Ian On The Red Dot

Ok. It has been one day after MDA’s IDM Jamboree and the MDA has a news release on the event here and SG Entrepreneurs is talking about their partnership with MDA here.

Before we get to that, is it me or has SgEntrepreneurs changed the wording of their previous post which was promoting the event. If I am not wrong, they have changed the wording from ‘creation’ (or was it ‘launch’) to ‘possible creation of a Web 3.0 industry’. Or did they just change the words to italics? Something looks different.

In any case, I believe when people discuss ‘Web 3.0′ they are generally talking about the creation of a Semantic Web. Wikipedia has an entry about it and would be a good starting point to understand the concept which is the grand vision of Tim Berners-Lee the founder of the World Wide Web. The concept of a ‘Web 3.0′ as generally understood is very different from what the government is trying to achieve with its Interactive Digital Media Initiatives and Programmes.

Both are really different concepts. While ‘Web 3.0′ is one of artificial intelligence where machines are able to talk to other machines and understand each other, IDM seems to be more about digital content and how people create, interact with and consume that content. These are really brief summaries of the ideas behind the two concepts but the point I would like to make, and which I believe is what has been floating around the blogosphere is that it shows a certain lack of understanding about what is going on when you mix ‘Web 3.0′ and ‘IDM’ together to talk about an event about ‘IDM’ and detrimental to what Singapore might be trying to achieve.

Why? If you look at the announcement made by Sg Entrepreneurs, you see they are in a position to help drive the industry forward. But if their understanding of what is ‘IDM’ and what is ‘Web 3.0′ is not clear, then how can they purport that they are an experienced team who will be able to identify promising IDM ideas and prototypes.

In fairness, based on the MDA’s news release, the MDA seems sure of their focus with the various programmes and initiatives.

Of course, the wrong use of catchphrases might belie the real understanding of the industry by the people behind Sg Entrepreneurs and it would be wrong not to assume so. At worse, they are just bad at marketing.

Reading the article on MDA’s site, I cannot help but get excited but looking at the two companies that MDA mentions I cannot help but wonder about certain stuff. This is what is mentioned in the article.

On PGK Media:

PGK Media, which focuses on R&D and development of innovative technologies for the media industry has submitted a proposal to develop and deploy an Advertising On-the-Move (ADMove) service on the public transport using digital mobile broadcasting. With such a service, passengers will be able to pick up digital vouchers, coupons and discounts from the terminal using a contact-less card. The card also functions as a loyalty card with digital wallet for on-line purchasing without the need to use credit cards. When completed, it will be the first interactive broadcast service available on our public transport system which promises to turn the travel experience into a shopping experience.

Mr Giulio Dorrucci, Chairman & CEO, PGK Media said: “We have registered an increasing demand from the industry for more engaging and interactive tools. ADMove is being conceptualised to provide such functionalities with a multi-platform approach, converging mobile TV broadcasting, dynamic advertising and mobile wireless technologies, always on-the-move. And we would like to thank the IDM R&D Programme Office for providing us with the much needed funds for R&D and their integrated support to create the right business ecosystem needed for the successful deployment and implementation of our project.”

On GoMobile:

Another project is GoMobile’s proposal to develop a technology platform to securely deliver live TV, DAB digital radio and data services to mobile users through multiple broadcast platforms. This project will result in economies of scale and provide a single point of entry for licensed content or for service providers to deliver their content. GoMobile was established in 2000 and specialises in developing DAB data applications.

Jamshaid Akbar, CEO, GoMobile said: “With the technology, mobile phone users can view real-time financial information from key stock markets; view advertising, enjoy CD quality audio channels and video feeds by attaching a device that acts like a set-top box to their phone. This is the first project of its kind in the world to offer such diverse services to consumers. It would not be made possible without the support from the IDM R&D Programme Office. They have mitigated our risk to trial a homegrown technology with generous support in the form of multiple trial spectrums and co-funding.”

With regards to PGK Media: Another card to put in the wallet! Or will it be integrated with another card which is already used by all - the EzLink card.

And GoMobile ideas seems to be a step backwards. People are trying to carry less and do more. Not carry more and do more. Attach a set-top box device to my phone? Why use hardware when software might be able to implement something similar? And I believe that the way to promote Singapore as an IDM hub is not to invest in an ecosystem which forces content providers to use 1 single point of entry which could provide convenience for content providers but the power is in the hands of the platform owner which is unhealthy in promoting development of content (in my opinion) as margins will be squeezed.

Of course, the government might be funding other companies building similar platforms in the future so there might be competition and content providers won’t be forced to use only one company’s offering of ‘a single point of entry’.

I think when we talk about mobile services, it should be to create a system where only a phone and the existing network infrastructure needs to be used to deliver these services with the use of software. No more new hardware please! No more new infrastructue! I need to save for my Apple phone.

If you are a geek, you would have woken up to a whole new mobile world. It is abit early, but I know what I want for Christmas.

I love my country and I appreciate the government that I have. But sometimes, some people in this government just like to (for want of a Hokkien phrase that I cannot spell) act smart and really embarrass the country. It’s like Dirty Uncle Sal, the guy everyone loves in the family and although he will always commit some faux pas, you still invitie him for the wedding; today, the government looks like Uncle Sal.

Just check out this page which has the advertisement for the event IDM Jamboree organised by the Media Authority of Singapore - Singapore wants to create and grow a Web 3.0 industry. I didn’t even know we had a Web 2.0 industry. I understand the concept of wanting to leapfrog our competitors but this is almost ridiculous. I mean, the Web 2.0 bubble hasn’t even burst. And people are actually still arguing about what defines Web 2.0.

To be fair, the event hasn’t happened yet and I won’t be able to attend it so I cannot comment on the programmes and initiatives that the government is trying to implement to turn Singapore into a interactive digital media hub and they could actually be good. And on checking out the actual site, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of Web 3.0 (or maybe I just couldn’t find it) so it could just be sgentrepreneurs.com trying to hype the event up with the use of the Web 3.0 phrase.

I didn’t know what the word jamboree means, so I googled it using the query “define: jamboree”. Try it. Or just click on this link. It is rather ironic that for a government which is homophobic that … Click the link and you’ll know what I mean although that is not the only definition of the word jamboree.

Via tomorrow.sg, I found another blog (iBjorn) which was commenting on this event. As a graduate from NUS Computer Engineering, I would like to made a comment on one of his observations. I am unsure about the exact statistics, but from personal experience (i.e. looking at the jobs that my friends has taken up) few of us actually go into software development. That doesn’t mean we leave the IT industry. There are some that work in IT departments for govt stat boards and MNCs, others start at the project management level. I agree with the blogger though that jobs in the Finance and Banking industry is like the Holy grail for most of us cos they do offer the highest pay.

Is it possible to develop a ‘Web 3.0′ industry if our computer engineers are not going into software development? I think it is. Some of the successful web companies we know of weren’t developed by the founders who wrote the actual source code for the site. It started with an idea they had and they worked to implement it. While it is more romantic to think of these guys working away day and night in some garage developing the source code, I can’t help but feel the reality is that success happened because they were in an environment that was rich in funding and the right connections. That is why I feel certain regions tend to produce greater innovation and higher number of successful companies in this industry. And that is why proper funding is important.

During one of my holidays, I had the rewarding experience of working with a company that was trying to secure funding for their idea. The founders pitched their ideas to a few people and I was able to be part of that process. One impression that I got away from the whole experience is that in Singapore,the people who are in the position to fund startups want alot of a company for very little. We cannot fault them on this. Even if an idea is successful in Singapore, the Singapore market is small. The returns for an investment will not be great if we rely on the local market. The wonderful thing about web based companies is that it is easier to scale than companies in other industries. But that does not mean it is easy. And investors don’t always share your dreams and ideals. They want real money returned to their pockets.

If you have been following what is going on in the Web 2.0 landscape, a lot of these companies have a high burn rate and although there is lots of innovation, they do not have a viable business model. The most successful Web 2.0 company (i.e. YouTube) we currently know of was successful because they got bought over by Google. If we want our companies to be able to fight, they would need a larger amount of funding to survive the burn rate.

Of course it can be noted that Singapore does not need to follow the same model as other countries. The lack of large funding can be a good thing. Because of such a reality, Singapore startups could be forced to think more about viable business models and that could lead to greater innovation. Of course, the lack of funding also could be a hindrance to get people to start although I think it should not be. Sometimes, when you burn your ships, that is the only way you will fight forward with all your heart. But connections, that is still important. You will need people to help your idea see the light of day.

In Singapore, it is still a social stigma to work day and night in a HDB flat trying to develop an idea for no pay. Although, I feel a lot of time the ‘persecution’ is self-imposed. We waver when we see our peers surge ahead in their careers and we see no rewards yet for our endeavours. The rewards need not be monetary; even if developing an idea can be rewarding in itself, there is far greater personal fulfillment and satisfaction when the idea is successful.

Finally, I disagree with Bjorn about his last point that the hardwarezone.com deal will discourage VCs from investing and not inspire other startups. Firstly, I do not think 7 million is a small amount. Also, one needs to study the hardwarezone.com sites and their business model to discuss if they should have received more and not look at the kind of money that is being flung around in other countries as a benchmark (disclaimer: I’m assuming he is making his statement based on that).

In the end, wanting to create or be part of a startup should not be about the final amount that can be received from the exit strategy of selling the company. It should be about the belief in an idea and knowing that an idea is of no use being hidden in the dark. And it is about living life with no regrets.

(Updated:  SgEntrepreneurs have fessed up and said it was them who chose to use the term Web 3.0 to describe the event.  In anycase, waiting eagerly to hear how the event went after tomorrow.  And I think the MDA deserves an apology.)

Recently, I had a friend who emailed me about this competition that Borders was having called ‘Win a Bookcase to Brag About’. I didn’t win it but I got something else that was really good. I didn’t really read the terms of the competition properly and I guess this is a bad habit that I have when I take part in online stuff, especially for companies that I trust (i.e. Borders, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google … ) but somehow I got onto the Borders mailing list. On hindsight, I should have realised that the competition was a way to harvest email addresses for their mailing list programme called “The Shortlist”.

I didn’t realise how cool their emailing list programme was until I received coupons like those below.

The competition is over but you can still sign up for their mailing list. I provided two links below. One is to the page for the competition and the other is a link to the signup page for their mailing list.

Win A Bookcase By Borders Singapore

The Shortlist by Borders Singapore

Went to the immigration department to get some paper work done. After we were done, we walked to Bugis. We made a small detour and discovered this small street called Bussorah St in Kampong Glam. It was lined with small quaint shops and at the end of street was a beautiful mosque.

Saw a really interesting sight along the street. It was a bunch of europeans eating breakfast and doing some reading outside this cafe.

Found out that the place was called “Sleepy Sam’s” and is actually also a place for backpackers to stay. The atmosphere of the street was really laid-back and the cafe really added to the idyllic charm.

I discovered that finally we can zoom into Google Maps to see more of Singapore via Pluit Solutions which also directed me to this very interesting site: SinGeo.  It is interesting because it is the first site that I have found that is keeping track of the mashups using Google Maps and Google Earth to describe Singapore.

Discovered this blog via Josh Spear.  Simply brilliant.  She draws Venn Diagrams and Charts to make sense of life.

Starting to feel abit like Dilbert. Stuck in my cubicle facing a computer screen in an IT firm. The funny thing is i love being in front of a computer. With the internet, the computer is a gateway to a world that is so rich and I take great joy in exploring it with a browser. And I actually do enjoy reading source code, documentation and APIs. I also do enjoy writing code and I joined this IT firm hoping to get better at it. But the context of doing the activities I enjoy seem to be just as important as the activities itself.

Discovered this site ‘Allbout-SP’ today via Digg. It has a lot of South Park videos.

This was a toy given to me by a friend. Whenever you press the ‘Touch Me’ sticker, Stanley will start spewing profanities. Sigh. Unfortunately, this toy has died. It no longer swears at me with wild abandon.

Via Techmeme, I followed the interesting discussion about Google which I believe was sparked off by this post. Om Malik and Mitch Ratcliffe are two bloggers that have weighed in with their opinions about this dominance.

I guess a valid question is how does one define dominance? Is dominance defined by a stock price of around $450 and a P/E ratio of around 58. Is it defined by how much the company can bully set the agenda for the industry. Is it defined by the rate of growth of the company or its sustainable profits? Or is it an intuitive definition - one that arises because everyone is talking about the subject with either fear or reverence.

And how does one define and demarcate an ‘age of computing’. While we are in the ‘Internet Age’ which is presumably the ‘third age of computing’, are we also not still in the ‘PC era’? I mean, I’m still using my laptop with a windows OS and is Microsoft not the dominant player in this part of the IT landscape.

I’m not disagreeing with the notion that as of now and probably the conceivable future that Google is king on the Internet. What I’m wondering about is how because of the ‘neatness’ of definitions and labelling, we are prematurely reading the eulogy of a king so that we can coronate a new king.

Let me try to draw an analogy between the current IT landscape and the physical world. Microsoft was the king of the Old World - the biggest baddest kick ass country on that side of the globe: lets call it country E. There were rumours of a New World, and people from the old one set out to explore it. The Old World was the launching pad and it provided the resources such as people, food and ships to look for the New World and subdue it. New countries were eventually formed in the New World, and a new kick ass mega powerful country was formed there. The countries in the New World might have ‘rebelled’ against those in the old, but that doesn’t mean the old countries just disappeared from that side of the globe. And that also doesn’t mean the old big ass country E wasn’t the boss on the Old World. It just means now there is two theatres of conflict with different players and different dominant players.

Of course, the importance of the Old World might diminish with the rising of the New World’s and the countries in the New World could eventually send their ships to the Old World and kick some ass there or maybe even help out country E fight some battles there.

The point is, Microsoft is still king of their own ‘little’ area. The question is whether that area is still relevant if not important. And I think it still is.

I agree with Om Malik that Google has caused a behaviour change in how we look for information. The Internet became a real tool for information search after Google. I remember getting online in 1996, when I was in secondary three. At that time, I randomly surfed the net for fun. I remember using search engines like Lycos and Altavista to search for information as well as use Yahoo’s directories but my main source of knowledge and information then were friends (who I would call) or from books (such as the World Book encyclopedia) I had at home. If I had to look for more information, I would go to the library and use their catalogue as a starting point for research. I use Google now as the main starting point to gather knowledge. Doesn’t mean I don’t use books anymore, but the starting point is just different.

However, while Google may be the king of online search and monetisation, to equate the ‘third age of computing’ to search and monetisation seems abit narrow. For example, the Internet allowed Peer 2 Peer sharing of digital content in a way that was never scalable with disks and CDs. To me, that is as much a part of the Internet age as search is. Although there may not be a company which is dominant in that area, Bittorrent as a platform is. And how about Adobe? Without its flash player and technology, I think watching video online would not have caught on the way it did.

In terms of the PC era, Microsoft won the battles in areas that were conceivably the only ways for any company to generate the kind of revenue and profits that Microsoft did. While Google is doing that with search, one might possibly be allowed to wonder if search and the monetisation of search is the only way and possibly the best way for a company to generate revenue and profit in the Internet age. The answer now seems yes. However I recall an article I read in the Financial Times by John Gapper that mentions that most people do not spend most of their time online searching so I wonder if as the Internet age matures we might find ways to monetize other online activities which seem to consume more of our time and bandwidth although the ‘intent’ involved when we search probably makes it easier to monetize that activity. If that happens, then Google would only have been the king of the ‘age of search’ which would be just one stage in the ‘third age of computing’.

And maybe just king of PC-based search. I think search which can lead to a monetary transaction can be divided into two categories. The first kind of search leads us to sites where we purchase what we need and want online. The second kind of search provides us with information that we need to make offline purchases. The conducting of the search for the second type of information is an exercise of planning. However, sometimes it would be nice to be able to get that kind of information away from the PC (i.e. while at a shopping center with the handphone). Referring to Om Malik’s example, I’m doing ‘day-before’ planning that I wish can become ‘on-the-day-itself’ planning (actually, it won’t be really planning in this case). And I believe that to provide those services, it is not possible to have one king of mobile local search but many small lords for their own countries.

Finally, I am wondering about the statistics of the revenue generated by Google’s ad program. What is the percentage of revenue generated by sites which have a product or service to sell online and generate their revenue from that source and what percentage is from websites that aim to generate traffic to their site so they can provide information and create awareness for offline purchases.

“We are the ones that raise our gods onto their pedestals so that they can look down on us. So that we can knock them down later.”