Is the web browser really dying?

There has been a lot of buzz in the blogosphere in the past couple of days in response to a provocative article written by Chris Anderson in this month's edition of WIRED magazine. Chris argues that we are using the web browser a lot less in favor of apps on devices like smartphones and tablets and that this will eventually lead to the death of the web browser. The arguments are provocative and the data used is far from perfect. However, you know that you have read a good article when it is on your mind for three days. The article really got me thinking about the future of the internet and the way the "app trend" is one that is somewhat strange as apps often give users a low level experience with less functionality. As the web has grown and people have adjusted it might be that we have reached a status quo where we have lost interest in exploring the entirety of the internet and instead we just want our favorite services delivered fast and simple. The increased introduction of tablets will surely continue to fuel this trend and the user experience will be taken to a whole new level.

I have noticed this myself since I hardly ever open my laptop on weekends. It is big and clunky and takes 30 seconds to load and in a world where we are increasingly impatient in relation to technology that is inconvenient compared to the speed of accessing apps on a smartphone or a tablet. I check my email, read my RSS feed, check my Facebook, Tweet and even watch live football games through apps on my smartphone. There is simply no doubt that since I got my smartphone I have used the web browser considerably less. When I talk to my friends who have Ipads they simply don't use their laptops anymore when they step out of the office. This is of course great news to Steve Jobs and Apple as their undisputed role as technological trendsetters continue to shape the way we use technology.

The most interesting thing about internet usage moving from the web browser to apps is that it provides a lot of opportunities for companies seeking to become the next big thing and it looks like Facebook are mounting a real challenge to knock Google of their throne. With its 500 million members Facebook recently became the most visited website ahead of Google in the US and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is attempting to replace Google's search with Facebook's content sharing model. The idea is that we will prefer content recommendations from friends on Facebook rather than the anonymous search results that Google provides us with. The fact that many of us use apps instead of a web browser is another threat to Google's business model as these apps do not rely on HTML to display content, which means that the content cannot be crawled. Another problem for Google is that Facebook doesn't permit Google's bot to index any content on its site and as more people produce content on the Facebook platform, this problem might grow bigger. On the other hand Facebook are far away from finding a revenue model that is as effective as Google's, and at the end of the day business is primarily about generating money. Google's android platform will also be of strategic importance in the mobile and tablet space and if its popularity continues to grow Google will be in a very strong position for the future.

It will also be interesting to see what this means for computer hardware manufacturers and the media industry as they will be forced to replace their cash cow products and seek new revenue sources.

Even if this "app trend" turns out to be another fad we can be sure that, as the internet continues to evolve there will be many changes that shake up the status quo now and then. I have a strong feeling that a big change is just around the corner, and I think it has the potential to write a new chapter in the history of the internet.

The World Cup, and South Africa, evolve with the web

With a full month of incredible drama nearing an end it’s all too easy to feel a sense of anticlimax. In a way, some things never seem to change. England fans remain disappointed, the German team seem unable to ever have a bad tournament and you're left wondering if that HD subscription fee was really worth it. Yet for many there was something decidedly different about this year’s world cup. From a human point of view it was hard not to be humbled by the way South Africa embraced the tournament. Some 15 years on from that Rugby World Cup which promised the world a new South Africa free from the ghosts of the past, the country stands as a model of how reasoning and compromise can deliver magnificent results. One TV report before the opening game of this world cup showed poor, black fans in Soweto and affluent Afrikaans in Pretoria unified over one 90 minute match – who ever said it was just a game?

For us in the UK and many millions around the world, perhaps the thing that changed at this world cup was how we viewed and interacted with the drama. Just 4 years ago in Germany, the world cup could not reach people in the way it does now through Facebook and Twitter. Facebook was still closed to colleges and universities at the time and with Twitter still years away, MySpace provided the only ‘social’ online space for the world cup; which from my memory took the shape of some fairly mediocre mass advertising campaigns and little more.

In 2010, the world cup seems to have taken a step further towards becoming the truly global event it should be. Live streaming of the games set new records for bandwidth usage in Europe and North America, even causing some alarmists to suggest the wreaking of the web. Social media played an expectedly massive role. It continued to break down the traditional routes for delivering news, with as unlikelier source as Stan Collymore being in a position to announce to the nation via Twitter each England starting XI hours before any major media outlet. The savvier journalists have embraced these technologies, with many canvassing opinion before grilling Capello and co in news conferences, or leaking video filmed on their iPhones well before the 6 o’clock news.

Twitter itself groaned under massive demand. On June 14 a new record for tweets per minute was set as Japan beat Cameroon, only to be broken again 3 days later. Twitter’s engineers were accurately predicting problems, as the social network crashed more times in a one month period than ever before. On one occasion Holland’s victory over favourites Brazil brought the site down across the planet. 800,000 people watched England scrape through against Slovenia on the BBC website as offices and classrooms ground to a halt.

Yet beyond the bandwidth thirsty technology of the west, it was the BBC report from an orphanage outside of Johannesburg that will be my overriding memory of this tournament. As

someone who grew up watching sport on TV it’s not hard to explain why I love it so much. Yet

imagine having never seen a TV screen as a child even when you know millions can. If ever there was an argument for the need for digital information for all it is South Africa. After all, the

country’s past is a brutal illustration of what a lack of understanding can mean. Whilst some internet infrastructure will be left behind after this world cup, it is clearly not good enough that an event belonging to the people of South Africa

cannot be enjoyed by them in the same way as us. The young kids featured in that report clearly loved their first match, just think what a simple broadband connection would mean to them.

So as the stars fly off on their holidays and the media go their separate ways, South Africa remains a country with huge social and technological challenges ahead, but also as an example of how enthusiasm and unity over something a silly as a game of football can mean so, so much more. It remains the responsibility of us all to make sure that no one misses out.

All done!

First of all, I hold my hand up, my attempt at maintaing this blog has been somewhat lacklustre and fair weather, but I hope to contribute more from now on. Rob, Robin and myself hope to add interesting glimpses as to what we are doing in our professional lives, but also to continue writing about the things that we feel passionate about.

The next post will probably be filled with glorious graduation photos, and further details as to what we are planning with this blog for the future as we go our separate professional ways...BUT for now, lets enjoy the football. COME ON ENGLAND! :-)

The Digital Election – Is it engaging young people?

So we’re three weeks away from the big day now, the event we’ve been excitedly anticipating for longer than I care to remember. No it’s not the start of the World Cup, nor is it the Britains Got Talent Final; it’s the 2010 General Election. OK, so maybe it’s not keeping you awake at night with uncontrollable enthusiasm, but following the deepest and most damaging recession for more than a generation the outcome of the election on 6th May will have a long lasting impact.

I was excited to hear politicians suggest this would be the first ‘digital election’, an opportunity to engage a generation supposedly more interested in the latest TV talent show than policies on economic recovery or Afghanistan.

Whilst we still have some way to go, it does seem we really are witnessing a shift in the way political issues are discussed and shared. The first of three TV leaders’ debates last week saw an estimated 2,500 tweets every minute; discussing everything from the colour of the leader’s ties to serious policy analysis. Ingenious web techies across the country have developed a range of online tools to encourage people to take notice. From the rather satisfying ‘Slapometer’ to using twitter to create real time opinion polls, the internet is proving that whilst the major parties still seem to be missing the point when it comes to digital engagement there are plenty of people showing just how powerful it can be.

For years I’ve been angered by reference to the so called ASBO generation. “Young people don’t care!” “Teenage society is broken!” We’ve heard it all. The reason this type of rhetoric has gone unchallenged is the unwillingness of the political classes to engage with, and attempt to listen to, the millions of brilliant young people working hard to make their small part of our world a little better. Maybe the internet has finally given everyone a voice.

I’ve been staggered by the passion many of my peers have shown in this election, but I don’t believe this is entirely down to the fad of social networking. Young people care about what the government does. Students graduating this year are doing so into the most competitive job market imaginable, and they may well be footing the bill of the budget deficient for the better part of their working lives. Millennials care about issues of equality and freedom of speech; and the response to the steamrollering of the Digital Economy Bill onto the statue books illustrates brilliantly how young people understand and care about the decisions that shape our society.

The internet has not caused this passion, but is has given a voice to young people where they may have otherwise been ignored. Whoever walks up to number 10 on 7th May will do well to remember that a politically engaged young generation demand and expect so much more. Deals made in darkened Westminster offices about issues that really affect young people will not be tolerated if this trend continues.

ePetitions – the latest political bargaining chip or a real opportunity for engagement?

If you’ve not already switched off from the party ‘tit-for-tat’ that is the run up to the spring election, you may have noticed that last month saw a new political football thrown onto the field. A government motion was approved to research into an e-petition system that could force parliament to debate any issue that attracts enough support online. David Cameron responded immediately with a suggestion that any petition that attracted a million signatures should become an issue serious enough for debate. “It’s absurd that a tiny percentage of the population craft legislation that will apply to the entire population. Instead of locking people out of the process, we need to invite them in.”

It remains unclear how many of us would use such a tool. However, does the possibility of an e-petition site open the door to real political inclusion for an otherwise disengaged millennial generation, or is it just the latest fad buzzing around the Blackberrys of Westminster Village? The Number 10 e-petition site, setup to give anyone the ability to deliver a petition directly to the PM, has already had plenty of success. A campaign last year saw the government formally apologise to the late Alan Turing for his prosecution as a homosexual in 1952, whilst a petition signed by 1.8 million people forced a u-turn over road tax proposals. However, notable successes apart it does not seem likely that we will see a discussion in parliament any time soon, as one popular petition demands, on the issue of whether Jeremy Clarkson should be prime minister. So does a large number of responses always indicate it’s a good thing to look at?

Once again, and quite frustratingly, this would appear to be an attempt by baby-boomer led political parties to win over the important Facebook vote; but the policy makers have again missed the point. Petitions, be them online or on paper, are one way tools which offer no forum for discussion or collaboration. eDemocracy promises much more than this, doesn’t it? The council in Melbourne, Australia have successfully used a wiki site where citizens can read, review and edit the ‘city vision’ for the future of the city. This is precisely the type of initiative that brings the wisdom of crowds fully into the process of governing. Governments can avoid single issue groups by taking the discussion to other parts of the web where issues are already being keenly debated, such as social networks. Engagement is not about waiting for people to talk to you, it’s about finding out where the discussion is already happening.

As for e-petitions, its seems we are yet again destined to spend money on something that we already have, just in a digital form. My suggestion: a petition to force a complete rethink over eDemocracy. Who’s with me?

UPDATE - 11/03/2010

The Conservatives today announced a new ‘Technology Manifesto’ that suggested a government under their control would “throw open the doors of Parliament”. The manifesto proudly uses the phrase ‘wisdom of crowds’ but with no indication as to how they will actually harness the opinions of the electorate in policy decisions.

On balance most would welcome the announcements in the same document that alludes to, without firm commitments or time scales, 100Mbps broadband for the UK. However, less than 100 words describing the Tory’s use of technology is really not enough to convince any of us that they really understand what they are talking about when it comes to eDemocracy. There are plenty of us ready to offer advice, so it’s time to listen Cameron and Co – let’s not waste this opportunity.

Buzzword of the decade

Innovation, one of the most used buzzwords over the past 10 years is quickly becoming a word used by everyone to describe things that are new and supposedly groundbreaking. However I think that our expectations have outgrown the meaning of this word in the past decade. The definition of Innovation is the introduction of new ideas, methods or things. The problem with this word is that we are so used to big leap innovations that we don't care too much for smaller leaps of innovation any longer.

The best example to use is the newly announced Apple IPad. "A larger IPhone" was the verdict from many critics as they concluded that Apple had failed to live up to the high expectations associated with Steve Jobs famous keynote. I don't think the IPad will be a flop but I don't think it will be a game changer like the IPod or the IPhone. The announcement of the IPad clearly demonstrates what we have come to expect from organisations and technology in general. We are no longer satisfied with small leaps, improvements and upgrades. We want big groundbreaking innovations that truly change the way we live and enjoy our lives.

Over the past 100 years we have seen the introduction of cars, TV's, Mobile Phones, computers and the Internet. These inventions have truly changed the way we human beings live our lives. Most of these innovations came along, ripped up the status quo and created a new way of doing something. Small leap innovations are simply less exiting, but are they less effective in moving us forward? The trend on the Internet seems to be similar at the moment as we impatiently wait for the next Google or Facebook.

But what if the upcoming decade or two don't bring any big leap innovations, but instead smaller and more linear innovations? Does it actually make any difference?

A question to universities, what skills do you think IT grads should have?

This week, Jon and I finished what I think we would both agree was one of the most compelling and important courses we have experienced. Looking into the wide variety of social, political and economic issues facing a modern ‘Network Society’, this unit was delivered with passion and insight whilst facilitating something I feel is all too lacking in higher education – the ability to debate and reason your own opinions.

If ever there was a good indication of how important these issues really are, the investment and publicity the BBC have put into their current documentary series ‘The Virtual Revolution’ is it. Both this series and our unique final year unit tackle the ever changing issues of the web’s impact on our lives, its effects on globalisation and the nation state, the implications of privacy to online communities, and asks challenging questions as to how technology both promises and threatens so much.

After considerable reflection it simply disappoints me to see so many of my higher education colleagues being given a limited range of technical expertise, with no consideration as to the wider impacts of technology. I do not foresee an IT industry where highly specific technical disciplines are redundant, but surely in a globalised world that is impacted so significantly by far more than just ‘how stuff works,’ isn’t it time we really stared to ask ourselves where people come into our new technologies. Bafflingly, multi-disciplinary courses such as the one we are currently enjoying are under threat at many institutions, including mine. Higher education, like most public services, has even more responsibility to deliver value for money in difficult economic times. Yet in my opinion, and far more importantly in the eyes of most employers, graduates that can understand the immense implications of technology as well as just how to create it, stand a far better chance of tackling the most important issues.

I would urge any young person to consider a degree that incorporates the technical, business and social implications of technology. The level of engagement and debate encouraged by the academic running my most recent course is, I fear, all too unique. Any university looking to remove such courses need to deeply consider the role they think their graduates will have in a modern, Network Society.