Free and interactive: the next generation of tv programming

Joost, a free online tv/video service, finally opened beyond its invitation-only version to the general public last week. Joost has over 250 channels of programming, which currently includes a hodge podge of documentaries, independent shorts, 80's cartoons and music videos, just to name a few examples.

The concept of free (legal) programming is not entirely new, with many broadcasters increasingly posting their content online; however, what makes Joost different is the use of the platform for user interaction. Joost enables users to utilize tools such as instant messaging and interactive links, to chat with friends about the shows - even as they are watching them.

The ability to interact and discuss a show as it's being viewed is slowly being tested out in certain markets. nm2, a collaborative research project in Europe has been experimenting with interactive TV for the past few months. It has developed a number of shows (which vary from drama to game show formats) to test out new media projects which utilize broadband networks for its delivery. One of its shows enabled users to sms input on the program as it was being aired, enabling viewers to ultimately decide which direction the story would take.

The take-up of interactive tv (beyond tv on-demand) is fairly slow in North American markets, possibly due to the unique broadcasting rules that govern and the required technical upgrades that will take some time to complete.

Irrespective of the timed roll-out of interactive tv, it's almost certain that future television programming will contain some element of interactivity. What will be most interesting to watch is the impact that such viewer input will have on the programming itself. The ability to determine the next twist of plot will be empowering for some, but the fluctuating quality, determined largely by the whims of viewers, will bring its own challenges and opportunities.

blogtalkradio: another great addition to the content creation landscape

Have you ever been listening to your favourite podcast and wished you could call in to make your views known - as it's being recorded? BlogTalkRadio is a very handy service that brings a live element to podcasts, essentially enabling anyone to create a call-in radio talk show. It requires no downloads or special equipment and content created is automatically converted into a podcast file. If you don't want to create content but are interested in listening in, there are already thousands of shows on the go available on the site, which can be subscribed to via rss. BlogTalkRadio's CEO, Alan Levy, recently did an overview of the service on The Scoble Show.

He recalled a story of the service being used by a grassroots campaign aiming to bring back a CBS tv show called Jericho, which had been canceled part way through its first season. Apparently the organizers of the campaign were able to use service to demonstrate how much public support the show had, and as a result encourage CBS executives to bring it back to air.

This new addition to the podcast world will be a very useful tool for content creators, adding a further element of human interaction to the web 2.0 landscape.

Blogging: the ultimate capitalist activity?

There aren't many commercial activities left in this world that are left to their own devices without government interference: activities that succeed and fail based on their acceptance in their targeted market. Basically, behaviour that would fit into the true definition of "capitalism".

Capitalism
• noun an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. (Oxford)

I would argue that blogging still enjoys that kind of freedom from state interference.

Blog owners and authors are fairly free to run their enterprises as they wish. They determine the subject matter and the content that will appear on their site. Their success is measured strictly by their own efforts and the market's response to those efforts. They determine the best way to increase their market share and they deal with little, if any, regulatory interference.

The interesting issue is whether this freedom will last. Market failures, such as defamation and intellectual property issues are slowly starting to creep into the blogging domain. Influential bloggers are likely already being pressured to curtail what or who they write about, especially where it has an impact on another entity that has something to lose from the release of that information. Established legal principles will give some guidance on the resolution of these disputes. However, the ultimate setting of norms and practices, in a world where success is measured almost entirely on the ability to attract an audience, may for the foreseeable future remain in the hands of the blogging community.

Further reading:

EFF's Blogger's FAQ
How to blog safely
List of legal cases against bloggers
Committee to Protect Bloggers
Reports without Borders Guide for Bloggers

Is Canada too comfortable to be innovative?

According to the Conference Board of Canada report How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada published in June 2007 “…Canadians are complacent and generally unwilling to take risks. Our culture is unwilling to accept the failures that are built into an environment that genuinely supports risk taking. Nor are we wholly comfortable with differentiation, success and excellence.”

These are pretty harsh words for the country that invented insulin and is home to the Blackberry.

The Conference Board supports its conclusions by citing statistics which show that Canadians create and diffuse less knowledge compared to innovation leaders such as Switzerland and Sweden. And what is to blame for all this creative laziness? According to the report, one of our biggerst handicaps are our natural resources, which have yet to run dry and encourage us to innovate alternatives.

Other factors cited for such poor performance, despite a well educated workforce, are the lack of skilled people, i.e., scientists, or more accurately students who bother to go through a science, research-based education. As noted above, Canadian culture, which does not celebrate success is also a key ingredient to holding us back. It's this last element that's most interesting, and of course, the most difficult to measure. Is there something to this claim? We've all heard of success stories of Canadians who left Canada before reaching their ultimate success; but could they have succeeded if they were supported more at home? Would the opportunities that American research labs and companies offer be any less appealing?

So, what can be done to overcome this less than glowing review? The Conference Board suggests a strategy to drive innovation and more innovative behaviour through six broad strategies:

1. Establish priority areas in which Canada will be global best
2. Increase corporate investment in strategic training and recruitment
3. Increase corporate investment in research, development and innovation
4. Increase international and domestic risk capital investment in Canada and focus on bigger deals
5. Expand innovation in industrial supply chains
6. Institute an independent national advisory group in invoation-based commerce

These strategies look promising, but are they enough?

Innovation giants of the future such as India, China and Brazil are steadily increasing their R&D presence and have the labour market numbers to back up their efforts. Perhaps more importantly, innovation in these countries has the promise of significant social and economic change - from severe poverty to wealth and national recognition. Feeding that kind of hunger for success is something that countries like Canada, where citizens enjoy relative economic comfort and equality, can't easily compete with.

Innovation links of interest:

Canada's Innovation Strategy - Government of Canada
Location Canada - for companies with investment interests in the Canadian market
Canadian Foundation for Innovation - an independent corporation created by the Government of Canada to fund research infrastructure
National Research Council Canada - Canada's premier organization for research and development - portal for innovators and investors
Canada Research Chairs
Innovation in Canada - further GC links to programs and services
Industry Canada's links on innovation

Wiki links and other goodies

Which wiki platform/services to use?

To compare wiki platforms and services see WikiMatrix

Search engines:

For Wikipedia: WikiWax and Wikiseek

General wiki searches: Wikinside and Qwika

Some fun wikis to check out:

One of the first, if not the first wiki city guide - Davis Wiki

A similar project in Toronto - Torontopedia

The Uncyclopedia "the content free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"

Wikihow - a wiki how-to manual

Wookipedia - the Star Wars encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 50,091 articles since its inception in March 2005

Wikitravel - world travel guide

Wikis: here to stay, but what does their future hold?

It’s been over ten years since the first wiki site came online. Since then, the concept of a wiki has become synonymous with collaborative authoring. Earlier this year, Oxford Online Dictionary added the word to its collection, confirming its status as an established way of creating content.

The best known wiki site, Wikipedia has gone through a number of changes since its launch in 2001, from what some called a “true democracy” where anyone could post comments anonymously, to a slightly more controlled system. The initial model was criticized for its susceptibility to vandalism, even by one of its co-creators who has since left Wikipedia and started Citizendium - a wiki with “gentle expert oversight” and the requirement for contributors to use their real names. Some have criticized this evolved approach as being too Orwellian.

Whether fully open or subject to oversight, wikis are here to stay. Increasingly used by groups to collaborate, they have been making their way to workplaces, classrooms and pretty much anywhere a group of people wants to create and share content.

The concept that everyone’s contribution counts is somewhat new, especially in mainstream media and academia. Even on the internet, where anyone is free to put up their own web site or blog, the notion that any interested person could contribute to a group information project, irrespective of their academic background or knowledge of other participants, is pretty significant. Often cited as an example of the web 2.0 concept, wikis have demonstrated how different information sharing can be from the old accepted model. Instead of being fed information through established mainstream sources, wikis have encouraged average citizens to get involved. Perhaps wikis are just one of the tools that newly engaged content contributors are using or perhaps they are partly leading the charge to a new enlightenment.

Increasingly, wiki administrators are finding that oversight of some sort is necessary. Depending on the subject and the audience that relies on the reliability of the information, this kind of oversight may be inevitable. It will be interesting to see whether the idea that anyone with the motivation and knowledge of a subject matter can add content will live on, especially after more mainstream information provision sources start to use the tool for their own style of collaboration.

To replace or upgrade: the legacy of our electronic gadgets

The UK's e-waste law comes into force on July 1. This law is a result of a requirement, handed down by the EU in the form of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, for each member state to deal with e-waste through domestic legislation. The UK is just the latest example of governments trying to deal with the toxic legacy that's being left behind by electronic equipment. The EU Directive restricts the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, such as lead and mercury. It further requires producers of such equipment to take it back and recycle it, and allows consumers to return the equipment without a fee.

Other jurisdictions are also trying to tackle the growing problem of e-waste, including a handful of US states including California. Canada isn't quite as far along as many would hope, with so far only two provinces adopting (voluntary) programs to help communities develop disposal programs for e-waste.

Even recycling programs have attracted controversy as much of the equipment collected makes its way to developing countries for hand disassembly by workers, and bring with them the environmental and health hazards that accompany such products.

Dealing with products that are being disposed of by consumers is only one factor to be considered. Another fundamental issue that we should all think about is the reason that so much waste is ending up in the dump: the decreasing lifespan of electronic products. How many cellphones, computers or even household appliances have you replaced in the last 5 years? Many consumers are in a constant cycle of buying and replacing the same products over and over again. Unfortunately, this trend is thanks to companies churning out products that will likely have to be replaced within 2-3 years due to software or hardware incompatibility or simply because they are so poorly made that they literally fall apart.

I'm just as much a fan of new shiny gadgets as the next person, but the impact of this habit on human and environmental life is becoming more difficult to justify. Appliances bought by our parents were expected to last at least 20 years. Now we're lucky if we get a few short years out of our washing machines. Other examples of such short life cycles are everywhere, from cell phones that break after one drop to computers that are cheaper to replace than upgrade.

This issue may not be as obvious to those that are used to their gadgets breaking after a year or two. Unfortunately our parents and grandparents generations, who valued quality and durability, aren't necessarily dictating such standards today. So it's up to all us modern day gadget purchasers to set some new standards.

Here are some things to think about:

(1) buy equipment that has replaced toxic materials with more environmentally friendly alternatives
(2) upgrade equipment rather than replace it
(2) pass down equipment to family or friends or donate it
(3) when disposal is absolutely necessary, ask vendors to take it back for recycling
(4) reward vendors with loyalty when they produce quality products that can be upgraded for years and that take back their equipment for recycling