object lesson in why you’re not so threatened by this stuff.

Mr. BURTON: Well I was talking more about Sidewiki than WaveW

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. Well, so let me get Phil in here. Let’s see. Get a two shot of Phil and Craig. Phil, very briefly. Would you discuss your Sidewiki post and why you feel what you feel about that technology?

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah. I actually wasn’t - I mean, I knew Sidewiki came out. Wasn’t paying much attention to it really but then, you know, there was some Twitter commentary about oh, you know, Google’s defacing web sites, they’re putting graffiti on the web and I started thinking about it and I sent a tweet back and said, well, you know, it’s not actually - they’re not putting the comments on your site. They’re talking about your site. It just so happens that the browser is displaying them both concurrently and people seem to not buy that argument or not like it and I think the issue is one of metaphor. I mean, when we think of web sites in terms of land and property, then the only metaphor we have is a graffiti. But in fact, I think there are different metaphors we can use and I’m not threatened by people commenting about my site somewhere else on the web and the browser bringing those up side by side and - so I put up a post that kind of described my point of view and ended it with a - I don’t know, what do you call these things? You know, like, you tack them to the church door.

Mr. BURTON: Manifesto.

Mr. WINDLEY: There we go. So anyway, I…

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s a Windley bowl. I think that’s how they described it in the old days.

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Not the same genera…

Mr. SCOBLE: Hoax so…

Mr. WINDLEY: What I said was I claimed the right to mash up, remix, annotate, augment and otherwise, modify web content for my purposes in my bruiser….

Mr. BURTON: Bruiser.

Mr. MARKS: Bruiser or your browser.

Mr. WINDLEY: I was reading. I had a tool in my browser using any tool I choose and I extend the same privilege to everyone else. If you want to take my content and fiddle with it in your browser, go ahead.

Mr. GILLMOR: Now I think you were reacting to some comments by Dave Winer about you know, his contention that this was part of a Google takeover of, you know, that Google is essentially the new Microsoft and that we all should need to be afraid Google.

Mr. BURTON: Which is so hilarious, you know?

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah and I think it’s important to separate out the idea of can you take content and in your own browser, mash it up in some way that’s useful to you and whether or not Sidewiki is a good idea or whether or not Google ought to be doing this. I mean, those are different questions from do I have the right to take two different web feeds and put them next to each other which is essentially all I’m doing when I installed Google’s toolbar and have Sidewiki running.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. So Craig, you have an analogy.

Mr. BURTON: Well, and to preclude my analogy, I’ll say that what we’re in the midst of is shifting from content scheme to context scheme and what Sidewiki is letting us do is create a context between what someone else said and what other people in a row say about it and context is much more powerful than - depending on context. I get a - you know, I’m watching Doc Searls ambivalent piece on Sidewiki saying, well, I’m not sure I like it or don’t and there are people weighing in on both sides in this - I can only say to the people who keep saying that it’s evil. Have a look at it. They don’t know for sure what it is and when I was going through it with Doc, I found out that he hadn’t quite looked at it yet either. So…

Mr. GILLMOR: So he was vociferously defending his right to be semi-ignorant about the subject.

Mr. BURTON: Right. Well, and it comes - it turns out that what he was really against was Google having something that put that’s near my page and as a (unintelligible) you know, let’s drop the vendor and you know…

Mr. SCOBLE: What I’m against with this…

Mr. BURTON: Step away from the product.

Mr. SCOBLE: This is Robert Scoble. What I’m against with this and I have Sidewiki up on my screen is that with other commenting technologies, you had to go to your site to read your opinions or you had to go to wiki or you had to go somewhere else. You had to go off of my site if I didn’t allow comments to see your opinions. This gives your opinions distribution on top of my content and that I find…

Mr. WINDLEY: You know what I’m (unintelligible)

Mr. SCOBLE: Mixed in your content.

Mr. WINDLEY: You don’t have to look at your content is to decide…

Mr. BURTON: You don’t have to look at it. Turn it off.

Mr. SCOBLE: No. But now everybody has a tool that they can use to find other people’s content and I have no way to remove these things or control them…

Mr. MARKS: Exactly. But we shift that that with techno already five years ago. This isn’t anything particularly new. It’s just another blogging service from Google. I mean…

Mr. BURTON: Exactly, exactly.

Mr. WINDLEY: Ever used by anybody.

Mr. GILLMOR: What do you mean and what do you mean that you don’t have any way of being able to remove it? I mean, you could, you know, go downstairs to the electric box and shut down your house. I mean, it’s like…

Mr. SCOBLE: No. But it’s still there and my page is giving distribution to these things.

Mr. GILLMOR: No. That’s not true.

Mr. MARKS: No, it isn’t.

Mr. SCOBLE: It absolutely is. You come over to my page with Sidewiki and you get so see everybody’s crap. If somebody puts a hateful, you know, Nazi thing there. Well, it’s there for everybody to see and there’s nobody is controlling…

Mr. GILLMOR: But Robert, Robert, Robert, if everybody’s putting crap on, then what is the value of that service to anybody and why would they continue to use it? If it’s a stream of crap, you know, or spam, it’s not going to do well for Google or anybody else who tries this. I don’t understand why….

Mr. MARKS: Robert, do you realize how much you sound like an old school newspaper person complaining about blogs there?

Mr. WINDLEY: Orally.

Mr. MARKS: Listen to yourself.

Mr. SCOBLE: Absolutely. You know what?

Mr. MARKS: It’s a new blogging system.

Mr. SCOBLE: There is still - in this world, there is still the right of a copyright holder to control his content and to be there…

Mr. GILLMOR: Wait a minute. Hold on. Hold on.

Mr. SCOBLE: Decide who gets distribution.

Mr. GILLMOR: You’re putting it on the - you’re putting it on the web.

Mr. MARKS: You want to control how my browser renders your content.

Mr. GILLMOR: You’re controlling what you release but you’re not controlling how people use it. I mean, it’s like saying that if somebody says something, you know, I’d like to have Craig give the analogy that he was - that he told me. It’s just so that we can frame the discussion a little bit more in terms of something other than the alleged hijacking of the page. Go ahead, Craig.

Mr. BURTON: Yeah, I remember, you know, when we used to go to conferences, (unintelligible), attendees would sit in the audience while the speaker’s going on and hoping at the end for - to be able to stand up and say something at the mic and we may have collected our thoughts or had a good enough question to do that and then I remember very distinctly with some of the people in this group including Dave Winer, who is not in this group, of course but, you’ know, this whole conversation and Doc Searls and going to a conference in particular, Esther Dyson’s conference in instant messaging was now - everybody was up on the instant messenger and there was this huge back channel going on behind the conversation of the speakers and - so by the time the speakers got done and somebody got up to ask a question, the amount of conversation that’s going on in the background was huge and to me, Sidewiki is just a back channel for your content. If you, you know, how you - you can’t stop it. It’s going to go on anyway. The fact that you’re a carrier for it is the same as if you went to the conference. You’re a carrier for the back channel, you know? If you put it out there - there is…

Mr. SCOBLE: The difference there is the back channel at all these conferences usually wasn’t up on stage. You had to find it and go somewhere else to find it and to participate in it.

Mr. BURTON: Oh please. You’re saying that the….

Mr. SCOBLE: Or plus it up my stage.

Mr. BURTON: Effort to go find it is what this thing - what this is?

Mr. SCOBLE: It’s what’s this thing - the content. It wasn’t on top of the content that was being presented on stage.

Mr. WINDLY: Robert, you really believe that in the era of web technology that we can create artificial barriers by having friction or having people not be able to find stuff?

Mr. SCOBLE: For the last eight years we have.

Mr. WINDLEY: I mean, come on. That’s what the web is all about.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. MARKS: Maybe so. This is…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, we haven’t had health care reform for the last eight years and we’re going to get it now.

Mr. SCOBLE: You’re still sure about that?

Mr. GILLMOR: Uh-huh. Yeah. Pre-existing conditions.

Mr. SCOBLE: We’re going to get some reform. We’re not going to get what we want.

Mr. GILLMOR: Are going down. Sucker. They’re going down. Pre-existing conditions, keep your job.

Mr. MARKS: OK.

Mr. GILLMOR: Leave your job. You still are covered. Yeah. That’s changing right now, next six weeks.

Mr. MARKS: Well let’s hope so. OK, Sidewiki at - it’s a blogging system. What it does is it looks for comments and shows you them. Now I wrote something that does this five years ago with a bunch of other people called Technorati that help you find people talking about your stuff on their blogs. Sidewiki does this, too. In addition, they added the ability for you to post your own comments to another blog that happens to be on your Google profile and draw those in as well. So it took the - showing me what people have said about this page which we’ve had the Technorati plug in, the sphere plug in, there’s 20 of them that you can put in your browser does this. They’ve done that as a toolbar. But the second, I mean, it’s the ability for you to post comments back into that system and show them there, too. Now people missed the first part of sharing comments. If you’ve got Sidewiki, go to oneforty.com because that’s a good example of this, you know, go to the site oneforty.com. If you look at that and hit Sidewiki, what you see is all the blog posts that were about oneforty.com last week when it was launched and you see the blog post from TechCrunch and Master Bowl and so on that were writing about it because Sidewiki said, oh, this is about this side. I’ll show you it there which is very like the old who’s writing about me thing we did at Technorati. Yeah?

Mr. BURTON: Yeah.

Mr. MARKS: And so you can see those. You can also go in there and add your own comment to the page and have that pop up there, too. So it’s actually doing this cross web correlation thing that, you know, that we were doing in Technorati but they’re doing - with Google scroll which is probably more thorough than ours is.

Mr. GILLMOR: More context.

Mr. SCOBLE: Now, wait a second. I never remember having a Technorati toolbar that showed them on the page when I went to oneforty.com like…

Mr. WINDLEY: Well, there is one. There’s no one.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, we built one. Yeah. We built one. We may have not installed it. The difference here is Google would have (unintelligible) pay attention.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. This is the theory that because Google is successful, that somehow what they’re doing is bad as opposed to somebody else who doesn’t get the leverage…

Mr. MARKS: The other subtle thing that (unintelligible) he does. Now, this is the really fun one. If you comment on a block of text, it correlates the comment with that block of text. If it sees the same block of text somewhere else, it shows the comment there too. There’s a (unintelligible) to show you this. But I commented on the Douglas Adams piece that I’m always closing. Hang on, I’ll put it in the chat room. There.

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, wait a minute. You can’t put it in the chat room because that’s a foreign, you know…

Mr. MARKS: I’ll put it in wave.

Mr. GILLMOR: Same information.

Mr. BURTON: Oh, yeah, you bring that…

Mr. GILLMOR: On Building 43 it’s right alongside this is…

Mr. WINDLEY: Something might have a plug in showing that FriendFeed next to their blog and that would be awful.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, we’re being hijacked by FriendFeed.

Mr. MARKS: If you look at that Douglas Adams page and there’s a comment from me there on a piece of it. Now, let me find the other link, hold on.

Mr. SCOBLE: You guys are pretty funny because FriendFeed, you would have to know about FriendFeed to find the chat room.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, Robert, you better stop taking about FriendFeed then because there a lot of people who know about it now.

Mr. SCOBLE: How do…

Mr. GILLMOR: You’re not just part of the problem, you are the problem Robert…

Mr. SCOBLE: How do they got…

Mr. MARKS: Robert, really is always the problem there.

Mr. SCOBLE: Somebody has to really (unintelligible) in here. Arrington is not on yet.

Mr. MARKS: So you see that one, hang on.

Mr. GILLMOR: Arrington agrees with us as far as I can tell. I read that article. I don’t know what…

Mr. SCOBLE: Although you did complain about all the comments on TechCrunch, he did make fun of that, you know.

Mr. MARKS: Some of it. You look at that one as a comment for me, right?

Mr. GILLMOR: He make fun of it…

Mr. MARKS: On the sidebar. In the Sidewiki.

Mr. SCOBLE: For what? For web, for oneforty?

Mr. MARKS: For that thing I just sent you. Oh, did you not get it? Hang on.

Mr. SCOBLE: I don’t know where I am supposed to be looking.

Mr. MARKS: (unintelligible)LY/DA.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, when we grow up we’re going to actually - we can put web pages on the screen but - we’re just having a fun with four people right now.

Mr. MARKS: Well Robert was pointing it, he’s pointing his camera at the screen.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I know, I understand the technology. I didn’t say…

Mr. SCOBLE: Where did you send it because I didn’t get anything. Where did you send it to?

Mr. MARKS: I put it in the FriendFeed chat.

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m not in the FriendFeed chat.

Mr. GILLMOR: Go to Building 43, Robert. Have you heard about that?

Mr. BURTON: Now, Robert if you point that camera in your screen…

Mr. MARKS: (Unintelligible) put it away here. I’ll put it away for you if you like because…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, I can’t. Can we get to the FriendFeed chat because I wasn’t in the FriendFeed chat because I’m trying to pay attention to what’s going on in real life here.

Mr. GILLMOR: So you know, competition is leading to ADD because we have so many choices now. I can’t tell which is worse, having choice or not having choice.

Mr. MARKS: It’s a way again

Mr. BURTON: And I got to open it.

Mr. GILLMOR: Hey, Craig, what are you doing?

Mr. MARKS: Oh, Microsoft has gone away. It’s going to be some of that, Google now…

Mr. WINDLEY: Yes, Steve. I tell people that I have it, Attention Surplus Disorder and in today’s day and age, that’s a real liability.

Mr. GILLMOR: So what is that ASD, ASD?

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah, ASD. Attention Surplus.

Mr. SCOBLE: How do you know that so?

Mr. GILLMOR: Well Kevin and Robert I’m having fun with you.

Mr. MARKS: OK, the system has usually gone astray(ph). Anyway, let me explain, tell you what it does rather than showing you, showing is the outline, how it works. What it will do is if I select a piece of text and put the comment on that, if it finds that same piece of text somewhere else as someone quoted that page, it will show the comment next to that as well.

Mr. BURTON: Wow, that’s cool.

Mr. MARKS: So if there’s a (unintelligible) speech or a comment in one place, that same comment can show up somewhere else.

Mr. BURTON: How do you know it did that? I like that…

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m on that page right now. What am I supposed to look? I see your comment here, Douglas Adams got it right.

Mr. MARKS: Somewhere I had that same text on another blog post. I found this. And then I got…

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah, it’s down lower. It’s down lower. If you scroll down with Sidewiki, what you’ll see is there’s a little…

Mr. MARKS: It says A, other places or something.

Mr. WINDLEY: Conversation, yeah, Sidewiki entry about this part of the page and then when you click on it, it will actually highlight the text that the comment’s about.

Mr. MARKS: But it also says, also shown on seven other web pages. Now, of course we don’t do silly which - seven other web pages…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. MARKS: There you go. Because this has been quoted a lot because you know, I quoted you know, this is - if you haven’t read this, that was on the speeches, read it. It’s beautiful. It was written 10 years ago and it’s all still true.

Mr. GILLMOR: Just trying to interject something, Matt Valenzio is saying I don’t even understanding the concept of chat gathered around the Gillmor Gang anymore. Do they mean the comments on this post. Yes. Where you’re typing is what we’re talking about.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: You go to Building43.com/realtime. You’ll see it’s displayed next to the streaming video of this show.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. MARKS: I didn’t know that. I’m just using it in FriendFeed. I need to slow down. Is this why I’m unintelligible?

Mr. GILLMOR: Well you know, it’s a trade off because we can understand it, but it also helps the sales in quotes of the YouTube video. And then of course the SimulScribe transcribers are going insane at the moment or will be in a couple of hours.

Mr. MARKS: They just mark me as unintelligible and they’re done right there.

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s reductive, I think. What was the thing next in the tapes where…

Mr. MARKS: Reductive, yes. No, expletive deleted.

Mr. GILLMOR: There it is.

Mr. WINDLEY: So to Kevin’s point that he made about this comment that he left here on the Douglas Adams site. I made a blog comment just a little bit ago about you know, the China censorship where they’re talking. I don’t know if you saw this. But they’re requiring a positive identification with real ID, real names of people before they can comment on new sites in China now which obviously is an attempt to do a way with dissent, right. Make you think twice before you leave a comment because we’re going to know who you are. Things like Sidewiki, not just Sidewiki, I mean anything. Technorati does the same thing. It totally showed the futility of that.

Mr. MARKS: I think, I mean, that’s… there was an assumption awhile back that you can control the conversation about your stuff. And this hasn’t been true since we had blogs. Suddenly if some of these blogs the comments down the discussion move somewhere else, move that term to the wider web and it spreads out. So when Seth Godin(ph) did his, I’m going to take your brand and charge you $400 a month to maintain it on the web thing last week on his blog, people discussed that elsewhere on the web, wrote about it and he had to back down. And yet, they were using Sidewiki to comment on his blog. But mostly they were writing blog posts elsewhere and discussing it on Twitter and connecting back and forth. So the thing, the point, is the conversation is always going along in parallel and Sidewiki is just another way of servicing that. So I’m fairly saying, I think it’s interesting, the couple of things that they’ve done there of correlating the words is really interesting and that will be quite hard for anyone other than Google to do because Google is the only one across(ph) almost everything. So that’s them providing a service for us, from their (unintelligible) that’s already going on.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right, Robert Scoble. Why don’t you read what you just typed?

Mr. SCOBLE: I just said the difference between Sidewiki and Echo and discusses that - discuss an Echo, give control over what gets displayed to the blog owner. So if somebody writes a, erased his post on Building43 or something, I can - as the blog owner I can delete that post. On Sidewiki, I don’t believe I have any control to delete things.

Mr. WINDLEY: You can mark it as abuse.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, and then what happens? Somebody in Google has to see it.

Mr. WINDLEY: But Robert, I think it’s interesting that you think you have to have control over the conversation about what you write.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. I do. More and more now that I’ve been on the Internet, I think you need control.

Mr. MARKS: You can’t control what people say about you.

Mr. BURTON: You don’t have it. You’re never going to have it Robert. Forget it.

Mr. MARKS: I mean, you just can’t have it.

Mr. SCOBLE: I absolutely do right now. Well I don’t…

Mr. MARKS: Well, you absolutely don’t right now.

Mr. SCOBLE: Sorry.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert, you never had it…

Mr. MARKS: People are talking about you everywhere.

Mr. SCOBLE: In scobleizer.com, I can delete your comments.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert, what do you have on my screen right now?

Mr. SCOBLE: I can create and I can delete your comment on my items.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert, what do you have on my screen right now?

Mr. MARKS: You can’t delete it from my blog.

Mr. SCOBLE: What’s that?

Mr. GILLMOR: What you…

Mr. MARKS: You can’t delete it from my blog. You can’t delete it from Twitter.

Mr. GILLMOR: What do you see on my screen right now?

Mr. SCOBLE: No. No. I don’t give distribution to you. Nobody can find you from my blog. If they’re following me, they can’t click on the links next to you.

Mr. WINDLEY: Oh, that…

Mr. SCOBLE: They can use - there’s plenty of tools.

Mr. WINDLEY: You’re not showing the comments. Google is showing the comments in a separate frame in the browser. You’re not giving distribution to anything. All the - I mean, techno…

Mr. SCOBLE: Wrong. Wrong. Sorry, when you’re using Sidewiki I am giving distribution to those comments because you come over to my blog. You type in my blog address and now obviously you see everybody’s comments. And I now no longer have control on those comments.

Mr. WINDLEY: They’re typing your blog address to Technorati and see everybody’s comments that they wrote on their blogs.

Mr. SCOBLE: That’s you but how many people actually knew about Technorati?

Mr. BURTON: What do you think? Everybody. What do you talking about?

Mr. MARKS: We were very famous(ph) at one point.

Mr. SCOBLE: Give me a break, nobody even knows Technorati.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. Hold on. Hold on a second. Hold on. Hold on.

Mr. BURTON: So, you’re saying if nobody knows about it, it’s OK?

Mr. SCOBLE: No. You can find it somewhere else, you’re in control of that space..

Mr. BURTON: That’s ridiculous.

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s simple than this. First of all, Robert, why do you support FriendFeed, because it does exactly the same thing that you’re talking about Google doing that you don’t like.

Mr. BURTON: Well because nobody knows about it.

Mr. GILLMOR: This FriendFeed conversation…

Mr. SCOBLE: If I start a note, I can delete comments underneath my notes.

Mr. GILLMOR: You can delete comments if you start a note, right.

Mr. SCOBLE: That’s right. That’s my brand. I started a note. I started the conversation, I could control that. Now if you started a note, I have 47,000 or 49,000 followers. You have how many followers, I don’t know. But my followers, I’m giving distribution to certain things to. And I decide what those people are going to see out of my stuff..

Mr. GILLMOR: Out of your stuff.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, if you’re only following me, I decide what you’re going to see.

Mr. GILLMOR: So in other words, all the comments that flow through on any other system to my machine while I’m watching your site are somehow under your control.

Mr. SCOBLE: No. Anything under my name, under my - in FriendFeed, what’s there in FriendFeed. If I start a note, I control all the comments that happened in my note. So if you’re only following me, I have control of almost everything you see except for when you get pulled stuff into a friend of a friend or what not.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right or any of the other programs that I’m running, that flash information. Right now…

Mr. SCOBLE: That’s separate from my note. You had to choose to go there. I didn’t take you there.

Mr. GILLMOR: No, I’m going - I’m choosing to go to your site and I’m sitting there in your side. And now, what you’re telling me is that everything else that’s on my screen is somehow you would prefer that it was under your control.

Mr. SCOBLE: No, if you go to the Huffington Post, a Huffington Post has control of what you’re seeing.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. All right. So now I understand and this is I think what Phil talks about when he talks about the, well, I’ll call the politics of location. Is that true?

Mr. SCOBLE: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. So this is the notion that your site is a location that you control.

Mr. SCOBLE: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: Which flies in the face of everything that I do on a daily basis with my computer, nobody has control of what I look at except me.

Mr. SCOBLE: That’s so… but I have control of that view port when you go to scobelizer.com, that’s me. That’s not….Kevin Rose, that’s Leo Laporte, it’s not Amanda Chapel, it’s me.

Mr. WINDLEY: Well, Robert. It’s my browser Robert I have control over the view port.

Mr. SCOBLE: Absolutely. In your browser you have to enter Amanda Chapel in or you have to enter kevinrose.com or you have to enter Leo Laporte to go to those things. If you choose to come to me, you’re asking your browser to display me and my brand to you.

Mr. WINDLEY: Robert, you’re stuck on browsers, how browsers have worked in the past, not how they might work in the future, in the same way that RIAA will stock…

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m also stuck on copyright and my ability as a communicator to control my voice and my vision and say this is mine, this is my little space and nobody gets overrated and (unintelligible) and steal it…

Mr. GILLMOR: You can say that but Robert when you post something on the web and you allow other servers to flow that data through and deliver it to requests from people on the web, you don’t control it anymore. You as a copyright issue is completely bogus. It has nothing to do with copyright.

Mr. BURTON: You’re living in lala land Robert to think that you can maintain control of your little space.

Mr. GILLMOR: Got it.

Mr. WINDLEY: So can I, can I, like (unintelligible) a little bit. So the fact of the matter is the web has - doesn’t have locations, it has resources. And it has uniform resource locators which are used to locate those resources. Now we call them addresses but their not really addresses, they’re just unique identifiers for a resource on the web. All that Sidewiki is doing is taking that unique identifier and finding all of the comments about that unique identifier and giving me as a user the choice of saying show me all of the things that people have written around this unique identifier. Now the fact that you created the identifier or the fact that you attach to it to resource doesn’t meant that somebody else can’t write about that same resource using the same identifier.

Mr. SCOBLE: True. But if you right about something, you have to find your own distribution. You don’t get to get access to my distribution channel that I built up over time.

Mr. WINDLEY: Your distribution.

Mr. BURTON: Robert, it already happened. Why are you arguing what you can’t control? It’s done. It’s over.

Mr. WINDLEY: This is actually a critical point because Robert is making a critical…

Mr. BURTON: Are you gonna sue them?

Mr. WINDLEY: Robert’s claiming it’s his distribution but it’s not Robert’s audience. The audience is everybody who has a Google toolbar installed. It is Google audience. Google is the one that’s distributing the toolbar. Google is the one that’s convincing people to do that. It’s Google’s audience, not yours Robert. Your audience are the people who come to your blog, the people who see Sidewiki are the people who have Google toolbar. You don’t own that audience, that’s Google’s audience. And you’re not providing them distribution, Google is providing the distribution by getting people to download the tool bar.

Mr. SCOBLE: OK.

Mr. BURTON: If you think you can control it, you know, I’d like to see how…

Mr. GILLMOR: I’m hearing the apology coming. Just kidding.

Mr. SCOBLE: No. no.

Mr. GILLMOR: I know, it’s not an apology. I wanted to keep it going.

Mr. BURTON: I’d love to see how you’re going to do it Robert.

Mr. SCOBLE: Why don’t I just give you guys my WordPress log in password so you guys can read(ph) my content.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I mean, you give us - you give everybody your phone number so why not.

Mr. WINDLEY: Well, I don’t need it. I don’t need your WordPress log in. I can use Google Sidewiki.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yes, exactly.

Mr. WINDLEY: Anything you know.

Mr. GILLMOR: And also you know, while you’re at it, turn off your comments because you know, you’re giving control to - you know, random lunatics all around the universe.

Mr. SCOBLE: No, actually on my comments I’m discussing the Echo and that was the point I was making, I do have control. I can delete you if you’re racist or if you just piss me off.

Mr. WINDLEY: And you can, which means that people who come and do these things on your site which are clearly under your control, you can control. But people who (unintelligible) things somewhere else on the web, you can’t. I think it’s just fascinating that three or four years ago we were having this same discussion about the RIAA and why their business model was old and they couldn’t see how things were going to change and now it’s the bloggers that are having exactly the same problem.

Mr. BURTON: It’s my copyright.

Mr. WINDLEY: That’s many more than the RIAA…

Mr. SCOBLE: Oh, I’m sorry, I never said that you’re - with music, that you should be able to stick whatever you want on top of music and use somebody else’s work and make money off of that.

Mr. MARKS: I’m sorry, where did the money come from?

Mr. SCOBLE: What’s that?

Mr. MARKS: Where’s the money?

Mr. BURTON: A mash up, a mash up

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah, but…

Mr. SCOBLE: That’s illegal

Mr. BURTON: It’s not illegal.

Mr. SCOBLE: (Unintelligible) that you’re able to do that

Mr. BURTON: (Unintelligible) Let them have at it.

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, but he just – he came up with creative comments. If he sticks something in a creative comment go for it, you know.

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah, but – but the – there’s a – every metaphor as Doc points out is at its core wrong. That’s why I got a metaphor(ph), right. And so, the only thing that Sidewiki is Sidewiki. And so, all of our metaphors are going to be run – we’re going to find problems with it. But the point is, I don’t have to debase your site. I don’t have to change your content. I don’t have to do anything to it in order for Sidewiki to work. All I have to do is download it exactly the same way that you’ve given me permission already to download it and then download something from Google and put them side by side in the same browser. That’s all I have to do. I’m not doing anything to your copyright. I’m not changing your site.

Mr. SCOBLE: Okay. I disagree. I disagree. But that’s fine.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, what I like to…

Mr. BURTON: And my point is it doesn’t matter if you disagree, it’s over.

Mr. SCOBLE: That is true. I will agree on that point.

Mr. BURTON: It doesn’t matter.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. So…

Mr. SCOBLE: Although I remember Microsoft came out with a something that added something like a (unintelligible) what do they call it? They got it in the early 90s. They put a little box on top of links and that got killed and got taken out.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. And some of he people, I remember Dave Winer, myself and others were opposed to that because essentially that was rewriting the text under the control of Word or Office which at that time was at a monopoly. Kevin, would you like to (unintelligible) down or stand up, yeah, one or the other?

Mr. MARKS. Sorry.

Mr. GILLMOR: Thanks.

Mr. MARKS: - looking at my reflection.

Mr. GILLMOR: No, it’s you know, we’re not in Kansas anymore.

Mr. MARKS: I just (Unintelligible) like that.

Mr. GILLMOR: That’s much better. Yeah. We – I think we are all opposed to that because we had no choice in those days.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: There was no Google. There was no – I think Winer’s thesis today however is that Google is the new Microsoft and I think that’s patently incorrect. We are – we’re using on this experience, whatever you might want to call this.

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Or a combination of technologies. We’re using the Facebook Monopoly. We’re using the Google Monopoly. We’re using the – if you go to our News Gang app which is going to come out in beta hopefully in the next day or so.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: We were using (unintelligible) monopoly, Microsoft Monopoly. It’s a – it’s a – it’s a symphony of monopolies that we’re using.

Mr. MARKS: Silos.

Mr. SCOBLE: The other difference between that earlier technology was this doesn’t change my content. It just gives distribution to other people’s content. So, it’s like a lot cleaner.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, but there’s a – like a small station?

Mr. SCOBLE: If Google actually went in and changed my links and added ads or something like that, you know, I think everybody would be a lot –

Mr. GILLMOR: I mean, I think we should. I think we should round up the guy that invented the widget and have him shot because, you know, what happened was, is that the web page started to be come a much more malleable experience.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. So, are we going to roll that back?

Mr. SCOBLE: No.

Mr. GILLMOR: You know, the Republican Health Care Reform which is – don’t get sick and if you do get sick then die quickly. So, are we going to apply that to the widget crisis? Let’s you know, don’t use them and if you do then…

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m actually not that upset about this because what you guys will find…

Mr. MARKS: Skype has its desk panels or widgets.

Mr. SCOBLE: If this site (unintelligible) actually gets pretty popular and I don’t think it will because it only works on Firefox right now and personally all my web surfing is…

Mr. MARKS: (Unintelligible)

Mr. GILLMOR: And like Gmail that didn’t get popular. It only worked on a thousand machines to begin with.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, exactly. But let’s say it does get popular. People will use it to try to get distribution for their ideas and IE it will get spammed to death really quickly.

Mr. GILLMOR: I –

Mr. WINDLEY: That’s the business model issue.

Mr. SCOBLE: No, it’s – not…

Mr. GILLMOR: But I think that’s exactly right.

Mr. SCOBLE: (Unintelligible). You’ll come over to TechCrunch and all you’ll see is damn spam ads and people.

Mr. MARKS: The best interest you need for me is – is – it moves to the (unintelligible) question, on which comments do you see, which is the interesting problem, and that’s where they could learn something. So, what they’ve done so far is that they’ve done a – with Google, we know how to – how to write (unintelligible)

Mr. SCOBLE: Twitter, man where we can see just the people’s comments that we want to see.

Mr. MARKS: Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. So, if Sidewiki looked at my social graph and said OK, here’s the comments from the people you care about on that site, that would be useful. That would really be valuable.

Mr. SCOBLE: Although I really don’t want to see your comment on my porn sites.

Mr. MARKS: We’ll I don’t like visiting your porn sites, Robert. So, don’t worry about it. So, no commenting.

Mr. SCOBLE: This is where I get serious. There was a company. It’s in Boulder, Colorado. It’s now called One Right(ph) but there used to be a browser plug in that you could surf the web together with your friends. I tried it and it was just really weird. I don’t think normal people are going to use that. And they failed in the market.

Mr. MARKS: Charlene Lee(ph) was the only one at least a year ago that did this.

Mr. WINDLEY: So, let me – let me – part of the hypothetical (unintelligible) and hopes of making maybe – maybe making the conversation keep being argumentative. Robert said something about…

Mr. GILLMOR: We haven’t had a lot of trouble with keeping that documented…

Mr. WINDLEY: They were changing my clients(ph) and putting ads on my site then I’d really think that was evil. So, let me ask you a question. Here’s a hypothetical, supposed that I created an extension to a browser that when you went to Amazon, would show you whether or not the book you were looking at was available at your local library. In Texas, I need a library lookup bookmark with one step further. Is that evil? Is that evil?

Mr. SCOBLE: It’s useful. It’s useful and it’s -

Mr. WINDLEY: And it exists. Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m sure if you were at Amazon it would be evil. You know, when I ran a retail store –

Mr. WINDLEY: I’m saying…

Mr. SCOBLE: We kept – We would take pictures of our prices to keep the competitors from matching them. Yeah, somebody would find that evil.

Mr. WINDLEY: If that’s useful and it’s serving the purpose and I’m installing it why does anybody have the right to say I can’t?

Mr. GILLMOR: You know coming from a Republican that’s a really interesting question.

Mr. BURTON: A Republican - don’t bring that up.

Mr. GILLMOR: The stereotype of a Republican is they would all get into your bedroom and this about getting into your digital bedroom basically. I mean what right is it of anybody to tell me how to use my computer. I mean, it’s just outrageous.

Mr. MARKS: We’ll I think that’s his point.

Mr. GILLMOR: I agree. I was amplifying it. It’s called a show.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: We’re putting on a show.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, it’s called entertainment.

Mr. BURTON: Really and I find it so curious that Robert Scoble is saying that being able to have a back channel on your blog is evil. You know, I don’t get it.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, let me ask a – a technical question since we have strayed into drama suddenly, you know, which require speed on doing anymore. Right, Robert?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s much more fun without drama. But still it’s a soporific as well. Phil and I think Craig you’re involved in Connect Stix as well.

Mr. WINDLEY: Kinetics.

Mr. GILLMOR: Kinetics. Could you guys explain what you’re doing there because I think it’s somewhat obvious that one of the reasons that you’ve jumped all over this is because it might have to do with your business model.

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah, well in – in – yeah – in light of full disclosure, I’d have to say that one of the reasons that I was interested in this and was – and may have thought about it before now is that that’s exactly what kinetics allows people to do, is create browser extensions, the various ways of doing that but essentially create browser extensions that modify the user’s experience inside the browser. You know, I gave the example of library look up on Amazon and said it was hypothetical but actually it’s not hypothetical .I have a demo that does that right now. And so, that’s exactly what kinetics is doing, is allowing developers to create those kind of what we call purpose-centric experiences for users inside the browser.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK, this comes out of the, you know, the work that you’ve been doing and lot’s of other people have been doing around identity for quite some time, and just to know - by way of disclosure why don’t you describe the internet identity workshop and its relationship to this discussion.

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah, so the internet identity workshop is a – a number nine right now. It will happen again in November from the third to the fifth and it’s been a really good collection of people getting together to talk about internet wide identity not – not enterprise kind of identity issues but things like open ID, card space, those sort of things, information cards are all – have all been part of the conversation and continue to be. The reason I think it’s connected to this or what connection to this is the idea that in order to create a cross side experience one that uses contents from multiple sites, you have to be able to have some kind of identity. You know, in the case of Sidewiki, Google is doing that trough the toolbar. The fact that you have a tool bar installed is essentially the identifier and then the second piece of identity that Sidewiki uses, as I mentioned earlier is the URL that identifies the content and matches it up. And some having internet-wide identity is critical to being able to create this cross-side experiences

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. So, Craig, what’s your – I know that you’re really the godfather of this whole thing. So, you want to explain why?

Mr. BURTON: Sure. I’ve been doing infrastructure since 1989. So, for 20 years I’ve been an advocate of freedom of choice infrastructure and, you know I built systems and help customers build systems that what people have freedom of choice of how they use that infrastructure. And I think that we’re moving to the next era where freedom of choice is going to go beyond the silos that someone like Robert - would like it and Robert Scoble would like to keep you in. He’s silos is broken. He can’t control you anymore. And the customer is going to have the freedom of choice of who they look at and how. And you know, it’s over for your Robert, you know. You’re no longer in control of that audience.

Mr. WINDLEY: You know, what’s interesting about was…

Mr. SCOBLE: I already do that that’s why I give up my blog this year pretty much.

Mr. BURTON: Well, you know, too bad - it’s too bad for the industry, I think because I think the blog is great.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert is doing pretty well.

Mr. BURTON: And the fact that you’re scared because someone is going to put someone – other’s fortune because it’s - it would only enhance it.

Mr. GILLMOR: I know but you’re fighting in the last war now, Craig. We just won this war about 10 minutes ago and you’re going back to…

Mr. SCOBLE: You’re so 10 minutes ago, man.

Mr. GILLMOR: Exactly.

Mr. BURTON: I know if I just look at my Sidewiki I would have known.

Mr. WINDLEY: You know, the risk of going back to the war that’s already been won. You know what Craig just talked about with silos Doc is not here, unfortunate, it’d be…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, Doc was trying to be here but he’s answering the call of a hungry client.

Mr. WINDLEY: Well, let’s hope he’s…

Mr. GILLMOR: Money comes first even for Doc’s service.

Mr. WINDLEY: (Unintelligible) relationship management program and what I’ve been trying to talk to Doc about is how much DRM relies on this ability for people to mash things up in their own browser, not change people’s content and redistribute, but just on their own browser take things from their various silos and put them together. That’s what DRM is all about. And without the right to do that, we’re all going to be at the essentially the behest of the vendor because they’ll claim the same thing Robert says. You don’t have any right to take…

Mr. SCOBLE: Hold on, you know companies can’t claim as strong a copyright as individual people can, right? You know…

Mr. WINDLEY: They are stronger.

Mr. BURTON: First of – but they do…

Mr. WINDLEY: People do…

Mr. SCOBLE: But you know, and also there’s a difference between you putting a browser plug-in on your site that does something – versus, you know, a company like Google doing it so…

Mr. MARKS: So Google can’t write about plug-in…

Mr. SCOBLE: There is gradation of evil there.

Mr. BURTON: You know that because Google is involvement is more evil than if someone else would have but…

Mr. SCOBLE: There are gradations of evil, I mean, you know…

Mr. MARKS: Robert, Robert if you – I want downstream control of my concept, though existed we wouldn’t have Google. Google works because its goes around that were pretending to be a browser and then making a database from it instead.

Mr. SCOBLE: Look at this way, Apple doesn’t let you come in to their store and setup a – you know, a little shop in their store. There are rules and laws in business and what you are allowed to do in your place of business. And so, you’re going to have – it’ll be interesting to see where the fights come up between the…

Mr. BURTON: Once again, you’re metaphorically making us a location and this is not a location conversation.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, exactly.

Mr. GILLMOR: Can you expand on that Craig?

Mr. BURTON: Yeah. As Phil was saying before, this is about resources and control of virtual things, not a place. You’re not going to a place. It’s – It’s not a place for business.

Mr. SCOBLE: I think if you try to – our use that in front of a jury of 12 people, normal people, you would have a really tough time because they would look at this rule that over location…

Mr. GILLMOR: Normal people, in other words, nobody who’s other – on this who were listening to this show.

Mr. WINDLEY: Robert, that’s only…

Mr. BURTON: But they look at that one.

Mr. WINDLEY: But that’s only…

Mr. GILLMOR: You think that’s not going to happen so – so what?

Mr. SCOBLE: Well, the IRAA has successfully beaten up grandma’s who, you know, their kids were stealing music.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, how is that going for them, the IRAA, who pays their bills? The record company cartel which is in a debt spiral?

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m not saying its right. I’m just saying, you know, legally the law is written, you know, for yesterday’s technology.

Mr. GILLMOR: The law is written by lobbyists who are paid by the record company cartel to try and stave off the innovations that have been developed by among others Steve Jobs. So, you just site it.

Mr. SCOBLE: Absolutely.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. So, the – Steve Jobs is part of – I mean, this all goes back to the web services thing. The first minute that Microsoft started to support services was the death now for the idea that there is such a thing as a page. Pages are an interactive bunch of bits which are through AJAX and through XML conduits can change parts of the page without changing, without a refresh of the whole page. That is the new architecture and this is what we are seeing in on top of it.

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah we’ve called this things websites and we’ve given them addresses and we talk about going to them but that doesn’t mean that that’s what they are. That’s just a metaphor we used to help people understand it. That metaphor is going to change.

Mr. BURTON: You know, the travel and location metaphor for the internet has got to shift – the one that thought I’ve been working on to think about this is one of purpose-based or, you know, instead of location-based where I’m going to go somewhere and do something, what I want to do is – how do we say it – Phil…

Mr. WINDLEY: You want to accomplish…

Mr. BURTON: Be in know as opposed to go and do, and when I’m in the process of being knowing, I don’t care about what location is being abused or not, because it isn’t a location.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. So, I’d like to try and sort of get a little bit out ahead of this conversation. So I think we’ve explored the both sides. When we put up the interactive game, which will allow you to be able to vote for side Ron Hudson will says, this is about as useful as wave, and he has left the conversation. So, there will be three dens, you will be able to play along at home by voting for unlimited freedom, draconian lock-in on the part of visible brands. In other words, stow away.

Mr. SCOBLE: You can’t have my word press password.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. I – but trust me. I got my own problems. And then the – so they’re base is going to be three different alternatives here. What’s going to shake out here over the next few months? I noticed on Doc Searl’s Post he’s at the raft of them. He and Cliff Gerrish and others have been sort of bouncing around some of these ideas in an increasingly interesting way, and he cited, and I’m not sure whether this was before or after the discussion about Sidewiki, Craig, he talked about your comments, your open letter to Steve Ballmer. Do you want to review what you said to Steve and what’s that about?

Mr. BURTON: Sure. We – the stuff that connects us doing is brilliant in a couple of ways. One is that it leverages some identity infrastructure, mostly the identity metasystem selector, which of course the first instance so that was card space and Windows. However, the current card space implementation doesn’t let you do contacts automation because it needs to mature a little bit. So, can Cameron invited us to go up and explore that a little bit, and in those meetings it came down to the fact that it would take maybe three or four hours of work for Microsoft to fix the problem and probably won’t be released for two years or better because of the way Microsoft releases infrastructure in the operating system release.

Mr. GILLMOR: And that that’s controlled ultimately according to whoever was talking about this by Steve. He is the guy that it has to go through in order to…

Mr. BURTON: Yeah. I don’t want to name any names but it’s – his initials are Conrad. Anyway, what can I say?

Mr. GILLMOR: Can Conrad – how does that got to do with the health care? I’m not sure I understand.

Mr. BURTON: Sorry. It’s like you’re not him, the project manager. But, you know, basically, what happens is that Steve won’t let in bound or – sorry, in band changes to the operating system go out on the Tuesday releases. They have to go in the operating system. So, if you make a new infrastructure change to Windows out of band, no one will download it, it never gets to anybody’s desktop. So the only way you can really get something on the desktop is if you’re in band and you get released with the O.S. or with the service pack.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. So, do you think that this just to sidestep the, you know, the specific road block of Steve Ballmer, do you think that this is something that is not in Microsoft’s interest and that’s why it’s not going to happen?

Mr. BURTON: Oh, that Microsoft would love to resolve this because, you know, they need this kind of technology to do their next advertising metaphor to try and - if they could only catch up with Google and with bling, you know. They need us in a bad way and they can’t do it. They’re constantly…

Mr. GILLMOR: So, they are being held back by who?

Mr. BURTON: Steve Ballmer.

Mr. GILLMOR: But why is he – does he think that this is disruptive to some aspect of Microsoft’s…

Mr. BURTON: See, I don’t think he even knows that his policy – he doesn’t know that his policy is stopping this.

Mr. GILLMOR: I couldn’t hear what you said, Phil, could you say it again?

Mr. WINDLEY: I said it’s not that he is holding back this specific thing, there’s just a policy of how operating system style releases get done versus other releases and the policy is essentially what holds them back.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. So that it’s Steve Sinofsky who is holding it up.

Mr. BURTON: Well, no. I mean, Ballmer gets to say what goes. It goes up beyond Steve Sinofsky, I mean.

Mr. GILLMOR: What I heard Phil Say is that it’s a process issue and Steven, he runs the trains. So, Steve Sinofsky runs the trains. So…

Mr. WINDLEY: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Steve Sinofsky runs the train.

Mr. BURTON: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. BURTON: Well…

Mr. GILLMOR: I mean I’m just trying to understand. I mean, a few years ago when Kim Cameron and I were talking about some of these issues, the guy that we felt at the time was going to be like Godzilla and Bambi, do you remember that movie?

Mr. BURTON: Oh, yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Was going to be Jim Olson. Now Jim Olson is not there anymore, so what I’m asking is whether or not there’s a new Jim Olson on the scene. Is there somebody who is the enforcer who comes in and says, no we’re not going to do that because it’s disruptive on some level to the Microsoft agenda. I think if Dave Winer is right, that Google’s the new Microsoft them Microsoft is the new Google, and they are the good guys here, and maybe this is a congenital problem not something that’s been acquired.

Mr. BURTON: Well, you know, I guess it really doesn’t matter the way Microsoft does this is relegated insignificance in this conversation anyway, and I don’t think they’re going to fix the problem in any way soon. So…

Mr. GILLMOR: So you think Google…

Mr. BURTON: It doesn’t what – it doesn’t matter what they do.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, Google is going to run with this?

Mr. BURTON: Oh, Google is – see, no, Google is completely off their radar. It’s the, you know, Sidewiki aside, they are not involve with it. There’s not an organization inside Google that I know of that even has it in the radar except the identity guys and they’re, you know, still worrying about single sign on. It’s – they are not catching up.

Mr. GILLMOR: Kevin?

Mr. MARKS: I think I’ve lost the thread there a little bit. So…

Mr. GILLMOR: We’re talking about is the…

Mr. BURTON: Contacts automation.

Mr. GILLMOR: Contacts automation, in other words the role of identity in managing the new infrastructure.

Mr. MARKS: Right. I think that’s kind of what I was saying about how Sidewiki can be better as well. I think identity alone single sign-on wasn’t that compelling. But when you combine that with he is who my friends are, here is my activities then it gets interesting. And that’s the pieces that we’ve been putting together at last PUIWs moving from just open ID to open ID plus (unintelligible) plus portable contacts, and now I think an activity is strains as well. So, that is bringing these contacts from across the web, bringing you a sense of friends to one place to another, bringing the flow of events across and feeding it back again. And that we’re halfway through that tipping. We’re at the point now where some sites do this. You know, FriendFeed does it par excellence obviously. Other sites are starting to do this and people are start interest, oh, you mean, I can sign in and not to type a whole bunch of crap? I can sign in and decide who know I am and who my friends are already and give me content that make sense to me? That’s nice. And that’s where a little way along that path, and we’re starting to standardize that stuff so you can do it in lots of places and I expect we hear a lot further along that part over the next year. So that’s my take on how the two tie together.

Mr. BURTON: Yeah. And the thing that you’re leaving out, I think, is the role of the selector in the whole identity conversation which Google seems to still be a little confused about. Because open ID in (unintelligible) just by itself aren’t going to cut it. You’ve got to have the selector on the operating system as the framework for the identity conversation to occur, without it the exposure is so huge. So, even with the selector we have problems but it’s a lot better than the other mechanism we have so far and, you know, I would love to see Google and what you’re working on get the understanding of the importance of the selector.

Mr. MARKS: So, what do you mean by the selector? I’ve not gotten the – you raise that idea to me again…

Mr. BURTON: I probably not – I probably don’t want to dive in the selector this is too much, but if you go over to the information curve foundation there is a white paper on the selector techno…

Mr. MARKS: Yeah. You mean the information card selector?

Mr. BURTON: Yeah, the information card selector.

Mr. MARKS: Oh, I see. OK.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right…

Mr. BURTON: Now Card Space was the original information card selector.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, we’ll explore this in a future episode.

Mr. MARKS: So, I think – yeah, yeah, yeah, got it. Now, I remember the metaphor now. So, I see what you’re getting at with that. I think that they fact were doing that by choosing which ID to log in with. That’s the way we’re using selector at the moment. We’re saying OK, our log in to this site with my Facebook accounts. I log into this site with my Google account. I’ll log in to this site with my Google, I’ll log into site with my other account. That’s…

Mr. BURTON: You see, the selector is not involved with that.

Mr. MARKS: OK. I’m still missing because the role of the selector was the point of…

Mr. BURTON: The selector is a specific technology, I mean, it’s a…

Mr. WINDLEY: I think one key idea here, Kevin, about selector that Craig is making is the selector lives on a client, and fundamentally there’s a difference between (unintelligible) do everything on the server and doing things with the help of the client and, you know, like Steve said that’s probably a different discussion because it could go on for awhile I’ll bet. And there will be some good debates there I’m sure. But if that’s really the issue, is do you need help by clients in order of accomplishments.

Mr. MARKS: I mean, this is the thing we called the NASCAR problem in the open ID world which is there are too many buttons for me to log in I don’t know which one to use. So, you were saying that the value of putting in a client is that it can know which one you should use and pick that out for you.

Mr. BURTON: Well, you know the NASCAR problem is really a symptom of the problem of the identity components being in the relying party or on the server and not in the client. But, there are other big huge problems that you would get other symptoms of by not putting it in the client in the selector, bigger than NASCAR problem.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah. I mean, but what you lose if it’s in the client is you lose the ability to move from machine to machine, which is valuable.

Mr. BURTON: No. You don’t lose that.

Mr. MARKS: So, you know, if it has to be in the client.

Mr. GILLMOR: If that was true, if you lost it then what is Google using a profile for if it’s true that you lose it by moving from client to client? I mean, you got the profile, the collector of those types of preferences?

Mr. MARKS: Right, but that’s not mediated by the client. That’s mediated – that’s on a server somewhere with an ID that you log into.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. But if you establish a server somewhere as the repository for the preferences that you store on the client, when you log on with a client, you suck down that information and therefore you have no issue.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: O.K. So, that’s kind of the VRM strategy as far as I can understand it, which is you gain control through the use of your tools of what you want to express as your interest in gathering information from the network.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah. I think we sort of approach the same thing with different angles. I think to say that the selector has to be in the client, is basically asking for a lot of change. Whereas if we can do parts of it serve aside and then fit that together with stuff and the clients I think it proves the experience I think that’s where it fits together. So, I don’t think we’re disagreeing on ends we’re just disagreeing with on which order you do things in.

Mr. WINDLEY: I think you’re right, Kevin, because ultimately open ID is going to be most useful if there is something build into the browser or somewhere else that helps manage it.

Mr. MARKS: Right. Or, if it just managed it into invisibility, you know. If you’re using open ID to log in you don’t realize it because it just work, which is something we’re assigned to see now.

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t know why you’re looking at me.

Mr. WINDLEY: It’s your show.

Mr. GILLMOR: I’m going to wind this down. Robert?

Mr. SCOBLE: Got nothing else.

Mr. GILLMOR: How is your page going?

Mr. SCOBLE: My page?

Mr. GILLMOR: Are you filling it up with a copyrighted material that nobody can span?

Mr. SCOBLE: Absolutely.

Mr. GILLMOR: Excellent. And you won’t be on FriendFeed anymore because they are co-conspirators in this, you know, spreading the information around - in Widget form.

Mr. BURTON: That’s right. If they can’t be in control I’m not going to blog anymore.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. SCOBLE: Now I…

Mr. BURTON: They don’t let me control…

Mr. SCOBLE: You misunderstood me. I gave up and I went to FriendFeed and Twitter because I knew it was over.

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, it’s capitulation.

Mr. SCOBLE: Capitulation, baby.

Mr. GILLMOR. Excellent.

Mr. SCOBLE: I also don’t have a page for your model to protect so there you go.

Mr. GILLMOR: I know. You’re sort of the poster boy for this new model.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. It’s like where’s Scoble today? I don’t know. He’s all around.

Mr. SCOBLE: By the way, my photos are in the public domain. Take them and steal them, mash them up, cut them up. Do whatever you want. Videos it doesn’t matter because they’re so big, you know, if you can download them and re-mash them you probably going to get a job somewhere anyways so…

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead.

Mr. MARKS: That’s for fixing that but I think (unintelligible) with a…

Mr. SCOBLE: Well, exactly. And if you want download videos you got to hose them somewhere so I got a small little company in San Antonio, Texas to help you with that.

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, well. Speaking of which, as always I want to thank you Rackspace for their sponsorship and their support on the technical as well as the creative side. Rob Ligess(ph), in particular, has been a remarkable source of information and insight, and that’s two Republicans that I’m thanking today. I’d like to thank the other one, Phil Windley, for making the transition. We’re going to have to do another show. I mean, all of these shows are about the fact that RSS is dead so, you know, it’s really one thing…

Mr. WINDLEY: RSS is dead.

Mr. GILLMOR: Not your son. Your new son is not dead.

Mr. WINDLEY: Content is dead not RSS.

Mr. SCOBLE: Our content is just getting started.

Mr. GILLMOR: No, our content is just started.

Mr. SCOBLE: But, we’re taking your content, we’re going to mix it up.

Mr. BURTON: That’s right. That’s context.

Mr. GILLMOR: Knock yourself out. I want to thank Craig Burton for making an appearance and we’ll have to - I still don’t understand this selector stuff either, so we’ll have to have our remedial workshop in order to do that. When is the next IIW, by the way, Phil?

Mr. WINDLEY: Soon.

Mr. BURTON: November 3rd.

Mr. WINDLEY: November 3rd to the 5th at the Computer History Museum, and love to have everybody there.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. And Kevin Marks, you’ll be there, of course.

Mr. MARKS: I’ll be there, yes. I’m going to try, see I haven’t(ph) bought a ticket yet but I will be there.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right, and I would like to thank Kim and his support and as always, this show is Tricast using the incredible New Tech Tricaster, and we want to thank them for their support and you will be hearing about some interesting things that are starting do up here coming from that company, perhaps some other companies that are going to be involved in lighting this kind of real time experience. We start to move out across the network where we stitch together multiple ideas and information on what appears to be a single page. This is Steve Gillmor and this has been the Gillmor Gang. Thanks to everybody who showed up and especially those who didn’t. There will be a next time. Bye-bye.

Mr. WINDLEY: Thanks, Steve.

Mr. BURTON: Thanks, Steve.

Mr. SCOBLE: Thanks, Steve. Bye.

Gillmor Gang 09.24.09

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Brett Slatkin of PubSubHubbub talks realtime RSS with David Recordon of Facebook, Robert Scoble of Rackspace and Kevin Marks of BT. Recorded live Thursday, September 24, 2009.

Transcript below, courtesy SimulScribe:

Mr. STEVE GILLMOR: Hi. This is Steve Gillmor and welcome to The Gillmor Gang. We’ve got, I hope, an interesting show today because we’re going to be talking as usual about whether RSS is dead. And in order to do that, we’ve convinced Brett Slatkin, the co-author or co-progenitor of PubSubHubbub to tell us what’s the status of all things speeding up RSS and getting into the real time world. And before I say, welcome to you, Brett. We also have with us Kevin Marks.

Mr. KEVIN MARKS: Hi, there. Good to see you.

Mr. GILLMOR: David Recordon of Facebook fame.

Mr. DAVID RECORDON: Hey, guys.

Mr. GILLMOR: And the infamous and I think we’re going to call Scoble the telligible Robert Scoble as oppose to the intelligible or unintelligible Kevin Marks from last week. So to the transcript writers, I’d like to introduce you to each of these four people starting with Scoble. Can you say your name, please?

Mr. ROBERT SCOBLE: Robert Scoble.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. That’s what Robert Scoble sounds like. David Recordon.

Mr. RECORDON: David Recordon.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. And that’s what David Recordon sounds like. Kevin Marks.

Mr. MARKS: I’m Kevin Marks.

Mr. GILLMOR: That’s what state your name…

Mr. SCOBLE: He was the 14th close to powerful man in British blogging history or something, I read.

Mr. MARKS: Or something. Yes.

Mr. RECORDON: Recording live from the BBC.

Mr. MARKS: Recording to the telecelegraph(ph), yes.

Mr. RECORDON: There you go.

Mr. GILLMOR: And again, and thanks so much for joining us, Brett Slatkin. Welcome.

Mr. BRETT SLATKIN: Yeah. Brett Slatkin. So thanks.

Mr. GILLMOR: So what’s the status?

Mr. SLATKIN: So the status of speeding RSS or trying to combine?

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. Hopefully, we’ll get a little more granular, but…

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, things are going well. I think we’ve seen a renewed interest in the idea of a decentralized web of information flowing between companies without anyone being in control of anything and so it’s - that idea sort of didn’t catch on and faster access is a big part of that. So PubSubHubbub is enabled for over a hundred million feeds right now which is really cool. And more subscribers are coming online pretty quickly and so it’s been really great to see people getting interested and actually writing crane doing things.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. So what is PubSubHubbub and by the way, we have yet another misspelling of it on our - on our lower third. So…

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah. So…

Mr. GILLMOR: In the tradition.

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, sure. So I call it Hubbub for short. It’s easier to say. So Hubbub is a protocol that defines a way of subscribing to and publishing feed content in a way that is pushed to subscribers. So to be clear, the current model of our assess is you as a publisher, publish content and every so often, subscribers have to pull you and say hey, do you have a new content, do you have a new content? Over and over, they keep calling you. So PubSubHubbub turns this around, lets the subscriber register their interest in a feed with a hub and then what happens is every time the publisher has new information, they tell the hub and the hub goes and tells all the different subscribers. So instead of having to ask is there a new content, the hub comes to you and says yes, there is a new content and here it is. So it greatly simplifies subscribing, it makes it more efficient, and it lowers the latency of feeds from, you know, one minute, five minutes is going to be the best you can do before I can do it in about one second. So it’s really big improvement.

Mr. GILLMOR: David Recordon, what’s your opinion about this technology and its usefulness or value?

Mr. RECORDON: Oh, I mean, I think it’s been pretty clear over the past year that as people are doing more interesting things online and sharing more what other people today know, being able to do that in the more real-time fashion is really important. And so PubSubHubbub is (unintelligible) a technology, which helps make that happen and I think it’s something that is going to become a really important piece of infrastructure for the web being able to go and sort of shifted. This is an analogy that Brad Fitzpatrick used, who’s one of the other authors of PubSubHubbub. It’s the sort of like on a road trip kid in the backseat problem. They’re constantly like asking you are we there yet, are we there yet, are we there yet, are we there yet? And PubSubHubbub will logically sort of shift that away from somebody constantly asking you if it’s time, if there’s new content or you instead being able to say no, I’ll tell you when we’re there, in which has a bunch of benefits from an infrastructure perspective as well.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, what happens when we do get there? Then what? We’re screwed, right?

Mr. RECORDON: What do you mean? Why are we screwed?

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, are we there yet? What is the there that we’re supposed to get to?

Mr. RECORDON: So, the better analogy was the car enough. So you have somebody in the backseat asking (unintelligible)…

Mr. GILLMOR: You’re breaking up in terms of audio. I don’t know what’s going on. Is it Skype?

Mr. RECORDON: Maybe. I’m too excited.

Mr. GILLMOR: They were just throwing another lawsuit out.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead.

Mr. RECORDON: For content, right now, when you’re growing and touching feeds, when you’re trying to see if someone has created new content, you predominantly have to go and ask. Maybe you ask every 15 minutes, maybe you ask every hour, maybe you ask every five minutes. With the real-time technology is it lets you change that. So instead of you’re having to ask if something is updated, you’re able to say, I care about this piece of content. Please tell me when there’s something new.

Mr. SLATKIN: And if I may add, it’s not just tell me if there’s something new, but tell me what is new also. That’s kind of - the distinction here is, you know, it says Hubbub will come along and it’ll tell you not only are you there, but like, here’s what you’re waiting for, what you’re interested in. You know, it’s delivered right to your door, so…

Mr. MARKS: And that’s the distinction between Hubbub and the other notification protocols we’ve had like SUP and so on, right?

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, that’s exactly right. It’s pushed, so a lot of these other mechanisms lower the latency of distribution, as David explains and telling people OK, here’s the URL exchange, but they don’t actually deliver a new content and so I call the other way, you know, kind of a Ping pull where it’s still pulling, but there’s kind of a ping first before you have to go fetch the content. And what’s changed now is that it’s actually content push like real push. Data is pushed to the subscribers so they don’t actually ever have to ask for it at all.

Mr. GILLMOR: Is that clear, Kevin?

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, that makes sense to me. I think there’s been a whole series of technologies trying to solve this problem over the years from changes at XML to Ping servers to FeedMesh to SUP, to sort of unify all the updates from one site type things like (unintelligible). I think the key difference here is that this is actually sending the Fat ping, the full content of the update through in the notification. So that makes this protocol a little more complicated in that the server has to do a bit more. On the other hand, it should make the work for the clients at the other end easier because they don’t have to do the – their path through the polling fetch update. The thing is most of the feed as this moment are already doing the polling fetch update thing, so it ends up being more work for them, but hopefully this would be less work for other kinds of clients down the street. Is that a fair summation?

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, I think so. I think also, it’s important to remember that the goal here is not to solve the present used cases. Feed reading on the web, it works very well right. That’s not - it’s not necessarily broken. It’s just slow, right? So what we’re trying to do is speed it up and then enable new apps to be built and then have a very fast indication, you know, and messaging protocol. And so this, you know, this idea of push is going to become more relevant as the traffic goes up more and more and as new applications come online from startups and other kind of - and other companies building, you know, new full technology on top of push that wasn’t really possible with their feed crawling the pipeline and all other stuff.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert Scoble, jump in anytime.

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m just talking on the chat room with Bob Wyman and other people - and Mike Taylor, who’s CTO at (unintelligible) and they seemed to be saying that PubSubHubbub is doing this right. I’m just wondering, is it fast enough to create a real Twitter clone, you know, with hundreds of thousands or millions of people talking real time not in real real time, but in actual real time. And I’m wondering if it could be built - it is to build a system like that.

Mr. SLATKIN: That’s a great question. And Mike and Bob are both big XMPP guys and I’ve had a chance to talk to both of them about PubSubHubbub and how it relates to the Java messaging protocol and Java PubSub, which they both have done a lot with. So can you create an IM-style client or something, you know, that’s as fast as IM client? Absolutely. In fact, as part of our demo for the Real-Time Crunch Up with this (unintelligible), me and Bratt actually built a chat client. So we had a WordPress log on one side and a blogger on the other and we were chatting on, you know, chitchat or whatever and ended up accidentally moving over to the blogs and actually talking blog to blog. In my room, (unintelligible) I’m a blogger because it was so fast. It was - you know, it was basically the same difference. So we’ve actually accidentally sort of IMing through RSS and Atom and PubSubHubbub. So yeah, it’ll work. It’s slowly seeing up to have actually real-time conversations.

Mr. SCOBLE: Could you build an infrastructure like Amazon’s S3 or Rackspace’s Cloud to do this kind of real-time work or do you have to have dedicated servers to do it?

Mr. SLATKIN: Scoble had set me up here, man. We actually ran that demo on EasyTube. So yes, absolutely. And there are hub servers that are in development to run on premise or in the Cloud. Right now, Google runs there on app engine with the reference of limitation of the hub, but you’re going to have more and more people running their own hubs how they want in their data center and that infrastructure could be used to build that kind of experience on - yeah, whatever Cloud service or hosting service you want to use.

Mr. GILLMOR: Some people say that the PubSubHubbub architecture requires, you know, a big player in order to be able to implement and to be able to sustain. That if you have a 100 million users flowing through this stream, that’s going to require some real cloud on the engineering side. Is that accurate?

Mr. SLATKIN: Well, that’s - yeah, I think that that’s a fair concern and I think that was a fair concern maybe four or five years ago. And what’s changed since then is something called epoll. And epoll is an addition to Linux Kernel that’s been around in experimentation for probably a decade and it allows Linux Kernel to scale to, you know, hundreds of thousands of connections on a single machine. And I know that a lot of the best performing web servers out there like Twisted and most likely Tornado to - they used epoll they core in order to manage their connections and that’s what allows a single machine to scale to, you know, to very large amounts of traffic on the modern Linux Kernel. So I think that the tools are there, there are open source for anyone to use, there are similar tools in the Microsoft toolbox. I think, you know, it’s out there for people to use. Java app servers can also do it. So I think that people should take a look at epoll and modern - kind of modern networking substrates and look at the connection limits again and realize that it’s - things are new and different.

Mr. GILLMOR: Kevin, you used to be at Google and you might have one answer then. What’s you’re answer now?

Mr. MARKS: Well, I think I’ve got different answer to different places. The sample hub they built for PubSubHubbub runs on app engines, which means that you can deploy yourself on to your app engine in the sense of Google. I think someone else is building it - has built or is building one in PHP (unintelligible) they get mixed up there.

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, there’s Pádraic Brady, who’s a Zend Framework, is in the progress of writing a full implementation in PHP that people are going to use. And then there are also - there’s one in Air Lang (ph) and there’s another one in Python that are making progress.

Mr. MARKS: Right. So, well, you mean - explain Python as opposed to Python on app engine.

Mr. SLATKIN: Oh, yeah. Sorry. Correct, yeah.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, OK. So I think, you know, part of the point is, it is possible to ligate the things across from hub to hub to hub. So you’re going to have a hub that’s subscribes to another hub and they can flow through. It doesn’t require centralization and so you should be able to do some kind of pen out with that, but I’m not sure how much of that has been built yet. I think most of the things they built so far has been on the main thing server that Brett is running at Google. Is that fair or…

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, I think a lot of the Google feeds are running on the Google Hub and I know that there are some - like for now, I know some big European publishers that are in the works and I think they’re going to be running their own hub. So I think that - I’m encouraging people as much as possible, use their own hub. And there are companies like Super Feeder who are running kind of hub as a service for publishers that want to have more control of the stats and that kind of thing. So I think that, you know, it’s still early days in the world of hubs and - but I’m happy to see two big ones. One in Super Feeder. I’m really happy to see one that’s independent and not connected to Google in any way and I’m especially happy to see people like Pádraic writing code that’s open source in PHP on the lap stock that anyone can run on there, its Slicehost there, Rackspace Host there, EasyTube.

Mr. GILLMOR: David Recordon, you used to be independent and now you’re at Facebook. Is Facebook going to join this parade or what do you think is going to happen as far as having some other big players to kind of take the owner (unintelligible) of the large Google penetration around PubSubHubbub?

Mr. RECORDON: I think this is something that’s come up with a lot of the different technologies Google has been creating recently. It’s like (unintelligible) greatest technologies. They’re doing a lot of the right things having building a community around them, but I think they do get that stigma of being just from Google and really benefiting Google. In terms of whether or not we’re going to adopt this specific technology, I mean, we’re always looking at - and trying to learn more about new technologies as they come out and how they could really help create better products, but we don’t have anything to talk about right now, specifically about this technology.

Mr. GILLMOR: So you don’t have any blogs to worry about speeding up.

Mr. RECORDON: I mean, I think Facebook has always had and has really, from the beginning, for a lot of services that have gone real time, has had real-time features inside of our site in terms of things like new speed being able to go and see it in real time, we definitely do fetch a lot of feeds as well.

Mr. MARKS: And of course, you have FriendFeed now, which does support PubSubHubbub.

Mr. RECORDON: Yeah, FriendFeed sort of uses that combination. It was brought up in the chat a little bit earlier, being able to use both something like PubSubHubbub and fetching feeds together. These two technologies do really get good coverage when you’re looking at all the different feeds that you need to interact with.

Mr. SCOBLE: Brett, Jessie stated and I’m interested in this, too. Have you reached out to Twitter in any way and are they - have they told you why or why not they would adopt PubSubHubbub?

Mr. SLATKIN: Yes, Jessie started to throw in their development like newsgroup or (unintelligible) that was asking for Hubbub support and they basically said that they’re happy with the APIs they have implemented today, which is their – they kind of on the streaming API. I understand that they limited resources. I’ve been there, so - I’m there right now, so I know how they feel. I think that, you know, they’re - I know that the guys in their team and I believe Alex Payne, their API Lead , they know about PubSubHubbub, they’re aware of the technical challenges of running XMPP or running a web server and supporting their own hubs. So I think that they’re definitely considering it and I don’t really know what beyond that.

Mr. SCOBLE: Could you tell me if Twitter was starting today? Would they build on PubSubHubbub or would they choose their own system to solve maybe some technical challenge that they see?

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, that’s a good question. I think that, you know, RSS and Atom are kind of the universal language for kind of getting across time-based data, right? So feeds of information. And the problem is that the distribution of that information didn’t have well-defined infrastructure before. So you know, if PubSubHubbub existed before Twitter builders stream API or FriendFeed builders stream API, I would like to think that they would consider using Hubbub instead because it could be a common API that all services could provide. So kind of what I’d really like to see - and we have a Wiki page on our - on the PubSubHubbub Wiki about Hubbub and Google and it basically goes in product by product and saying how we support it. And I would really love to see all those products supporting it because it’s just a common API. So as a developer, it’s a lot harder to write one off code for all these different sites. I’d like to just write my code once and just have it work for everyone and I think that Hubbub is a great way to achieve that.

Mr. GILLMOR: Is there any programming mistakes you’re seen people do when they’re first implementing PubSubHubbub that you would like to tell them not do it?

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, that’s a good question. Don’t be slow. That’s the first one. We’re…

Mr. GILLMOR: What do you mean by that?

Mr. SLATKIN: Like, if you were a subscriber and it takes you 20 seconds to receive a fat Ping, you know, don’t subscribe to that much information. I think that people are overwhelmed by the stream and they don’t realize how much data we have for them. You know, we have a hundred million feeds out there. They’re changing very quickly. If you would sign up for subscription to something, you’re going to get a lot of content. So I think that people need to remember that, you know, they should make their code as fast as possible and make their processing code as fast as possible because the stream is going to get faster and faster and that’s kind of why something like Hubbub is important because we need to build a really high-quality infrastructure so that as the stream gets faster and faster, we can actually deal with it.

Mr. GILLMOR: Are there any tricks that you’ve found to dealing with that or failing properly? Let’s say your server gets slow for some reason, is there something you can do in your code to fail properly so that you don’t cause other people problems?

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, that’s a good question. So I mean, the system was supposed to be as resilient as possible against any kind of failures at any part. But you know, hubs should retry delivery, so it’s the best effort - attempt to be reliable messaging and so it will constantly try to redeliver a message to you up to some number of times over some time period, you know, under a word of minutes. And so you have a chance to make sure that you don’t drop any messages on the floor, which is important. And as time goes on, that will get more and more reliable and I know that friends in Super Feeder, one of their features is the kind of the liability guarantees that you can get from using them. So they’ll say hey, I’ll always deliver the message to you no matter what happens.

Mr. GILLMOR: David, you’re - you’re going to jump in, David?

Mr. RECORDON: Yeah. I was going to say that these are some of the design decisions that went into the protocols, make it really easy for publishers and easy for subscribers and make it - so the hubs have a lot of the heavy lifting to do and that’s really just because when you think about how this ecosystem (ph) gets deployed, you have far more subscribers and mainly subscribers running on less expensive hardware and not as technically adept as you do for the hubs. The hubs can be really large with pieces of infrastructure designed to do this that know how to do it right.

Mr. GILLMOR: What’s the economic incentive for doing it right in this climate? You know, Facebook has got a business model that is, you know, moving into the black. Twitter, you know, they just got another $100 million of investment and being valued, according to the Wall Street Journal publications, at a billion dollars. You know, there’s a lot of money that appears to be orbiting this situation. Yet, what we’re talking about here is a sort of ad hoc, you know, hacker-lead, you know, hub system that’s being constructed. I mean, where is the - where are the economics of this?

Mr. RECORDON: I think a lot of the value they get with this real-time technology is being able to more quickly and more reliably distribute content that’s created within your site whether that’s a blog or a service like the Facebook.

Mr. GILLMOR: Kevin, what do you think? Is BT in this for some reason? You know, I mean, JP Rangaswami is assembling a team of geniuses to sort of rework the telecom model and the infrastructure. How are they going to play in this pond?

Mr. MARKS: I think, you know, for me, this is where the activity stream idea comes. We’ve mentioned that briefly before. The activity stream is a way of standardizing these kinds of notifications that we’re generating in Twitter, in Facebook, in MySpace and other places like that and coming up with common terminology so that we can move from one system to another. And for me, they - there’s a nice part of that in the telephony world as well because a lot of what you do with telephony is you make calls that have time stuff as you send SMS, you get voicemails. So there’s a nice overlap there between the existing stuff we have and the activity stream models that we have in these new social systems and part of that is making sure that we can fit these two ideas together. As we move stuff from - you know, telephony is real time. It requires – you know, by the (unintelligible), requires you to be talking to the person at the same time, but we have ways of extending that out to these sort of history things as well. So I think there’s a nice connection there between the stuff that used to have to be real-time, but now has history as well and these - and PubSubHubbub activity seems to have this model of here’s the stuff that’s coming now, but you can go back and fetch the feed and get the history of it as well. So the first time you sign up, you tend to fetch the feed and then subscribe to the hub so you get the last, you know, 20 or so messages there and then the new ones will come in real time. So I think there’s - it is an all or nothing. All of these work both ways and the model that we build up over the last few years with feeds is fairly resilient and robust, had communication information one site to another and the activity stream model is just trying to codify a few more specs around that so that we can do things like show when you’re posting photographs of a person or sending a link to something else, you know, and codify some of these practices have built into Twitter, into Facebook, into FriendFeed.

Mr. GILLMOR: David, you know, Facebook paid 50 million for that capability. Why would you or why would Facebook want to have that subsumed by an open activity stream system? I mean, what did you spend all that money for?

Mr. RECORDON: I think you’re actually looking at the wrong way, Steve. I mean, the value…

Mr. GILLMOR: I hope so. That’s the idea.

Mr. RECORDON: (Laughing) The value these of services is - I mean, Facebook is always at it and as we say it, being able to connect and share with the people that you know, with your friends, and being able to go and use activity streams as a way to understand the type of content that’s being created, as we might be pulling it in or pushing it out somewhere else, and then being able to do that in a real-time fashion. It really goes back to that core goal of helping people connect and share.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. So what did you 50 million for?

Mr. RECORDON: I mean, it’s only my first, like, few weeks here.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, yeah. You’re just following orders, in other words.

Mr. RECORDON: (Laughing) Oh, I don’t think…

Mr. GILLMOR: Seriously, I mean, where’s the - what’s the economic rationale for spending this money? I can think of a number of reasons like, you know, that the one billion valuation of Twitter is actually a stalking horse for the - maybe eight billion valuation of Facebook as opposed to four billion, which is what the current market numbers reflect. I mean, there’s something going on here that is being - this is about Twitter and Facebook with Google on some level, you know, sort of swarming around them coming at this - you know, at the value proposition of the activity stream and the filtering that’s going to on around it. I mean, this is big business, evidently. If the Wall Street Journal sends an alert out, I mean, usually the alert is the General Motors is, you know, in bankruptcy and today’s alert was that Twitter is now worth a billion dollars. I mean, what’s going on here?

Mr. RECORDON: Well, I think, I mean, one of the most valuable features of Facebook has been the stream ever since we launched it. It’s a great way to know what your friends are doing and see a lot of that. Earlier this year, we updated the feeds, become real time, and really show you everything that’s going on along with - and the highlights, we’re trying to pull out some more of that. So I agree with you in the sense that being able to see what people that you know are doing is really important and something that a lot of people do every single day. I don’t think I’m the right person to talk about exactly why we purchased FriendFeed or not.

Mr. GILLMOR: But you can talk to the fundamental question because as a technologist, you’re interested in scale, in reaching large numbers of people with, you know, the capability of being able to use that as a way of generating, you know, economic value. However, that’s perceived at the other end of the value chain. You know, this stuff is clearly moving from, you know, Kevin’s and your, you know, standards body or open standards work. It’s moving into some very big players. I mean, the people who are in the investment round with Twitter is a - it’s a mutual fund. I mean, since when the mutual funds get involved in a business that hasn’t had a dime of revenue? And the same thing for Insight, I believe it is, which is a private equity firm. I mean, there’s something going on here that is substantially different than what we’ve seen today. Go ahead.

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah. So Steve, I think - to take us back and kind of give David a chance to breath, I think that the…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, good try, but…

Mr. SLATKIN: (Laughing) It’s important to remember that open standards aren’t at odds with economic incentives. If anything, open standards are an economic incentive. So the ability for Facebook and Twitter and Google and Flickr and on and on, all these services, Windows Live, for them, all inter-operates. It’s really best for everyone the same way that the internet itself through interoperability was really good for everyone and good for all the companies that participated. So I think that the economics here are easy integration plus engineering effort put in together, access to more information from all different sources, on and on and on, you know, and then doing it in a way that’s more efficient and scalable so that going forward, we don’t have to keep throwing a lot of money at the problem in terms of engineering effort and machines and whatnot. So I think that it’s important to think about what we’re enabling here, you know, the new used cases, the new apps will be built on top of Twitter, the new apps will be built on top of the Facebook screen that we haven’t really considered before that will render, you know, a tremendous amount of value for these companies and hopefully get those BC’s, some of the dollars back.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, it’s not the BC’s that are jumping in, that was my point.

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, or your, you know, Four One K. Whatever happens to be on the, you know, aiming the balance.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right. So, you’re sounding off a lot like Dave Winer(ph).

Mr. SLATKIN: Which part that sounds like?

Mr. GILLMOR: The part about, you know, standing up for the little guy. I mean that’s what I find fascinating about PubSubHubbub and what Dave is doing with RSS club is that they’re not all that different in terms of their goals as well as the technology. You’ve got a chart that you put together which explores the differences and similarities between not only those two particles, I guess, but others like Sub and so on. Can you sort of give us a sort of an overview of what you’re trying to accomplish with that?

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah that’s, thanks. So, I think that, I agree that the goal here is, you know, decentralization in the sense that we can all speak the same language and interoperate and that no one is controlled of the data stream completely. And if you think about the internet itself, it was founded on this principal of openness and open protocols and you know, HEP and HTML and TCP even all these protocols were open for people to look at and implement and improve over time. And that’s been really valuable to creating Internet, making it the way it is. So, you know, decentralization is at the core of what the Internet is and why it’s valuable. So one of the other things that to keep in mind though along with decentralization is scalability. So, you look at the IP protocol they talk about Vint Cerf and how he helped build it, you know, back in the 60’s essentially. TCP is the same way. So, the point is that there are these protocols that have been built over the last, you know, 40 years that’s still hold up today. And now that we’re thinking about real-time at Internet scale so that, you know, maybe my mom will take advantage of real-time and be on how she already does on Facebook. You know, we need to build a foundation that’s solid enough that it will keep kind of scaling. So my document which is of the PubSubHubbub Wiki called Comparing Protocols gets into why polling and ping-polling aren’t going to be good enough and why we really need to use fat pinging which is another term for push to make this work. And PubSubHubbub is one fat pinging protocol, XMPP whichever(ph), pubsub is another one and they’re both have their trade offs. And so, it’s really important to understand the technical details of what we’re setting ourselves up for. But I think that a simple kind of tag line is, you know, fat pinging, do it for the children, you know. I think that – I think that we need to build infrastructure that 40 years from now people will look at and say, OK, you know that, that’s going to withstand the test of time.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, speaking of children, Robert, congratulations.

Mr. SCOBLE: Hey, thanks. I’ll go get little Ryan and bring him up here a little later.

Mr. GILLMOR: Excellent. So, how’s the chat room going? Do you see anything there?

Mr. SCOBLE: It’s going interesting. We are arguing about whether what Twitter’s rules are on re-broadcasting of the firehost feed and it’s clear that Twitter doesn’t allow you to rebroadcast the entire feed but FriendFeed figure that way around that, right? They are allowed to rebroadcast anybody who signed in to FriendFeed from Twitter. So if you got everybody on Twitter to sign up for FriendFeed, you would see the full firehost feed being displayed too but of course not everybody from Twitter is going to sign up for FriendFeed, so it’s a subset at best.

Mr. RECORDON: Let’s go up a level one(ph).

Mr. SCOBLE: That’s part of the point. Yeah, I’m sorry.

Mr. RECORDON: I mean, I was just going to say like there are five or six of us who are chatting live in real-time using video. Well then, another you know like 20 people are going in also in real-time chatting and we’re able to just play back and fourth. I mean, see if going back to your question about sort of like what’s the economic incentive. Like this is just completely changing how people communicate and like that’s what’s really cool about everything that’s happening right now.

Mr. SCOBLE: I think the economics are going to be interesting because like the guys who run big sites like CNN and stuff are really starting to figure out that they’re gifting a lot of free advertising to Twitter by saying on CNN, you know, go to twitter.com/CNN. That’s a gift of the advertising dollars to another brand and they would love to have their own little Twitter where they could say go to CNN.com/twitter and join our Twitter-thing and that way they keep a better touch point with their customer. And if they build a system that integrates in the Twitter and some real - fundamental in real way which as what it looks like this technology will let us do then also you’re going to see a lot of economic activity like that.

Mr. GILLMOR: You are saying something Kevin.

Mr. MARKS: So, I was saying the point is not – is that this isn’t trying to build the firehost, this is trying build the (unintelligible) thing way only get the updates that you want to the piece that you’re subscribing to. You’re not trying to get the entire output of every site and then run stuff over it, you’re trying to just say, I’m interested in this subset of it, I’m following these people, I’m following the streams, and I want those to flow through to me rapidly while than having to build the infrastructure to read the entire flow from every site and then fill that stuff out. There’s a different kinds of problems and the point of this is – is…

Mr.GILLMOR: Well, it’s a philosophical. It’s a philosophical transition as well. I mean, you know, the advantage of our assess was phenomenal, you know, in its inception because it solves the problem of, you know, the guy on the commercial the famous commercial where he sits back and says OK, I just finished the Internet, he read everything. There’s no way to read everything. So, you have to start to apply, you know, an individual Fallow architecture to that. And then what Twitter brought in was the ability to be able to, you know, gang up overlapping Fallow Fields the sort of three degrees of separation that comes from not only following the people that you’re interested in but the people that they’re interested. One of the algorithms in FriendFeed has that capability of essentially bringing to your attention the comments by people that I’m following like for example.

Mr. SPARKS: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: I see a lot of that. That’s, you know, Robert has talked about this extensively for a number of years. So, you start to develop this social graph view into the information space which is, you know, I think extremely powerful and it was – is really representative of what this transition is ultimately going to fuel which is a far more efficient and, you know, human powered environment.

Mr. SCOBLE: The chat room just raised up a good point. What happens, let’s say you have a 100, 000 restaurants all using PubSubHubbub and they’re using a decentralized Twitter-like system to communicate, is there any way to do a track so I can go through all 100, 000 restaurants and look for keywords and have keywords bring back information or do I have to follow all 100, 000 restaurants and then put then put them into a database of some kind and then do might search that way?

Mr. SLATKIN: So, I think – yeah. I think, I can – I like to address all these together because I think you guys are asking the same question in a bunch of different way. So, Kevin’s point was that with technologies like Hubbub that let’s you kind of focus in on the topics that you’re interested in. And then Steve you are saying well Friendfeed, you know, Twitter will take you or social graph of your friends and it’ll maybe expand that out one or two more separations and then it’ll let you kind of follow information that you know, so your focus is a little broader. And then Robert, what you’re talking about is having you know basically looking at the whole firehost in some kind of geographical location. So…

Mr. SCOBLE: Well, not geographical. I want to try a key word.

Mr. SLATKIN: Sure.

Mr. SCOBLE: I want to see everybody on these 100, 000 restaurants who mentions the word sushi for instance.

Mr. SLATKIN: Right, totally. So,what I’m saying is that we’re kind of defining the spectrum of cost where for focus engagement it’s very, with something like PubSubHubbub it will be very low cost for you to keep track of focus engagement or even raising the focus like Steve explained to, you know, to grow a little bit. But it will be more expensive to track the fire host and this is true with keeping up with the Twitter feed also. Not everybody can do it. You need a, you know, special contract in order to get it. There’s a lot of load coming through and same thing goes for stuff like the 64 (ph) Adam stream. Not everybody can handle it. So, I think that people – people will handle it and there will be companies that want to do to kind of track-like functionality but they’re going to need to spend a lot of resources in able to handle that stream. And that stream is going to be large no matter what the underlying protocol is and it’s going to keep getting larger and larger and larger. So, what PubSubHubbub let’s you do is kind of pull out more focus pieces of that stream in efficient way. But you can still get the aggregated view and something that I’ve heard people are working on in multiple places is something like the Twitter trending topics for the whole Internet. So basically, I would subscribe to every single Hubbub feed on the planet and then watch the data as it goes by and do track on it or do whatever kind of analysis you want to do and there’s nothing stopping you from doing that and, you know, it will work efficiently at scale.

Mr. GILLMOR: But how does that get built out, you know, sort of federated track model? I don’t think we’ve actually heard anybody define how that might work. There were some early talk about that in the identical days but I don’t see how. You know, all roads are eventually are going to lead to whether it’s in memory or not. There’s going to be some sort of database of information that has been drawn upon. How do you get there?

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah. So, I think that you’re asking about processing pipelines. So, you know, we can – I think that Hubbub will get you the information, XMPP can get you the information. You know, there are bunch of proprietary solutions like TIBCO(ph) that will get you data really fast. Analyzing a data pipeline is a lot more complicated and there are some companies out there. I think one of them is called SQLstream that do – and this is kind of the final frontier database design. NSQL is doing real-time analysis, real-time queries on data as it moves. It’s been a research topic for 10, 15 years as I understand it. It’s slowly getting more and more actual kind of investment and then build out. But you know, this is a great economic opportunity for entrepreneurs out there to build federated real-time systems, whatever they maybe. A used case that’s really interesting I think is take that 100, 000 restaurant example and now, you know, let’s say that someone could get the federated fire host across all of these different sites and publishing systems and vendors and whatever. And let’s say this, you know, takes a thousands Hubs and a 100, 000 or 10, 000 different hosting providers. Now, I get a federated fire host. If I want to provide a good news or experience maybe I want, you know, real time over related those reviews depending on my current location. That’s a hard problem to solve, no matter what you’re using to transport, right? XNBP, PubSubHubbub or just plain RSS. It’s difficult problem to solve. So, I think there will be some really pull apps that people are going to build to handle the information overload and this problem kind of transcends the deep technical foundation. And if anything having a strong technical foundation will unable more data to flow and cost more we need to filter it. So, I think that – yeah, this is going to be really interesting to see what people build to fix that.

Mr. GILLMOR: Kevin.

Mr. SCOBLE: Well, Twitter is certainly adding on new Metadata to try to help with filtering. You know, they’re turning on any day now re-twitting which will work like liking in FriendFeed which we know how that helps you filter, right? We can go through FriendFeed and say show us all the items about or with the word Obama in the title that have 15 likes and that have been like first lane by Steve Gillmor, you know. That’s really powerful filtering that we don’t have on Twitter yet. They’re turning on location API’s as well that we’re going to be able to search, you know, instead of just saying show me the Hudson River plane crush, we can say show me only Twits within 25 miles of the Hudson River plane crush, that’s really powerful filtering that will be available to us in the future. It’ll be interesting to see how PubSubHubbub systems deal with that.

Mr. SLATKIN: So, you can do that. The thing is you can do that today with certain feeds available over PubSubHubbub and just RSS and Adam. There is GUR(ph) assess which is an extension to the feed protocols that defines the location tag. There is the viaLink(ph), define the Adam spec(ph) that lot of people use to point back in the original, so like a re-Twit(ph). So, I think that the - all the pieces you just mentioned, although Twitter is going to get the user experience right. Definitely, I think that the foundation as a developer is there to build that in a decentralized way.

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m not even sure that they’re going to get the user experience right. They’re going to…

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, I’m saying -

Mr. SCOBLE: They’re going to piss people off of their new re-Twit because you can’t comment in it. And, you know, we have yet to see what it looks and how it works.

Mr. SLATKIN: Well, you know, people are using Twitter a lot. And so, you know, they must like something about it. And I’m saying that the user experience probably part of that so I would imagine that they will be able to service it first similar to how FriendFeed kind of had (unintelligible)…

Mr. GILLMOR: Whether they service it or one of their third parties.

Mr. SLATKIN: Yes.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, this is it. I mean, that’s historically that’s been truer than Twitter. They have needed to do it as part of the reason that they’ve gotten so successful. David, why did you go to Facebook instead of Twitter?

Mr. RECORDON: I never even thought about joining Twitter while I was there. I mean, I joined Facebook because of all the really interesting problems that are being solved here, and sort of where my interest oblige as I spent the past few years working on technology around social networks, and where else would I go.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. So I mean, some of these interesting problems you’re talking about are probably around the area of UI and how you manage these kinds of opportunities. We’ve been talking about a large scale, the hundred thousand user or the hundred million dollars, you know. But, just the ability – I mean, this has been talked about before on the show today. You know, the fact that we’re able to use this reasonably and in some cases completely low cost technologies, and be able to wire up something that allows us as individuals to be able to create this, you know, overlapping follow clouds that we can leverage for having real time conversations. I mean, we all happen to be in the valley on this call, but it’s really no different when somebody comes in from London or anywhere on the planet. So the ability to be able to level – to leverage this at a micro community level, I think, is the real element(ph) in the room here. And I think what I’m hearing is that the infrastructure is now available to do this in many different ways which is going to drive an economic kind of acceleration where the cost has driven down and the value is distributed more widely to people in general. So I’m wondering if that’s what your vision and understanding is of what Facebook is as an opportunity to do, and if that’s why you’re there.

Mr. RECORDON: I mean, I completely agree with you to certainly. Personally about that of what these tools and what these technologies ultimately enable is people being able to communicate with each other better, and I mean, going to the example that I gave like 10 minutes ago about just what we’re doing right now of being able to go and how video streaming between five or six different people, how to build real time conversation from a chat room which I have out behind my site window being able to see all that interact back and forth. This is a really interesting and exciting time for to really be able to help and influence out internet continues to develop and move forward.

Mr. GILLMOR: Speaking of exciting times. We’re about to have the debut of RSS. So who is that person?

Mr. SCOBLE: This is Ryan Soroush Scoble, RSS and Rocky is here too.

Mr. GILLMOR: So Rocky, hold the baby.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. SCOBLE: Rocky is a softie. You didn’t know that did you? Anyways, lots of fun in my lives.

Mr. GILLMOR: So did, what did you reach for as your social interface at his birth, Robert?

Mr. SCOBLE: Well, I used a bunch of different things. I used FriendFeed. I used Twitter to get – because most of my audience is still on Twitter. I used Flickr to get photos out. I used mvideo by the way. And what else did I use?

Mr. GILLMOR: Did you use an iPhone or a flip phone?

Mr. SCOBLE: iPhone.

Mr. GILLMOR: A flip phone, OK.

Mr. SCOBLE: iPhone because, you know, when you’re – well, I was using a 5D as well. So I had a 5D and an iPhone. The 5D is for the high quality video and high quality pictures for my own family album. The iPhone let me get it out – the word get out to the world while it was happening so.

Mr. GILLMOR: I think you mentioned that the sequela(ph) is at the hospital you’re in.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Did they were decked out with a Wi-Fi?

Mr. SCOBLE: They were but it was like a Wi-Fi in China. They had a lot of sites blocked. In fact, a lot of the video sites were blocked, but Flickr wasn’t so…

Mr. GILLMOR: Why they’re blocked? Do you think?

Mr. SCOBLE: Because I think – I think, they were trying to protect their bandwidth from people who are downloading porn in the rooms and stuff like that.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. SCOBLE: Now, a lot of the media sites were block and a lot of the porn sites were blocked. So, I think, they were using a standard package that just let people block a bunch of different. It was a like a net nanny kind of site, you know. It’s the site block.

Mr. GILLMOR: Speaking of a strange spamming. I got a direct message the other day from somebody. I think it was yesterday. Who clearly I had no idea who that person was and I never – they’re trying to sell me something. Has anybody else seen that problem?

Mr. SCOBLE: I haven’t, but I saw a lot of talking about it.

Mr. MARKS: And other sites had lots of…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, and what’s going on there? It sounds like that somebody has figured out how to be able to hack into the direct message network and talks to people who haven’t reciprocally followed them.

Mr. MARKS: No. I thought it was a fishing attack, so that people you are following are sending messages under their name. That what was going on there, but…

Mr. GILLMOR: So I did follow this person even though I didn’t recognize the name.

Mr. MARKS: Right. And the message was actually sent by them. They click on a link and that link sent the message out.

Mr. GILLMOR: No. I understand that. I still think…

Mr. MARKS: That’s a good example of what when you want to have a distributed system that’s decentralized so that not everyone is affected by the same cross sites rifting attack at the same time. So I think, you know, I think Dave was right saying that our RSS no fair well because not every, you know, not every front ad will be other goes…

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. MARKS: Not every, you know, not every front ad will be other goes can - not every one to make the same mistake, you know. People want things differently and they have, you know, a different security of limitations and…

Mr. GILLMOR: So in other words, we want to have a hundred million companies all losing money instead of having.

Mr. MARKS: We don’t really know. They are private company. But you know, we want to have – we want to have people participating in a stable wealth and see what follows from that. And I think that requires decentralization and good infrastructure.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I’m not so sure. I think decentralization is over sold. It’s kind of like a unicorn. It’s like, you know, their exploits are well known but no one’s ever succeed in capturing one.

Mr. RECORDON: Oh, I think, if you look at the…

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, go head Kev.

Mr. MARKS: Nonsense. The way…

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh by the way, the (unintelligible) is open, Kevin.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. MARKS: Inside Job did last week show.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. MARKS: Did decentralize web, you know, is what we built on? That’s the stuff that works. Is this the protocols that, you know, the web is in agreement. That’s the praise pulled down and put together which push it very well, which is we agreed to use the same protocols to exchange stuff. Therefore, you can interact right with people not only without having a business relationship with them, without even knowing they exist because you’re using the same protocol. And that is the priorities and that’s why it scales out to vast dimensions.

Mr. RECORDON: It’s very easy to join. Yeah.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: I understand what the logic. I mean on a simple level, the entire web is completely decentralized. It’s about multiple computers connected to each other. So I understand that, but the economics of it and the use of the word decentralize as an alternative to a commercial venture. I think is in sophistry (ph). I don’t think it exists. I think, everything is a commercial venture and everything is decentralized. So what is the point here?

Mr. MARKS: The point is it’s not – it will change to a commercial venture. Not saying the combi commercial ventures that building these protocols. Obviously, they can be. The point is saying, you don’t have to first get permission from someone to use it, that’s the difference, right?

Mr. GILLMOR: Let’s follow that logic for a second. What permission? Who do I have to get permission to do anything on the web? When I’m on Gmail, I have to get permission from Google or else my sign in does not work and I can’t get access to all of my data. It has been trap there for the last 48 hours.

Mr. SLATKIN: I think that you need to – I think that Kevin is talking about at a server level. So if I want to run an SNTP server as my own mail host and send email through Gmail account. Gmail will take that email and deliver it to its recipient. So I don’t have to ask them for permission. I just need to speak to protocol and behave – behave correctly.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right and I would suggest that the reason that that is possible is not necessarily because of some virtuous, you know, religion regarding decentralization as responsible. It happens because it’s good business for Gmail to do that.

Mr. SLATKIN: Yes.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. So…

Mr. SLATKIN: These principles go hand and hand, I think, that decentralization is good for business. Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right. So you know, it’s not either or proposition.

Mr. SLATKIN: Not at all.

Mr. GILLMOR: And sometimes, portrayed as that politically and that’s my objection to the use of decentralization as a religion.

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, I think that’s really a good point ‘cause I think that, yeah, they usually – they put it on to each other it’s, you know. But I think that – I think that it’s more just a question of, you know, letting anyone come to the pool and swim there whatever. It’s not at odds with the corporate plan or making money. It’s actually a way to gain network effects on products, so that they grow larger and so HTML had amazing network effects and got every company involve and it’s growing, growing, growing, growing. So that was – that’s why it took off and it was good commercially for every one because they kind of ride away for long.

Mr. GILLMOR: We’ve lost, David. I’m not sure whether or not.

Mr. SLATKIN: I think he had to go.

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s purposeful, really.

Mr. MARKS: He said he had to go, yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK, thanks. Well, then, let’s start to wean this down. Brett is there any kind of misconception that you feel has been push forward about PubSubHubbub or conversely. Is there anything that you would like to say about to some of the other protocols and strategies that are out here regarding this, I mean. This is an opportunity I think for you to express something about just the general area, not just your work in it.

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah. I think that, well, so specifically to have – I think that (unintelligible).

Mr. GILLMOR: Let’s start again. You’re kind of like – try it again please.

Mr. SLATKIN: Hanging. There you go. I’m back in business.

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead.

Mr. SLATKIN: Sorry about that.

Mr. GILLMOR: You said you were at Twitter. Are they trying to choke your bandwidth?

Mr. SLATKIN: I think so and I don’t why.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. Say it again.

Mr. SLATKIN: I was saying that there’s a misconception that Hubbub is controlled by Google and that’s not true. I think that people need to come and participate in open specifications like activity streams and like PubSubHubbub with open mailing list and the open process for getting new stuff added to the specs. So that’s a kind of misconception for me specifically. Generally, I think that people don’t understand that light pinging isn’t going to work. I think that as a developer, when you take a naïve approach and you think about that for 30 seconds. You like, oh yeah, light pinging that should work. But if you actually sit down and think through it and think about scalability and remember what you learn about TCP back in your, you know, classes or not. You realized that it just won’t work. It’s just not going to fly overtime. And you know, we need to – we kind of need to do to strike the right balance between complexity and performance. And I think that so – I think that light pinging a lot of time, it seems really simple but it’s just doesn’t do you good enough job. And so I encouraged people to look at some of the things that I wrote. And there’s a long history of the stuff in just protocol design in general for the last 40 years that talks about push and why it’s good. And you know, Scott (ph) had read it and understand that, you know, we need to do better or else we’re not going to be able to keep growing the stream effectively.

Mr. GILLMOR: So I’m hearing two things. One is that you need to have a rigorous continued influx of new blog. So that this is in proceed as a special Google project or any kind of (unintelligible) strategy. But at the same time, you need to be able to take advantage of heavy lifting that can probably only be done by those kinds of companies.

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, I think that – in second part. It’s not heavy lifting. That’s my point. It’s the difference between, you know, lifting your pinky finger and your index finger. It’s really not that much more complicated but initially you might say, Oh, that’s more complex. But it really – it really is actually very simple and anybody can do it. You can do it on your $5 a month share costing environment with PHP and my sequel. You can even do it on free hosts. So I think that – I think that anybody can do it. So that’s kind of not the problem. The problem is that at the surface when people first look it, you know, Apple and Orange, they think their, you know, they think that something like fat pinging is actually more complicated and I guess what Hubbub tries to get across is that it doesn’t actually have to be. So people who are turned off by Java(ph) PupSub or any kind of other push protocol in the past should look at, you know, Hubbub and other, you know, new protocols and say, well, does this make it easier for me? And I think it does. I think that it’s easy and efficient. And as for the new blog, yeah, we have a lot of new blog coming in and more new blog is welcome. I want everyone to participate. I get so much great feedback, you know, like me and Brad both get a lot of great feedback from the whole community of people from different countries and languages and backgrounds and program and languages, and it’s just really cool. This community that’s been growing and I love when people call polls in the spec, I love when people challenge, they never try to present about why it’s necessary…

MR. GILLMOR: Give me an example of a whole that we spoke and how you fixed it.

Mr. SLATKIN: Well, the best example I think is what Bret Taylor did at FriendFeed. He said, you know what, I’m not satisfied with the security model of how hubs delivered to subscribers. He wanted a higher level of kind of trusts that a message received from the hub was authentic. And so, he suggested a way to do it and we went and implemented it and we went and talked around with other people on the thread, on a bunch of threads on the mailing lists, and you know, we kind of reach the consensus about the way it should work, and then the 0.2 version of the spec added that suggestion to the spec. So you know, this is the idea originated with Bret Taylor. And you know, while he was a FriendFeed independently and then ended up in this spec that we’re all working out. So, and it’s a great addition to the spec and absolutely necessary and…

MR. GILLMOR: So, what is the spec that you’re all working on and how are we going to be assured that there’s a reasonable level of interoperability among the important players?

Mr. SLATKIN: Great, great question. So you know, the spec is linked off to the PubSubHubbub website. So, if you just seach for PubSubHubbub or pubsubhubbub.googlecode.com. It’s misspelled at the bottom there, it has 2 b’s. But if you go search for that…

MR. GILLMOR: You weren’t listening, I said that it’s (unintelligible).

Mr. SLATKIN: I know, yeah. And then…

MR. GILLMOR: Real time error.

Mr. SLATKIN: Real time errors. So if you look at there, it’s linked up from there. The mailing list is also linked up from there, and as for interoperability, we have a test that was written by Jeff Lindsay of Webhooks fame who particularly for people to verify the behavior of their hub. And that needs more work too, but the idea is there will be Compliance Suite that you can run against your code to verify that it works properly just like this Compliance Suite for any well defined spec.

MR. GILLMOR: Now, do you think Kevin that this is going to get hooked in with some of the activities for yourself?

Mr. MARKS: Actually, it did. Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Okay, can you explain how?

Mr. MARKS: Well, activity stream is a feed. It’s an item feed that contains actions, you know, some bit of extra mark up to expressed up in more detail. So it plugs in imperfectly just take the feeding process radio system. So, that there’s no, you know, there’s no reason that would not happen until…

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, it works today.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, one thing I’d like to ask Brett is have you looked at hooking up, decide what key stuff to this? I know you’re imposing any (unintelligible) by me…

Mr. SLATKIN: Yeah, yeah. So, and Bob Wyman mentioned on the public thread what would be required to do that and yeah, I mean I think that it would be great to hook that up. I think, that there’s a whole (unintelligible) filled products that we need to put this on and that’s definitely one of them, one of more interesting ones. I think that making it to that content can be federated in access by everyone and real time is really important or else it cannot seem shallow and so that’s something we need to do definitely. But, I don’t know when that’s going to be in time in terms of timeframe.

Mr. GILLMOR: What about an interaction with Wave?

Mr. SLATKIN: Yes, so that’s a good question, and I get that question pretty often. So Wave and Hubbub both do push in terms of content, so it’s good for the children as I was saying. Wave does it in a way that’s more complicated because they need more richness to express the amazing user experience that they have. Hubbub just feeds pushing around. But there’s no reason why you couldn’t use Hubbub as a transport for Wave data or vice versa, so…

Mr. GILLMOR: That’s a replacement for XMPP or…

Mr. MARKS: I’m a bit skeptical. Yeah, well…

MR. GILLMOR: Or on one side?

Mr. ARKS: But there’s a difference right? Because…

Mr. SLATKIN: Absolutely there’s a difference, yeah.

Mr. MARKS: Wave is trying to have your (unintelligible) to be edit the same document so he was sending operation transforms where it actually edits to the same thing.

Mr. GILLMOR: Right.

Mr. MARKS: So, you need to have that document you’re reconstructing somewhere. So yeah, you could feel into pieces of pushing through PubSubHubbub and put it back together again, but you still need the little pieces to flow in. So, I’m not sure of that. And this is part of the problem that, you know. Wave is saying, okay, our structure model is (unintelligible) should have seen the same document. It’s not his flow event is coming from one place to another. So that’s why it doesn’t mix very well with these systems. And then…

Mr. SLATKIN: Well, so I think that at a user experience level, what you’re saying, make sense. But I think that in terms of the actual like implementation in the protocol, you know, Wave basically is just Java PubSub to move, you know, transforms the document between all the people who are participating. And what I’m saying is that you could do that same transport with something like Hubbub, it would be possible. Now, I think that XMPP is better in that case because it’s even faster than Hubbub it can be and has a much organized scaling property. So, that’s why Wave has gone in the direction they have, I think. But, I’m saying that there isn’t an impedance mismatch between the two protocols. You could have them together.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK.

Mr. SLATKIN: Whereas, you know, you couldn’t hook together and changes XML file and Wave very easily. That would be a lot more complicated, you know, the thing falling approach doesn’t, you know, doesn’t mesh well with push. If you want to get data in real time, you want to push it. But, that’s not what I’m just trying to say.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. Robert any last question? OK.

Mr. SCOBLE: Not really.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK. This is Steve Gillmor. This has been the Gillmor Gang. I want to thank Brett Slatkin, I want to thank Kevin Marks, I want to thank David Recordon, and I want to thank Robert Scoble and I especially want to thank Rackspace for sponsoring the show and all their fine work. And NewTek and their incredible TriCaster which is helping us print this to you. So, we’ll see you again next time and there will be a next time. Bye-bye.

Gillmor Gang 09.16.09

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

The Gillmor Gang explored location’s role in new social media platforms. MG Seigler, Kevin Marks, and Robert Scoble are joined by socialmedia.com’s Seth Goldstein. The transcript starts below the video.

STEVE GILLMOR: Hi, this is Steve Gillmor. Welcome to the Gillmor Gang. We’re going to have a discussion today about why RSS is still dead – no we’re not. We’re going to have an elliptical discussion which will end up being about that. And to join us, we have the newest regular of the Gillmor Gang, MG Siegler. Welcome, MG.

Mr. MG SIEGLER: Hey, thanks for having me. Good to be here.

Mr. GILLMOR: Great for you to be here. MG of course, for TechCrunch fans, is the guy who has single-handedly changed TechCrunch from being a daily newspaper to being a minute-by-minute site.

Mr. MG SIEGLER: Almost real-time.

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t know how he does it, but, I don’t really want to know. And joining us as usual, thank God these days, is Kevin Marks.

Mr. KEVIN MARKS: Hi, there.

Mr. GILLMOR: Hi.

Mr. MARKS: Are we all black and white today?

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. MARKS: Is there a retro going on here?

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t know what to tell you. It’s all there on the network, so, I don’t know what you’re looking at. We’ll check that out later. And our special guest today, Robert Scoble, are you there on the phone?

Mr. ROBERT SCOBLE: Yeah, I’m on the phone in my car.

Mr. GILLMOR: Ok, so, what’s the baby news?

Mr. SCOBLE: Maybe Saturday, not today.

Mr. GILLMOR: So you – what’s the name of the baby?

Mr. SCOBLE: Ryan Soroush Scoble, R.S.S.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, there you go. (laughing)

Mr. SCOBLE: (laughing)

Mr. GILLMOR: Puts the light to that, doesn’t it?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Ok, great. It’s a little hard to hear you so, I’m going to see if we can give you a little bit more level here. Give me a test.

Mr. SCOBLE: Testing, one, two, three, four, five. Hopefully you can hear me.

Mr. GILLMOR: All right, that’s better. And well, less of me and then our special guest coming to us, formerly of the land of attention and maybe gestures and now bring the light to the notion that social media is dead, Mr. SocialMedia.com, Seth Goldstein.

Mr. SETH GOLDSTEIN (CEO, SocialMedia Networks): Social media is dead long live gestures.

Mr. GILLMOR: Ok, well, we’ll explore that. I don’t think it’s dead but the scene that had Caroline McCarthy, I believe is her name, had a really good story about how everything seems to have matured in the social media space as evidenced by TechCrunch50. MG, what’s your thought on that article and in general, are we seeing the maturation, pardon the expression, of all things social media?

Mr. SIEGLER: I didn’t catch that specific article just yet, but, I mean, in general just, I mean, I think, yeah, things are going up. We’re seeing Facebook making actual money now so that’s certainly something for it.

Mr. GILLMOR: Hmm, that was one data point.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: What else?

Mr. SIEGLER: Well, now it’s got Twitter at a billion dollar evaluation, so that’s another interesting thing, right?

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, who says, I mean, somebody told Mike Arrington that but we don’t know whether that’s true.

Mr. SEIGLER: Right, we’ll see but, you know, a lot of people are talking.

Mr. GILLMOR: But that doesn’t really lend any credence one way or the other to the notion that we’ve reached some sort of stability and that people are starting to question, I mean, Caroline’s article suggested that Shawn Parker, I believe is his name, one of the experts on the panel was Robert, said something to the effect that he was bored by all things social media. And she took that as being an indication that we were in a moment in time where modernization was going to become king and that there was little if any value to these, you know, yet another social community. Do you agree with that?

Mr. SIEGLER: Hmm, maybe, I mean, kind of, I guess in a way, I think, you know, if people see Facebook now making money and they kind of all focus just solely on that, you know, we might see a little decline in terms of overall crazy innovation that’s going on, but, I think in general, I don’t think that that will really happen. I mean, you know, they’re still - I think Dick Costolo said it well on, you know, also at TechCrunch50 when, I think it was Jason or someone asked him, so why join Twitter, you know, you sold the company to Google, you obviously have plenty of money, you don’t need to do anything. But he saw it, you know, he said something along the lines of that he sees it as one of those companies that comes along every once in a while that can possibly change things. So clearly, you know, he’s been sold on that idea just for Twitter alone, so that said something, I think.

Mr. GILLMORE: Kevin Marks, what do you think?

Mr. MARKS: I think we’re getting to the point now where this stuff is ready to use. We’ve been working to make social bargain (unintelligible) the web and that’s happening. And so now that’s a tacit part of the side, it’s another thing in itself. So, what I saw at TechCrunch50 was a lot of companies that were taking that pervasiveness sociality as an assumption and then building new things on top of that. And I’m seeing more and more of that as we people do things on top of Twitter, on top of Facebook, on top of (unintelligible), on top of all these ways of connecting to the stuff that’s already there. Robin is saying yes, we’re going to make this another destination site, they say, we’re going to take this stuff you got and do something interesting with it.

Mr. GILLMOR: Seth Goldstein.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, Steve.

Mr. GILLMOR: You’re “Mr. Modernization” or you will be. I mean, I don’t personally think that this is - that there is anything different going on here at all. I think that this is just a recognition that some people have figured out how to be able to do something that looks relatively stable more than once. But I think that the pace of innovation is actually going to accelerate rather rapidly right now. What do you think?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: I agree. Let me start - I have a friend who used to work for me named Jon Steinberg who built something called social gray(ph) that aggregates Foursquare data to show what’s trending and Foursquare is of course built in part on the iPhone and on top of Twitter. So, I think you’re going to see derivatives of derivatives. You’ll see complex API instruments the same way we’ve seen complex financial instruments the last couple of years in Wall Street. I think there’s going to be five years of innovation before all comes crashing down and breaks all the APIs.

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, that’s very optimistic. What do you mean by crashing down? You’re making an analogy to tarp and all of the (unintelligible).

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: No. I’m making this up as I go. I’ve never thought of this big of idea before.

Mr. GILLMOR: Join the club.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: However, if you think about, you know, building services on top of the APIs that are building services on top of other APIs, it’s a form of leverage, it’s a form of derivatives on top of, you know, complex web service instruments and I think they will continue to be built on top of each other and at some point on the line there will be some crash. I don’t know if it will be a technology crash or a financial crash associated with it, but I think we have five or seven years of relentless and reckless innovation on top of all these open APIs.

Mr. GILLMOR: Ok, well, I accept the second part of the premise but not the first. I mean, everybody has been calling - remember how the - we were going to run out of bandwidth for the Internet, I think about 10 years ago? Kevin wasn’t that - wasn’t there a great stress around IPv6 and all that kind of stuff?

Mr. MARKS: (unintelligible) the thing on. I mean, we’re not running out of bandwidth, they’re running out of IP addresses. That’s the challenge that’s still there and it’s the, you know, it’s the Y2K-like problem that we still got and we’ve got to deal with.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, but the Y2K problem turn out to be bullshit too, so?

Mr. MARKS: Well, because we’ve fixed it in time, you know, a bunch of things broke.

Mr. GILLMOR: Ok, so how’s that IPv6 thing going?

Mr. MARKS: It’s getting there. You know, people working on it. Most of the mail (unintelligible) can now support it, people - the routers(ph) are starting to support it. But it’s a propagation thing until everyone’s on it we’re going to need to keep supporting both, IPv4 and IPv6. But what it should mean is that we can then go back to our proper end-to-end network rather than network of not so connected together that don’t quite connect every protocol.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, what I really think this is going to drive this and many of the adoption of so-called open standards is going to be market force coming to bare on more than one company. In other words, the competition between two larger companies essentially driving a standard out of the rubble of the interaction between the two. MG, what’s your thought about - is Facebook, is it really Facebook versus Twitter or is there some larger struggle underway right now?

Mr. SIEGLER: I mean, I think, that they are doing, you know, the two most interesting things in the states right now on a large scale that a lot of people are seeing but, you know, certainly Kevin will know what Google is doing and things like that.

Mr. GILLMOR: No, he used to but they cut him off since he left.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right, he is. Obviously.

Mr. MARKS: I see somebody.

Mr. SIEGLER: (Laughing) but yeah, I mean, the two of them are really kind of going at it, that looks right now and on a larger scale than most people are watching. But there a lot of other interesting companies like, you know, we brought up Foursquare and there are some other ones doing some interesting things.

Mr. GILLMOR: What do Foursquare do?

Mr. SIEGLER: Solely, you know, they’re basically location based - it’s more or less a game, you know, you play, you kind of check in places and you can get there…

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, this is what the mayor of something is about?

Mr. SIEGLER: Right, exactly. It’s the thing you’re always asking me about. Why am I the mayor of so and so.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I think I’m going to continue to ignore this one.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. GILLMOR: What else besides Foursquare?

Mr. SIEGLER: Well, I mean, I think that something that it touches upon something that’s kind of something that hasn’t really been touched upon that much yet, which is location which all these services are soon, you know, going to be offering more and more of. Facebook hasn’t really gotten into it at all. They did a small announcement the other day with Nokia to do something for it but, you know, eventually, they’re certainly going to roll out their own location stuff. And now Twitter has got the Geolocation API. There’s a lot of potentially cool things that can happen in the space still that’s not tapped at all with that.

Mr. GILLMOR: Jump in any time gentlemen.

Mr. MARKS: Well, I was - as usual, you’re picking the two companies that the Valley(ph) is talking about ignoring the rest of the world. So I can put my (unintelligible) half back on and say actually there’s lots of sites out there that have moved into this idea of delegating the ability to other sites. So as you can, you know, you can log in now with Facebook, you can log in now with Twitter and we’re seeing sites that do that. You can do the same thing with Google, with MySpace, with Hi5, with a whole bunch of other sites but the difference is that those ones are all using a common protocol. So, what I think we’re seeing is that with these things are starting to converge more and the assumption that I have to create a new account to every site is starting to go away. There was a good post about it this morning by Michael Mahamoff (ph) about different log-in models. And the log-in model - we’re moving away from the I-create-an-account-on-every-site and towards the I-can-log-in-with-an-existing-account and bring some of the value of that account has and be (unintelligible) to it and that’s new. That’s by design, that’s because we’re working hard towards that and a bunch of cross-company ways now. And if you looked at, you know, the tornado stuff we talked about last week, it has a lot of that stuff built in because it was what they were using in FriendFeed. The way you can log in to FriendFeed with different accounts and it brings the friends in the profile information from that then they put into the framework and at the source which I thought was very smart of them. Which means that there is now a more general way to do that and I expect that’s going to extend overtime and the idea of having to create a new account will go away because people will realize actually this is much nicer. I can just use the stuff I already got. I don’t have to get through that recreation thing all the time.

Mr. GILLMOR: So then, Robert, are you there back?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, I am back.

Mr. GILLMOR: Jump in any time. It seems like the, you know, I hesitate to call it a battle, but the most important thing that companies are looking for in terms of establishing leverage in this space is around identity to your point, Kevin.

Mr. MARKS: Well, that’s one way of looking at it. I think that - the thing is that, sorry it’s not able to delegate the (unintelligible). They don’t have to do that. They can draw on the ones that already exist.

Mr. GILLMOR: So before, there’s still - there has to be a, you know, some sort of an on ramp, you know, once you have somebody - MG, you need to pull your mike a little bit away from your face, it’s just rattling a little bit. Once you’ve established a ubiquitous log on that every ends up using, you’re kind of in a situation where you might one want to leverage it.

Mr. MARKS: Well, the point is to establish a standard figure for log on so that it’s not bound to any particular organization. Now that’s the point of, you know, an idea now often and put all the contacts and the stuff we’ve been building is that it’s not bound to one particular provider. It’s a web-like protocol that you can log in and use the same stuff whoever is providing it. So that could be, you know, it could be provided by a large organization. It could be something you host yourself. But the point of these, of coming with common protocols is that you can scale from - two things, one is you can scale from – to (unintelligible) number of providers, and the other is that you can connect with people without actually having to have a business arrangement with them, without, you know, without even knowing about their existence often. Once you got a common protocol for logging in, you can log in to - people can log in to you with accounts you never heard of and that’s a very valuable thing.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I keep hearing about people decrying or talking about the death of open ID, for example. Now, I don’t know what that means but I do know that it represents the sentiment that these kinds of open standards are harder than they look.

Mr. MARKS: Well, I think, they’re getting easier than they look, that’s the point. You’re using it without realizing you’re using it now. When you log in…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I think that goes back to the old argument about market force, which is that when you have something that captures the imagination of people, you know, be at a game or whatever, that it starts to have a certain amount of ubiquity at that point people come in the standards arena and basically roll it together with other similar market force standards. And then you’ve got something as opposed to trying to create it at heart from the beginning which I think, history doesn’t really show a whole lot of adoption to that kind of thing.

Mr MARKS: No question (unintelligible) that thing. What happens is that people try things out and then we iterate them and can try and converse them a (unintelligible) on that way.

Mr. GILLMOR: Uh huh.

Mr. MARKS: But, you know, but what I’m saying about OpenID being invisible is that, when you log into FriendFeed with your Google account, it’s using OpenID. You just don’t know it’s using OpenID because the user experiences now seems that it’s not obviously using OpenID. And that’s, you know, that’s the piece though that they were moving towards, where the experience is very, very smooth. Now, the drawback is that to make it that smooth, they didn’t give an option to log in with another OpenID account, which I think is a shame. But, that’s something I expect to see change every time where it becomes easier to put your account in and it works out the right thing to do. That’s the (unintelligible) web thing, finger protocol but being discussed and we’ve talked about that one before. The idea of that is that you can put in an email-like identifier and then its approach we’re discovering other services from that in the same way you can do with an OpenID. You know, the value of an OpenID was that you get your all from it which is a place you can then go to get further API endpoints and so on. So, the point of web thing, we select you to do the same thing with an email-like address. So, an email address or what you call a (unintelligible) address or the @ name at domain structure addresses where the (unintelligible) can let you take that and look up endpoints to get further API access there. So, you can do the contents, contacts access, profile access, and things like that you can do with the (unintelligible). So that, is one of the building blocks to make this stuff more natural and much less intrusive part of this interface. You don’t actually have to know what protocol you are using. You just type in the identifier that you recognize and in the background, the log in can work out the right thing to do and present you with the, you know, approval page that say Okay, you used the goggling mail address, well, use your goggle account to populate this. You don’t have to type in the whole bunch of stuff that you’ve already typed in somewhere else.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, unfortunately, Kevin, I like to have you explain or unpack complex stuff. But, there’s nobody here who can explain what you just said. So, Seth, what’s your take on where we’re going to go in terms of these standards?

Mr. GOLOSTEIN: I agree with Kevin. And I think is that it seems like a showdown between using your Twitter ID and using your Facebook ID for, you know, remote delegation of your identity. And, I know last night, yesterday, the day before I changed my Facebook – I want to change my Facebook password and changed the password and I was concerned because I knew – I didn’t know how that would trickle across the web in terms of all the other services and my iPhone that were accessing and Facebook Connect and they were accessing my Facebook stream via that password. And fortunately I think it’s pretty seamless behind the scenes. But I think there’s a growing sense that, you know, our single password or single log in is rippling through all these different web services that we’re utilizing.

Mr. GILLMOR: Robert, you’re back now, right?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. Sorry about that.

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s all right. Have you been able to follow along or you as loss as I am?

Mr. SCOBLE: I’m also lost because, yeah, I’m driving over the hill and my phone call got kicked off by the TV.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, MG, what do you think is going to be the next big story that you’ll be covering? What are you looking for right now?

Mr. SEIGLER: Right now, I’m trying to wine down from TechCrunch50s.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, we’re all on the valley of the end of TechCrunch50 but we’re going to have a bunch of rather significant conferences over the next month and a half or so. And, it seems like things are sort of boiling down into what Kevin’s talking about at a technical level is going to also be manifested at a more political level.

Mr. SCOBLE: And commercial level.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, well, I see commercial and political as being the same thing. But, agreed. So, you’re disagreeing with that. Go ahead.

Mr. SCOBLE: I don’t know that much about politics but I think I know more about commercial reality and what I’m seeing on the commercial side is in the valley we talked about – we use to talked about MySpace and now it’s primarily, you know, Twitter – we’ve been talking about Facebook for years. To a certain extent, Twitter has now taken a lot of the air out of MySpace. It was Twitter and Facebook – but there’s all sorts of other media out there that had a lot of vested interests, commercially and politically. And, they’re trying to figure how to become more social both on the customer side and on the advertising side. And I think it’s going to be faced with as it relays to Facebook Connect, do they implement Facebook Connect one of the data politics of that as it relates to their business case? I think Google has a chance to become everybody’s friend, and so far as Google can be seen as more open and available as a platform than Facebook. And so, I think Google will be waiting and the wings for all these media companies to provide some semblance of social features and so far as the media companies might be reluctant to adapt Facebook Connect.

Mr. GILLMOR: MG, do you agree that Google is waiting and it’s going to pounce or like me, do you agree that that Google seems to have a difficult time winding social graph and other types of social energy into their current services?

Mr. SIEGLER: Yeah, I mean. I totally agree with that. I’ve said that a lot of times. I think that’s it’s been pretty clunky how Google has been laying the social lair over all these different things right now. They could have been doing a lot of things earlier certainly with all their different applications. And actually, one of the companies that launched and made the – was in the DemoPit and then won the DemoPit competition at TechCrunch50 was this is a social walk thing. Which is pretty interesting because it – it basically almost works like a FriendFeed type layer over Google Apps, which is – and the work seems to work very well. I know that they’re working pretty close they said with people at Google on it. So, it’s something like that, you know, these third party companies they just came along and did this. And it looks like a much better social implementation than a lot of things that you see right now within many of the Google Apps themselves, because they’re all kind all spread over the place and, you know, there’s nothing really to tie all these different things in and…

Mr. SCOBLE: I agree with that. I want to build on that, which is I think that Google is not waiting in the wings with these social solutions because I do think that they’ve been clunky. I don’t think they have the social graph DNA that Facebook or Twitter has. What I think Google can do is enable third parties to legitimately innovate social solutions on top of Google in a way that Facebook has demonstrated time and time again that they’re not willing to do. Facebook is not really supporting third party applications and third party networks to do the kind of innovation on top of Facebook that they might have been a couple of years ago. It feels like Facebook is trying to close off to third party innovations because they want to do it themselves for better or for worse. And Google, you know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Google is now I think going to cozy up to innovative start ups and allow them to do things socially on top of Google, but they can’t do social on top of Facebook.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I find it interesting that you think about Google what I think about Facebook. I actually disagree with you. I mean, historically, Facebook is at a very difficult time in, you know, trying to essay the difference between a closed motive gate(ph) of community and their increasingly large numbers of users. But, I think that they’re – I think, you know, frankly I think the purchase or the merging with FriendFeed team adds significant leverage in terms of dealing with their so-called everyone’s status which I think that they’re going to build out in a very competitive, you know, model as compared to Twitter, where I think that Google, although, they’ve certainly made some strides in terms of opening up Google reader in fact I know, MG, agrees with me to some extent about the success with which they have added social tools to Google reader. They’ve certainly made a large effort over the past few months. I did notice, for example, that in one of my rare visits to Google reader a couple of days ago, I noticed that they are actively now telling me about people that are making available their shared feeds. Kevin Marks, you and I went through a significant amount of back and forth…

Mr. MARKS: Back and forth, yes, a couple of years ago.

Mr. GILLMOR: Back and forth about this. And, I guess that what we’re seeing now is that Google has decided that enough time has passed with the notion that undiscoverable URL, which is what it was originally has now sufficiently been pushed out into the mainstream. That they can afford to spam everybody with, you know, access to share feeds even though they might not be intended for that.

Mr. MARKS: Well, (unintelligible) we had the conversation about how many different sharing and what’s the options there are in Reader(ph) now. It’s getting a bit out of hand. But, there are two things going on there. One is you can see the shared stuff from the people that you already have a friend relationship and start Google with. The other is that because there’s Google profiles who can add URLs, it will discover the feeds from those URLs and the profile and offer you those. That was the other thing they added. So, yeah, they’re starting to pull the pieces together in some of the ways that FriendFeed does by the gathering that the multiple feeds that belong to a person and offering you those as something to read. So, you know, the nice thing is that again, it’s being built on mostly a set of open standards for how to discover those, how to find them, and the shared stuff is going out more publicly. And, yeah, the original friend model that was there two years ago was a (unintelligible) and didn’t work very well. Whereas now, the friend model I’ve got makes a lot more sense and it’s easier to manage and so on.

MR. GILLMOR: They may made more sense but it’s – go ahead, Robert.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, the friend model in Google Reader just isn’t that useful. You know, first of all, if you get more than a few hundred friends, the whole thing slows way down. People are wondering why Twitter is getting all these adoption and all these hype. You can let it go around and use symmetrically(ph), you follow thousands of people without getting the following system from slowing down. And Google Reader is not there, it’s horrid. Also, I can’t immigrate my following with other systems and that’s something I keep holding out hope that the systems will integrate together. I’m now playing with Frenzy, and Frenzy is bringing me my Facebook, my Twitter, and my Gmail in together. But still, there’s no way to aggregate or put together all of Kevin Marks’ items and let me curate Kevin Marks himself and share that back out. Share why Kevin Marks, why what Kevin Marks set on Twitter this morning was really important. I’m still waiting for a really killer system.

Mr. GILLMOR: So, you’re starting to talk about…

Mr. MARKS: But they should be. I mean, you know, in that case, they should be able to connect the different ones together because they’re all bounce together for me particularly for the Google profile in the public way. So, they should be able to discover that. They may just have built that piece of it yet because they built the three separately. (Unintelligible) I like to look of it, I like the demo, I have no chance to play with it yet. But if, you know, if you think how the others, how friendly it binds multiple IDs together, it works reasonably well.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. They (unintelligible) in on it. I love the Google profile, right? And it auto finds where, you know, it (unintelligible) all my accounts or a lot of my accounts all over the place. But it’s just the following. I want to follow Kevin Marks in Google Reader. It’s not very nice to find people. It’s not nice to group them. Getting in there and there’s no real good system for managing followers. It drives me nuts. Foursquare is another one. You know, I have 500 friends waiting on Foursquare to be added, and if you click add, it takes something like five seconds to visit one, it has to refresh the page, it’s not using (unintelligible). I can’t add everybody which is really what I want to. (Unintelligible). And then I can’t put them into groups. I can’t say this group is San Francisco group and this group is my Boulder Colorado group. How lame is that? Just the freaking location base system built for 2010 and it has the worst content measurement system I’ve ever seen.

Mr. MARKS: But I think, well, I can defend them a little. With FourSquare, what they do is they let you assign your own home city. So you can’t tell it that they’re San Francisco people, it will put them in the San Francisco bucket and then when they get - travel to Boulder, they put themselves in the Boulder bucket. So you don’t get to control that.

Mr. SCOBLE: I know, but then, you know, that’s just an example of - they really haven’t thought through. These new systems coming online haven’t thought through how can we manage, make it easier to manage friend groups.

Mr. MARKS: No, I thinks that’s the next frontier, yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: I think that it’s stupid. You know, I …

Mr. MARKS: If you give me…

Mr. SCOBLE: You know, have informed anything from Twitter, why don’t they let me import all my friends from Twitter? Forget making me add another 500 people to another freaking social media piece of crap.

Mr. MARKS: Right, that’s exactly what I was saying. I mean, that was the - the - what was that thing today, Twitter times, did you see that? That was …

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. MARKS: That was quite a nice thing that says, Ok, well, where we do we, Twitter followers and the links they do and give you a sort of personal tech name of it, or here’s the popular links that you’re - people you’re following to and tune in does something very similar. They’re able to do that because they can get out these sets and they work for people like us who follow a lot of people because we generate in all those signal for them. I think the challenge for - you know, you and I are in a place where we’re following too many people and we suddenly need these tools. Most people haven’t got that far yet and so the priority for these groups is, let’s get the people on board first then let’s build the management stuff. But I do think that’s going to be the next (unintelligible)…

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t agree with the idea that…

Mr. SCOBLE: That’s also maybe…

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t agree, yeah, I’ll let you get in a second, hang on. I don’t agree with the idea that this is all about, you know, early adapters and people who got too many things to follow. This is a mainstream issue that is servicing first …

Mr. MARKS: No, wait, wait.

Mr. GILLMOR: That is servicing first in, you know, in Scoble and Mark’s land but it’s going to rapidly …

Mr. MARKS: No, that’s absolutely …

Mr. GILLMOR: It’s going to rapidly become common place.

Mr. SCOBLE: It is, it is…

Mr. MARKS: The think is, at the moment, what you do is you segment your friends by having them in different sites because that was the model we had and then you have to build separate groups in different places …

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, I don’t agree with that. I mean, to me, I don’t use …

Mr. MARKS: Expect to hold. That’s, that’s…

Mr. GILLMOR: I don’t use Twit deck, I don’t use a lot of these services that attempt manage by grouping because at the end of the day it becomes more complicated and time consuming to create the groups and then curate them than it does to just use serendipity and much more social graphic types of equations. Seth, you want to say something.

Mr. SCOBLE: It’s, it’s…

Mr. GILLMOR: Hang on a sec, Robert.

Mr. SCOBLE: All right.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: About, about FourSquare. I’m very deliberate about who I allow to know where I am physically, and that’s the case with Google Latitude, and that’s the case with FourSquare and I appreciate that I have to create a new social graph within FourSquare to be very intentional about these different set of people, friends, colleagues, relatives, et cetera in terms of who I am allowing to see where I am and that I can - you know, at different levels of permission in terms of just sharing that with my FourSquare friends and then sharing that more broadly with Twitter followers. Whereas on Facebook, you know, I have thousands of friends and I know that whatever I put on Facebook, they’re going to see. I actually appreciate this sort of extra layer of introspection and to your earlier point, Steve, I mean, we are moving into this gesture economy and to this gesture stream and the geolocation of us is of fundamental gesture. I mean, that is becoming literally physical. You know, where am I, what am I doing, sharing that and then within that.

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead, Robert.

Mr. SCOBLE: I totally disagree. First of all, the whole privacy thing …

Mr. GILLMOR: With what?

Mr. SCOBLE: Yes, about the - let’s focus on location-based privacy for just a second.

Mr. GILLMOR: OK..

Mr .SCOBLE: Everybody comes at these lat - the Google Latitude and the FourSquare is that way and it’s lame. The best thing I’ve ever done was share my location with everybody. I get more friends that way, more people are coming into my life that way. And when I’m in San Francisco, people call me up and say, hey, you’re nearby want to have a, you know, want to have a sandwich and stuff like that. And I’ve never had any bad trouble. First of all, let’s assume that you’re correct that you really need to focus on where you’re going to share your location, which is probably true for a lot of people. Why can’t I just bring in all my Facebook friends and then click on the ones I don’t one to share with or I do want to share with and say add those to FourSquare and make it easy. Right now, you know, going through, if you have 500 people asking to get your attention on FourSquare and you will have 500 people getting your attention because there’s a freaking game and a fun game, it’s an addictive game. Everybody is going to want to play this game and everybody is going to want to add everybody else on the social graph and now you’re going to end up just like me with 500 people asking to get your attention. And right now you have to click add, and then you have to wait five seconds for your freaking page to reload because the jerks over there were too lazy to do Ajax like Doppler does. Doppler doesn’t know if…

Mr. GILLMOR: You know, Robert, I really think that this is a problem that you have and that many of us don’t.

Mr. SCOBLE: So everybody says that. Everybody says that, oh, I remember having this freaking thing conversation on IPQ(ph). Nobody will have a thousand friends and then everybody have a thousand friends. Nobody would have a thousand followers on Twitter. I remember having that conversation, too and now, I asked the guardians at TechCrunch50 the other day, how many people have a thousand followers, a lot of hands went up. This is going to be a problem…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, that’s different, Robert. It’s different to have a thousand viewers or followers and to have a thousand followers who know that you are standing 10 feet away from them. Location-based social media is the special case. It certainly going to have some value and it’s fun as a game but it …

Mr. SCOBLE: Because it’s a game, just because this is a game, the FourSquare is a game, you are going to want to share your location with large numbers of people. And yeah, there will be privacy cries and there will be, you know, somebody you just …

Mr. MARKS: Pretending that’s true at all Robert, I think …

Mr. SCOBLE: Doctors would want that…

Mr. GILLMOR: Go ahead, Kevin.

Mr. MARKS: And it’s true too. I think, you know, you’ve chose into live in public and I have to some extent as well, but I know, lots of people who’ve have very different views. One of my …

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. I’m not saying that you just (unintelligible)…

Mr. MARKS: One of my female friends said, I’m not going to let anyone know where I am on a FourSquare unless that’s somebody who would hold my hair while I’m vomiting, that was the test to say, you know, that’s the test for personalness that she was using there. People have different points on that continuum and there is a certain (unintelligible) when fear of people stalking them.

Mr. SCOBLE: Kevin, you don’t need seven billion people to have a lot of freaking people on your freaking social graph. There’s a lot of people who are going to be wanting to play this game and sharing their location with each other. And yes, maybe it’s only five percent of the population. Five percent of seven billion people is a lot freaking people on your social graph who want - you need to manage. And the fact that these companies take the late low road, lazy road on engineering because they don’t have enough time to build it properly, it’s just bullshit.

Mr. MARKS: Well, give them some, Robert. They just got some funding. They can probably afford to hire more engineers than just one now.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, OK, you know what, that flew three years ago Twitter was just getting going and nobody understood that these systems would be popular. It doesn’t buy with me anymore.

Mr. MARKS: Well, probably the point, there’s two thing there, one is, FourSquare did only just get funding. It was two guys and on credit cards until a couple of weeks ago and they’ve got like a long way …

Mr. SCOBLE: They built dodgeball. Why did dodgeball fail? It failed because of bullshit like this. They don’t think it’s real and then they get popular and they go, ooh, our skill ability problems are there. Fucking, if you’re going to put up a service out in public, build it right first.

Mr. MARKS: Yeah, I’ve been there, done that and it’s easier to say than to do. Part of the thing is, part of the value is it’s just (unintelligible). You can delegate these.

Mr .SCOBLE: I know but now they’re (unintelligible) the ability problems and the service is falling down and now they got planning - well see if they fix their problems. It’s going to turn in to the next Twitter where at Twitter is still down all everyday, you know, because they never got on top of their skill ability problems up front.

Mr. MARKS: No, I think Twitter has caught up now but, yeah, they don’t want to be go where friends today.

Mr SCOBLE: Of every freaking day, man. Twitter everyday, I mean, giving that thing 500 times a day. Everyday I had problems on Twitter. It is still having skill ability problems.

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, I think we’re rolling a bunch of different issues up into one social mess. Seth, what do you think is, you know, the resolution of this kind of conflict between too much and too little in terms of, you know, privacy versus public - and for those who probably can’t hear us, I believe that the U-stream is down or we’re down to U-stream so, we’re recording, so, we’ll finish the show up and then we’ll release it on YouTube. Do you understand my question, Seth?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: No.

Mr. GILLMOR: We’ve got this notion of these capabilities being under implemented and unreliable versus this incredible public utility of these technologies and general move toward adapting and for virtually every input that becomes meaningful to us from an economic and also personal perspective. It just seems like we’re always going to have Robert as the sort of every man basically saying, how come this thing doesn’t work because it’s so absolutely crucial to what I - to my existence.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, so I, I hear that. I don’t think there’s necessarily a question here. I think that Robert brings up the right point and I think Robert would be a great investor and board member to one, you know, popular and increasingly popular web service start-ups about the need early on to really think about these scaler shoes and think about managing multiple groups and thinking about managing - you know, Robert was the one when we all had 50 Facebook friends. He was the one problematizing the case of having 5,000 Facebook friends and we appreciate him for that. I think on a deeper level and on a more basic level what is awesome right now is not only do people want to share information on Facebook, not only do they want to share information on Twitter but they now want to share the informations on fourth square and that there is a positive feedback where people want to, you know, as you would say, Steve, kind of up drift or their gestures into the cloud and that is going to unlock a ton of innovation around this space and I think from a privacy - in politics’ perspective, we are in a very different place than to Twitter in where we were two years ago and these advances in - in data sharing and in attention syndication are not getting constrained and hem strung by knee jerk responses from the mass market PR and the mainstream PR.

Mr. GILLMOR: M.G, what do you think?

Mr. SIEGLER: Yeah, I mean, I think that we’re about to - to get too big witness test for all these location stuff obviously. So when the Twitter geo location API goes live, it’s going to be a first big one. The second big one, you know, bigger would be with Facebook rules out whatever they’re going to do with locations. Because that’s going to be 300 million people who all of a sudden have these shoved in their face. Now obviously, I mean, I have to think that they’re going to do this, you know, the right way and obviously make it opt in. I mean, there’s no way that they could just turn that on for everyone and then everyone knows where you are if you have the iPhone ap or whatnot. But, yeah, you know, Robert is talking about that he wants all these, all these networks put together and you know, you just easily port your friends over from Twitter into FourSquare automatically and stuff and certainly, some people like that but the majority of people that I talked to are right now using FourSquare the same way that Seth was talking about very differently from the way that these Twitter in terms of their social graph - they just, they will only accept people who they, you know, do not mind knowing where they are and like Kevin was talking about and they’re not - you know, like I’ve a huge list of people who I’m, I’m just not accepting. It’s not because I don’t necessarily think that they’re going to be stalking me or whatever. It’s just, it’s a question of do I really want to know where they are all the time and do I want them knowing where I am all the time. But when, you know, when Twitter geo location rules out and then all of your twits are tagged with where you actually are, that’s going to be a really interesting test for all these stuff.

Mr. GILLMOR: On the other hand, I think Robert does have a good instinct about this stuff. Things that seem to be unlikely to have a utility when they get, you know, to mass Scoble type scale often turn out to be just the opposite. They turn out to be very useful. You know, the whole…

Mr. SIEGLER: Sure.

Mr. GILLMOR: The whole argument about the track and you know, the speed of real time for example, most people pitching whole that as being something that only a small number of technologists were interested in.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: When feed switched over that model, there was a hue and outcry about it.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: Followed by rapid…

Mr. SIEGLER: Yeah, not everyone loved it.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah, exactly.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right.

Mr. GILLMOR: And you know, they use these numbers…

Mr. SIEGLER: And they think it’s going to be…

Mr. GILLMOR: They use these numbers as much.

Mr. SIEGLER: It’s going to be the same thing (unintelligible) location I think. I mean, it’s just - it’s going to take a long time for location because like - unlike real time, real time, you know, when it first ruled out, a lot of us thought it was really cool but we also saw that people would probably get annoyed with it because there’s just so much information coming in. But a lot of us, you know, recognize it. Eventually everyone would love it and you know…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well the reality is that there is so much information coming in and we just have…

Mr. SIEGLER: Right, right.

Mr. GILLMOR: Without any way of dealing with it yet.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right. Why would you want to slow it down when you can get it in, you know…

Mr. GILLMOR: Well, what - put it the other way. How do you fix it? How do you make it useable? I mean, that - you know, I think Google rater is a great - I think, Google rater is a great product. It, it blew out the market frankly. And the problem is is that it’s so good at what it does that it makes it unusable for me. There’s too much.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah. Steve, the thing that we’re forgetting is utility causes human to change their behavior and their attitude. And not, I’m now sharing openly that I have a kidney disease. Ten years ago, I probably wouldn’t have done that. Right? Why do I share that? And why am I going to open up my medical records and share that on some system? Because the goodness you get back, the sharing of information with doctors around the world and with people who have that disease and so on and so forth, is far greater than the incursion on my privacy that I’m perceived - perceiving, right? And same thing with location. I’m already using (unintelligible) and to find things, find businesses near me and telling, yup, I’m here in (unintelligible) bay and then shares me hoe, there’s a peeps(ph) copy, you know, half a mile away. That utility is going to cost people to change their behavior and change their attitude, you know, toward - you think. Now will it take a year or will it take five years or ten years, I don’t know. But over time people are going to find that when they share their location with other people, a lot of goodness comes back to them and therefore, they’re going to buy into these systems.

Mr. SIEGLER: Right. But what is - we need to, we need to build tools in a (unintelligible) system AP, we’re comfortable with that. They select these share in a way that doesn’t involve lots of administration and messing around.

Mr. GILLMOR: But…

Mr. SIEGLER: So we need to build…

Mr. SCOBLE: Absolutely.

Mr. SIEGLER: Well the Harry Potter analogy. We need to not be build in a Marauders map. We need to be building the Weasley’s clock that says, you know, Kevin’s at home, work, Kevin’s at home whatever to a set of - the family rather the thing you conspire wherever on the world is which is the, the Marauders map.

Mr. SCOBLE: Right.

Mr. SIEGLER: And so it’s the intersection administration that works on the location stuff.

Mr. SCOBLE: Somebody will…

Mr. SIEGLER: And so there’s a sort of mentioned walk…

Mr. SCOBLE: Somebody will discover that…

Mr. GILLMOR: What?

Mr. SIEGLER: One second.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah, somebody will discover that, that’s right. There’s a company called Glimpse for instance that does exactly what the latitude does in terms of sharing your information with everybody. But it puts a little time clock on it. And so, if I’m heading towards your house and I want you to see my location, I’ll just share it on Glimpse and say, share it for only 30 minutes and that way…

Mr. SIEGLER: But it’s still going to manage that manually.

Mr. SCOBLE: The clock will see me in equal time.

Mr. SIEGLER: So my friend…

Mr. SCOBLE: What’s that?

Mr. SIEGLER: You still would have managed it manually which is not right. My friend Jessie who - he’s building (unintelligible) which is a calendar thing. But draws your calendar and helps you find events - he was, I was telling him about this. He said, well what you want is to know - if you know the calendar and who you are meeting, you would share your location with people with - within an hour of the meeting so they can if you’re there yet and how close you’re getting. And I thought, yeah, that would give - that would actually make a lot of sense. That will be a very natural default thing to do and I said, Seth, we’ll find more of these over time which is - but part of it is the intersection of the social and the local. So it’s…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. SIEGLER: There’s a set of people that I’m happy to share very detailed location data with. There’s a set of people that I don’t want them to know where I am at all. And then there’s the people in general and I don’t - I’ve no reason there. And there’s bit of a blind spot in the geo-community in this and this is something I’ve noticed - been noticing for years which is that they’re so focused on geo points, they don’t think about fuzziness. So actually share - one of the things that forced with us is that you share physical addresses and you label the dresses. So the location is as specific as the addresses. So I’ve seen people constructing force where locations that are non-specific, that are - that don’t actually have a good geo point to them. So they can check into their house and their apartment without the whole world knowing where they are but their friends who know it’s their apartment say, all right, Fred’s - at Fred’s house tonight. Okay, that’s good to know. So I think we - that’s one of the things, the issues I have with, with Ryan and the geo staff in Twitter is that he hasn’t got the fuzziness premature at the moment. That it’s roughly proposed. It is a point whereas you do need some fuzziness to say, I’m in Palo Alto as opposed to, I’m at Fresh Yogurt in Palo Alto depending on who you’re talking to.

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. SIEGLER: Or depending on who you’re trying to broadcast it to. And also, there’s also a whole bunch of other new ones in this, you know. If I’m in Palo Alto, well that’s not a big deal. It’s just down the street. If, you know, J.P. (unintelligible) is coming to Palo Alto from London, it’s a big deal and people, you know, will come down from San Francisco to have dinner with him. So there’s a difference between…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. SIEGLER: The importance of the information based on a whole bunch of other context. There’s a whole set of these context that we’re going to - you need to start making sense of and making intuitive in the same way that, you know, yeah, in the same way we have to thought rather - events in the stream. And having more of that and we’ll start making it more sensible but it’s also - there’s two sizes. One is the filtering from the last same information. But the other is the outbound filtering that sends out the, you know, the knowledge and the, you know, deciding who share with what and that’s going to take longer to work out. And we may start out…

Mr. GILLMOR: I think that - I think you’ve here on something that is fundamental to this. We’ve been talking a lot about filtering coming in and certainly, that’s going to be the sort of a Ground Zero of the next few months in the social space. But, you know, it effectively broadcasting, to micro communities is also going to become an exceptionally large focus for users and they’re going to look for tools that will allow them to do that and right now, I think, to what Robert is saying about the social, about the location space and what, you know, Seth is moving into in terms of his montization(ph) models are both examples of the immaturity of that space, which is why I think the…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: What’s going on in terms of the assumption that we have reached some sort of mature point in terms of the social media, I think, we’re just barely touching down now and preparing to make these things actually useful, you know, I though that…

Mr. SCOBLE: Yeah:

Mr. GILLMOR: I thought Techron 50 was remarkable and it’s, you know, professional display and sort of funneling of the current visible stuff that’s going on. I thought, Threadsly(ph) or Treadsy(ph) or whatever it is that it’s called is a fantastic program. I have no idea why I’d want to use it. But I like what it does. It’s just seem attractive on some level.

Mr. SIEGLER: What I saw was transition. So, I saw a bunch of (unintelligible) that we’re doing this delegation. And again, I’ve been advising 140.com which is all about gathering the Twitter eco system and looking - we’re absolutely(ph) building that. So, I’ve seen lots and lots of those. And I was disappointed with a lot of the tech crunchings because they would obviously have been better aps if they got delegated login Robin, oh we’re going to create yet another place to share your photographs that belongs to this folks will say.

Mr. GILLMOR: That’s like saying that, because we don’t have an open standard, that that’s a problem. That’s not a problem.

Mr. SIEGLER: We do have open standards.

Mr. GILLMOR: We don’t.

Mr. SIEGLER: Yes, we do.

Mr. GILLMOR: We have people like you who are building them. You’re building them.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: And they’re in their shipping.

Mr. GILLMOR: There’s a Walgreens down in the corner in Pacifica. He can’t go in there. It’s not open yet. I mean.

Mr. SCOBLE: Laughing:

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: These are open, they ship quite the size with biddings of uses, with over the bill and uses, you know. This isn’t…

Mr. GILLMOR: You’re sounding like you’re at Google again.

Mr. SCOBLE: Steve, Steve, I think the problem is when the problem for engineers taking dependency - and that’s. I have father and Mike’s office teams that check dependencies…

Mr. SIEGLER: That’s a good point.

Mr. SCOBLE: Like (unintelligible).

Mr. GILLMOR: I’d like to say, Robert. Could you speak up a little? Robert, speak up, I can’t hear you.

Mr. SCOBLE: What’s that? I’m just saying that engineers have an impulse of not taking dependencies on other things. Certainly not another commercial business. You know, that’s why, you know why the…

Mr. GILLMOR: What a shock.

Mr. SCOBLE: (unintelligible) don’t build in Facebook connect. Right? They should and as users, I want them too but I can sort of understand why they don’t do that. And I can sort of understand Kevin’s point too about FourSquare, why the engineers there say, you know, we’re going to build our own socialgraph and we’re going to force our users to do all the toll again because we want our separate pay and we don’t want any dependencies and we don’t want anybody else in control of our location base privacy call.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah. I understand Kevin’s point. What I’m saying is that…

Mr. SIEGLER: So there’s two points there. One, yes. You’re right about the dependencies. You have to have enough value in the thing you’re depending on to actually say every time Robin making a new work, sure. And that’s always an engineering trait. If it’s hard today - ahead of time and you have to have a fairly good case for that. The other half of that is you don’t want the dependency to ease bound to one company which is where the open standards come in. So, if you’re at work to the open standards, you can then depend on multiple companies that could provide that or individuals or whatever. Whereas,if you’re about, you are going to single supplier, then you got a problem.

Mr. GILLMOR: But you were commenting on was the disappointment about the fact that individual companies otherwise known as features by, you know, platform vendors, have, you know, individual ways of rowing on their own, you know, ingress and identity and so on and so forth. To me it’s like, if you go up to the 50,000 foot level, all that stuff goes away. It’s noise. You know, there will be a filtering mechanism that filters out and standardizes around these things and what you guys are building in the standard arena is a consensus that will be adapted at that point.

Mr. SIEGLER: Yes.

Mr. GILLMOR: But let’s not be disappointed in the fact that we’ve got, you know, 50 selling name companies that are doing some interesting stuff.

Mr. SIEGLER: Oh, no no. I wasn’t disappointed that they’re doing interesting stuff. I was disappointed for them in that, they were in interesting stuff that looked - that I suspected wouldn’t take off well unless they cover everything else. Now, part of that maybe is the artificiality of Tech Crunch where - TechCrunch 50 where you know, a lot of launchings rite before you go, they have to launch there. So they have to use this sort of slightly older stealth model for start up development (unintelligible).

Mr. GILLMOR: You mean, as opposed to the stealth model that everybody uses everywhere.

Mr. SIEGLER: No, as oppose to the (unintelligible) model where you launch something and then grow it gradually and then you know, (unintelligible).

Mr. GILLMOR: The industry model. I’ve heard of that but I’ve never seen it in a while.

Mr. SIEGLER: Well, I’ve seen a lot of it.

Mr. SCOBLE: Steve, the most interesting conversation that we’ve had here is the location one. I hope - I expect that we’re going to be talking about that a lot on the Gillmor Gang over the next few months. One thing that I haven’t heard too many people discuss about location is - I mean, let’s go back at the 50,000 people - Google studies the intent of people to search, right? I type in digital camera and they assume that I’m looking to buy a digital camera and they put ads next to that search. So, and by doing that, they unpack some value and they keep some money(ph). Location is going to do the same thing. I’m sitting in front of a pit. If I walked into a pit, that tells the world, I intend to buy some coffee, right? And then also tells the world, I’m a coffee fan. And I can build a whole set of assumptions about behavior I might exhibit elsewhere.

Mr. GILLMOR: Yeah.

Mr. SCOBLE: And then we’re going to see a - something like that around location. That’s where FourSquare is really interesting by the way because I check in various businesses and that tells the world a lot about what I am.

Mr. GILLMOR: But there’s - there are basis. This…

Mr. SIEGLER: They have that, they have these tips that you can create for the businesses. So, you actually get…. pay a recommendations when you check in there some way. It says, you know, try the veal or whatever. It says, the food here is good.

Mr. SCOBLE: Exactly.

Mr. GILLMOR: The main point of this, the main point of the location dynamic is that it’s about privacy and it’s about leveraging the outbound model. You have to have sophisticated tools to be able to tell, to be able to know and to have a legitimate contract with users to be able to broadcast to them in such a way that they are open to be in broadcaster. That’s what the gesture model describes. So, Seth…

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah.

Mr. GILLMOR: Since you and I were, you know, way ahead of a lot of this in terms of understanding where this was going to go, how do you see this as rolling out now in the real world because obviously, the attention trust may have been at the forefront of understanding that we were going to have to figure out how to be able to stand the flow of the fire hose or at least constrain it to some sort of inbound coherence. But… now, how do we turn it around and go outbound?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN: I mentioned before this one example, called social grate and all it does is take generic anonymous location data from four square and show which restaurants or which locations are a growing or declining in popularity overtime to kind of show key trends. Almost like a stock ticker and in a way, it’s the closest that I’ve seen to a realization of the gesture bank which is everybody in the four square ecosystem is acting in individually to share their information specifically to individuals. But there also, I guess, on some level intentionally or not, publishing it to this larger stream on information that can then be further analyzed and interpreted to provide media based on all these concurrent anonymous gesture streams and I think, there’s, you know, here we are four or five years later from when you really helped to first articulate this for me and it’s starting to happen. I think the privacy coordinates in the coordination around it is messy and is very ad hoc but I think, it’s a function of a broader cultural shift that is more comfortable sharing attention and gestures with a broader public audience.

Mr. GILLMOR: Oh, I love having the last word even if I didn’t say it. This is Steve Gillmor. This has been the Gillmor Gang. I want to thank everybody who showed up especially the people I’m looking at right now. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you, Seth. Thank you, MG. And Robert, wherever you are. Keep going. Bye-bye.

Gillmor Gang 04.18.09

Sunday, April 19th, 2009

The Gillmor Gang - Robert Scoble, Dan Farber, Leo Laporte, Marc Canter, Hugh MacLeod, Chris Messina, and David Ossman of the Firesign Theatre. Recorded Saturday, April, 18, 2009.

Gillmor Gang 04.11.09

Monday, April 13th, 2009

The Gillmor Gang - Robert Scoble, Leo Laporte, Loren Feldman, Andrew Keen, Marc Canter, and Kevin Marks - bask in Week One of the Realtime Big Bang. Recorded live on video in Petaluma, CA Saturday, April 11, 2009.

Gillmor Gang 04.06.09

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

The Gillmor Gang - Michael Arrington, Leo Laporte, Robert Scoble, Kevin Marks, Andrew Keen and Dan Farber - talk about FriendFeed 2.0 with Paul Buchheit. Recorded Monday, April 6, 2009.

Gillmor Gang 03.28.09

Monday, March 30th, 2009

The Gillmor Gang - Robert Scoble, Leo Laporte, and Kevin Marks - walk the Open Stack. Recorded Saturday, March 28, 2009.