Web-Tones

Google v. Microsoft?

Link: 1-800-MAGIC: Back to Microsoft. This link contains important insight regarding the culture at Google vis-a-vis the culture at Microsoft. It is the most critical analysis I have come across yet regarding whether Google will actually compete in the Enterprise or simply be content to nibble at the fringes?

If you believe the gist of the analysis, which is at least plausible (unless the author is flat out lying) then you will probably conclude that Google's culture is geared toward the "nibbling" scenario. As a serious user of Google Apps (i.e. we run our law practice using it) this is certainly not good news. At the end of the day I am not all that interested in "cool" but rather scalability and reliability. Google Apps has not disappointed (yet) but one thing is certain, Enterprise computing and Consumer computing are two different beasts.

Treat them the same and Enterprise customers lose. I hope that Google is listening.

Microsoft's Big Dog?

Link: Do you need to be a programmer to run a software company? | All about Microsoft | ZDNet.com. Yes and no. It depends. Stock answers for a lawyer. Both arguments in the link above ring true and neither does. It short, the reality is that this question is not so simple as to be answered in such a binary manner.

Remember, Gates was not only a programmer, he was by all accounts a brilliant businessman. Whose vision was it that the interoperability between apps in the MS Office Suite would be its defining element and one that eventually transformed the software industry? Was this Gates or Ballmer? I don't know, but if I had to guess I would bet on Bill.

Also, remember that Bill is not just being replaced by Steve Ballmer but rather by Steve and Ray Ozzie. Ray's abilities as a programmer are also legendary. As the lead developer of Lotus Notes he also helped transform the industry. Likewise, Ballmer probably knows a little about software. He has been privy to insider knowledge for over twenty years. He is smart. I suspect he learned a ton by osmosis.

How important is the "look & feel?"

Link: Preview: CNET's new, improved look | Outside the Lines - CNET News.com. Very. Why? Because consumers are now bombarded with very sophisticated branding everywhere they turn. They become "branding aficionados" whether they are consciously aware of it or not.

The Mac continues to win converts because its branding is "hip" and Apple can make a credible case that its offering is superior (the fact that it may not be is not relevant enough for those that are enamored of the brand).

OK we know that this works for selling high tech goods and consumer electronics. What about for law firms? Well imagine how tempted consumers are to call that law firm whose website looks like it was developed in 1995. Unless you are being referred and/or you have a personal relationship, you are not making that call.

This phenomenon is universal. If you have a "cheesy" looking website (or none at all) you lose. Period. It is difficult to imagine launching any consumer facing venture today without investing in at least a decent looking piece of Internet property.

That said, many persist with their old world views. They know in their gut that the world has changed, but they hang on to the past with a kind of "nostalgia" that is no longer based in economic reality. Why? Because world views die hard.

The iPhone Means Business

Link: Will business buy the new iPhone? - Jun. 19, 2008. Yes. I am going out on a pretty safe limb here and predicting that the iPhone will soon have a huge presence in Corporate America. I don't have one. I am not getting one anytime soon. However, I do believe that the "hipness factor" will be enough to drive significant business use.

If you are a millennial you want one. If you are a tech savvy executive you want one. Nowadays it is smart to appear tech savvy. Your career could be riding on it. This is Apple's Trojan horse into the enterprise. It is not likely to disrupt the MS monopoly, but for Apple it is a step in the right direction. It will allow them to "pick off" additional fringe users (e.g. the graphics department) and provide strong inroads for the brand.

Now this is not an argument in favor of the iPhone versus the competition. The Future Lawyer is the authority on phone functionality and he has consistently made the case that his Treo is a competitive, if not superior, offering. But this is not about the quality of the product but rather the quality of the marketing. The iPhone is positioned to crush the competition. Jobs will simply out market them.

Immigration & Social Networking?

Immigrants have historically relied on social networks to find their way in a new country. This is certainly true in the United States, across any number of ethnic groups, and is probably generally true everywhere.

There is an expression in social networking (SN) circles that "a friend of a friend is a friend." I believe that this statement is pure hyperbole. But even so there may be a grain of truth in it, depending on how you define "friend."

Must immigrants, I believe, have people they call uncles and aunts that are in reality no such thing. They are simply good friends of the family. People use these words as terms of endearment because the implication is really that they are more than just friends, they are kind of an extended family.

I believe that the real power in SN, from a business perspective, is not to just to increase your Rolodex by several orders of magnitude, but rather to build an extended business family. Trusted uncles and aunts that are not really part of the family (i.e. business) but can be trusted as if they were.

The goal is to take a small percentage of the introductions that SN provides and move them, through conversations surrounding mutual interests, to "business friend" and then to part of your business extended family.

Why? Because most of us prefer to do business with people that we trust. It reduces transaction costs and allows deals to get done quicker. Trust will never become commodity. Nowhere is this more true than in the practice of law.

LinkedIn: Ready for business?

Link: At Social Site, Only the Businesslike Need Apply - NYTimes.com. LinkedIn is getting significant press today because it got another round of financing that purportedly places a valuation on the company of $1 Billion dollars. Nice. I like LinkedIn and plan to increase my activities there, but I don't know if I buy the conventional wisdom that LinkedIn is for "serious" business people and FB & MySP are for the kids. The bottom line is that you really can't predict where customer might come from and by focusing on just the "serious" sites you could be missing dollars that might flow from the "fun" sites.

OK, here's the bottom line from an advice perspective: don't just participate on the sites that are for professionals, be professional on whatever site you market on. There is really little to lose from having a presence on literally hundreds of sites (depending on you business model) while focusing most activities on a selected few. The world of atoms does not support this philosophy but the world of bits does.

As everyone knows we now live in the latter...

Reading Online: Is it really different than paper?

Link: How we read online. - By Michael Agger - Slate Magazine. The answer appears to be yes. I recently participated in panel discussion at RealComm entitled: "The Future of IT: Social Networking & Beyond." The question that I took the lead on was "How should an organization get started with social networking?" The answers had to be brief given the amount of time we had and the space that we wanted to cover. I suggested the following four strategies (to be done in no particular order):

1. Have a clearly defined business objective
2. Get in the game
3. Fail Fast
4. Have Some Fun

Obviously there was brief commentary provided to support each bullet but perhaps I should have added "learn to write for the online reader" as a fifth?  What often gets lost is that the Internet is both a new medium and a new community to the uninitiated. To participate effectively is akin to learning a foreign language and a foreign culture. Both are non-trivial tasks. Just because you know how to "surf" does not mean you "grok" the Internet.

Articles such as the one in the link provide anecdotal (and some empirical) evidence that indeed the "foreign language" analogy is not such a stretch. It is a brave new world out there on these Internet(s). One final thought, keep in mind that you are writing not only for the online reader, but also for the machine.

The singularity happens while you are planning for the future...

Social Networking Gets a Sanity Check

Link: Social Networking Gets a Sanity Check - GigaOM. The numbers are starting to reflect what common sense makes obvious--there are only so many Facebook's & MySpace's that
the known universe will suffer. This space will quickly consolidate but that is not surprising. You will get the usual "I told you so's" from those that believe Web 2.0 & social networking (SN) to be nothing more than a fad for the kids, one that will soon fade like last year's (or last quarter's) hot fashions.

Good. Because that is just the kind of thinking (i.e. conventional wisdom) that I want all my competitors to engage in. Sure SN is a fad, similar to email, just like search and web services, wiki's too, and likewise KM. All fads. Nope, there is nothing to this Web 2.0 stuff, just a waste of time & money. It's the platform stupid! Roll your own SN site for whatever suits your interest. If you generate the right conversation, at the right time and for the right vertical, you win. Period.

In the static Web 1.0 world content was king. In the  Web 2.0 world the conversation is king.

Twitter

Link: Futurelawyer: Summize Conversational Search. I am definitely with Rick regarding Twitter. Who has time to follow all these conversations outside of the Tech guys who are able to monetize it because the "conversation" is their business?

I have yet to see a business reason outside of the "tech echo chamber" that would justify its use. Mind you, I am certainly open to hearing the case made and would gladly publicize it if someone brought it to my attention.

I am an avid user of enabling Web 2.0 technologies. My entire law practice is hosted on the cloud, but I don't get the "Twitter thing."

Change or die?

Link: Strategic Legal Technology :: Investing in Law Firms - Right Now [Interview of Lyceum Capital]. Foreign investments in law firms will drive the transformation of legal industries abroad because it will allow well capitalized firms to make the necessary "transformative" investments. Anytime that you see sophisticated investors pumping money into an an industry that is a sign that they see opportunity.

What impact will this have on the U.S. legal industry? Who knows, but likely competitive pressure from global firms will force a change, even if we never see this kind of legislation here. The legal industry will be forced to become more effective and more efficient. There will simply be no place to run and hide.

Change or die, coming soon to a theater near you.