twitter + twittergram + flickr + twittersync = today's closest semblance to true mobile, social networking. with this combination:
- i have kept friends updated on my canvassing trip to pennsylvania with notes and pictures real-time from my iphone
- while in pennsylvania, i knew that my buddy was at sharpkuts in SF, considering getting something shaved in his head
- i have almost on two occasions, if not for scheduled meetings, met someone for lunch at shake shack who i've only communicated with via twitter / email a couple of times
- while on my way to a soccer game in brooklyn, i saw a picture of what my friend was having for lunch in the east village
real time updates, enriched with pictures from mobile devices, distributed to a network of friends -- irrespective of your locations -- truly helps to bring others into your life in a more efficient and effective way than other platforms (email, SMS, web based social networking sites, etc.).
if you want to be able to do this, read my instructional post here.
i'm sure some of you might disagree - let me know if i've overlooked another service (or package of services).
note of clarification: mobile social networking entails, to me, entails not only being able to use a mobile device, but to be able to effectively be connected with the lives of others in my social network while on the go.
i've become a big fan of twitter as of late, primarily after i setup functionality that lets me take a pic from my phone, attach a message to it, and have the message (with a link to the picture) twittered to all my friends. here's a recent example of a twitter message with a picture link.
for the unanointed, twitter is a micro-blogging service which allows you to write 140 character messages (aks "tweets"), which are distributed to your friends. wikipedia has a better explanation.
there's a few steps to setting this up, but it's very simple to use once you are done. i've expanded on fred wilson's post on this topic (which is where I picked up on this).
UPDATE: there are a few other services which i've found to be easy to use to post pictures directly to twitter: twitpic and natuba (for iphone only). i am sticking with the process layed out below, however, as i still like the idea of sending one message to a single email address, and having it posted to twitter and flickr both. here's a way to use twitpic and flickr but requires sending messages to two email addresses.
1) setup twitter account here. once you're setup, keep in mind that twitter defaults to showing you updates through the web interface. when i'm at work, i like to receive twitters via IM and on my phone when i'm not at work. this can be setup here. once you've done that, you must select which connections you want to show up on the "devices (IM and / or phone) by activating them here.
2) setup flickr account here. flickr is a photo sharing site which will serve as repository for the pictures in your tweets. once you've got your flickr account, setup up the functionality for your flickr account to receive pictures (via email or MMS) here. take the email address, and put it into your phone's address book or contact list so its easily accessible under the name "flickr". under the "Add these tags each time" slot, add a tag which will indicate the source of your pictures (i use "iphone").
3) setup twittergram here. twittergram is the middle man. it picks up the message/picture sent to flickr, and transports it to twitter. you'll enter your twitter login / password, flickr username and the "tag" for your pictures you entered in step 2 (in my case, "iphone"). you must add this tag exactly the same as in step 2.
4) send message's with picture link. take a picture on your phone, enter up to 140 characters for a title, and send it to your flickr email address. twittergram will pick up the message and it'll appear on twitter within 15 minutes.
5) OPTIONAL. setup twittersync here. twittersync automatically syncs your facebook status with your latest tweet. it makes my facebook more current. unfortunately, it probably also makes people wonder why i'm updating my facebook status all the time.
i frequently read the new york times, and have followed their coverage of the primaries closely. i was not surprised by NYT's endorse of sen. clinton on 1/25/08 in an article titled primary choices: hillary clinton.
i was, however, caught by surprise in today's article, titled the low road to victory, which states:
It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
disclosure: i am an active supporter of sen. obama.
since microsoft's $240mm investment in facebook last october, i've heard many gasps and many "how the hell can facebook be worth $15 billion?!"s. as an investor in private companies, i know that investments are often structured with a liquidation preference, which provides the investor downside protection. for those who are not familiar with this concept, "jddavis" posted a great (and short) explanation on techcrunch, in response to gasps at ning's recently ascribed valuation of $500mm. early stage investor brad feld posted a great explanation with more detail back in July '04 as well.
worry not, the $378mm invested in facebook to date will be money-good even if the $15 billion valuation falls by a few billion (or more).
on my way to work this morning, i exited the subway at 53rd and 3rd, headed south on 3rd avenue, like i do on many mornings. at the 52nd and 3rd corner , the fruit / nuts corner stand - which has been there for years - was surrounded by 4 new york city policeman. while the owner of the stand watched, the policeman were putting the fresh fruits into large plastic bags (presumably to move the fruits - not to destroy them).
i understand that you need proper permits to set up shop on a street corner. to keep things orderly, and fair to those paying for permits, policing street vendors is necessary.
what surprises me is that our city has 4 police officers available to assign such a task! i wonder how much of tax payer's money is being spent to fund the midtown east fruit stand task force...
at the time of this posting, 16,135 comments on ABC's website regarding last night's debate (nearly all blasting ABC for the way it handled the event) - and counting.
wednesday night's debate on abc illustrated a disconnect between the network's perceptions of what voters desired from a discourse between sen. clinton and sen. obama. for 52 minutes on a number of issues that did anything but help educate voters on important issues. if there is any doubt over this claim, i would argue that my ability to classify the first 52 minutes of debate into the following two categories should provide proper support:
1) issues that put Obama on defense: Obama's association with Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, his "bitter" comments and
lapel flag pins
2) issues that put Clinton on defense: Bosnia comments
in fairness, george stephanopoulos' response to criticism can be viewed here.
this aside, the debate itself is unlikely to impact the outcome of the primaries.
in my office of ~40, there a number of active voters. the only mention of the debate this morning was a question asking me "how'd it go?"
following a post-offer lull, we've seen a flurry of action in the form of reported talks and alleged partnerships. a concise summary of the parties involved and their current interests is compiled at todd bishop's blog.
understanding the situation: knowing the background, let's start with the first derivative question = "why would microsoft want to acquire yahoo" - the answers here are pretty clear: (a) to compete with google for online search; m/y would have 27% online search share vs. g's 65%, (b) to fend off google's encroachment on microsft's homecourt - office apps .
overstanding the situation: the second derivative question is "why would microsft need to acquire yahoo?" - in short, microsoft's need is a product of a void of innovation in online search and advertising. i discuss this in detail below.
-------------------------------------------------
google's rise:
we know that google was far from the first to online search and advertising, but through innovation improved on traditional index-based search with the advent of PageRank and provided a superior online advertising system in AdWords.
there are few competitive industries immune from the rise of an innovator (see toyota in the automobile world, apple in music sales, in 'n out in hamburgers, the list goes one). sustainable, competitive advantage in an open market (emphasis being of utmost importance) can only come from consistent innovation.
microsoft's shortcut:
rather than build, retain and monetize traffic through innovation, microsoft is attempting to skip those steps by acquiring yahoo. it assumes that a combined entity can accomplish what one of them could not. as a director of and investor in hakia.com, i know first hand that there is opportunity to innovate in both search and advertising, and there is market interest in that innovation.
microsoft alone, microsoft with yahoo, microsoft with yahoo and news corp - whatever combination might come will only be successful if approached through a focus on innovation.
"If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other is trying to get you to think... If one candidate is appealing to your fears, and the other is appealing to your hopes... You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."
- Bill Clinton, on 10/25/04 at Love Park in Philadelphia's Center City, speaking in support of Sen. John Kerry a few days prior to the 2004 general election
question: is political experience an indicator of presidential success?
understanding this question: "washington is a tough place - only the tried and true have the experience to weather the storm"
overstanding this question: political experience historically has not been an indicator of future presidential success. this correlation may exist in the future, but it does not today.
-------------------------------------------------
common argument 1: sen. mccain's political experience makes him a stronger candidate than either of the potential democratic opponents
common argument 2: sen. clinton's political experience will enable her to more effectively serve as president on day 1 vs. sen. obama
a few points to address first:
1st: we can all agree that sen. mccain is the most politically experienced - this is fact
2nd: whether sen. clinton or sen. obama is more experienced politcally, is up for debate. in terms of time in elected office, sen. clinton has 7 years and sen. obama has 11 years. the tipping point is whether you include sen. clinton's time as first lady of the United States (8 years) and first lady of arkansas (12 years) with her 7 years as a US senator from new york. experience appears to tell us little.
these issues aside:
experience-based arguments are contingent on the premise that political experience prior to one becoming president is a predictive factor of success as a a president.
the deepest look:
for the deepest look, check out this analysis at http://www.electoral-vote.com. it is an excellent piece, with plenty of data.
comparing presidents:
while an intuitive argument to some, a proper examination reveals at best that political experience is a shaky indicator of presidential success. on this basis, would you be willing to argue that james buchanan (30.25 years experience) was a greater president than woodrow wilson (2) years? or that james garfield (23 yrs) was a more successful and effective president than abraham lincoln (10 yrs)? obviously not. to be fair, some of our greatest presidents -- george washington, 24.5 yrs and thomas jefferson 13.25 yrs -- entered office with experience, and has successful presidencies.
other factors to note:
additionally, there are many factors that a president is faced with when he enters office that could potentially influence his success. for brevity, i've listed three obvious questions:
- is the president's supporting party in majority or minority in congress?
- what is state of the economy?
- is the country facing war?
charts don't lie:
lastly, i think its important to look at the entire universe of past presidents, their experience and their "success". i concede that success is a subjective measure. the chart following uses these presidential ranks, which are a compilation of 12 "expert" surveys conducted between 1948 and 2005, as detailed in the wikipedia link in above. the chart below illustrates the absence of correlation between years of political experience and presidential success.
