I run a software startup called
oneDrum. We provide a real-time platform that makes existing desktop applications collaborative. Initially we're targeting Microsoft Office, but later in the year we'll offer an SDK for anyone to use.
I have a girlfriend (Sarah), a 4-year old son (Zac) and a 2-year old daughter called Stella.
I'll be using my blog to talk about oneDrum, the family, and random musings on politics, technology and music.
As a jaded software engineer, I struggle to get excited about most “innovations”, but I am excited about Operas new Unite product.
In case you have not read about it yet, Unite allows Opera users to turn their browser into a server through which they can directly share files and services rather than relying on third parties such as Google or Yahoo to mediate. There is an API developers can use to build and deploy new services on top of Unite.
I don’t know whether Unite will be successful - it will be hard work to build momentum from the small Opera install base, so the initial services will need to be pretty compelling.
But I do think that Unite or something like it is a marker for Web 3.0 because it represents a service level on top of the internet that is empowering: I can create interactive applications that I control.
At oneDrum, we’ve adopted a similar philosophy.
But we do a set of other things that allow developers to create more sophisticated applications faster:
We support first class languages like Java and C++
We provide mechanisms to converge data and documents such as Operational Transforms (similar to Google Wave)
We provide a workflow layer that allows developers to define valid user interactions.
I think that with oneDrum, Opera Unite and Google Wave we can see a significant shift in the emphasis of the internet from data to behavior - doing things together, not just viewing the same pages.
2 years ago
I just got around to watching the Google Wave video. I hate watching demo videos (please tell me a story in 5 pictures or less), so it was an act of extreme dedication. I’m pleased I did because it really confirmed a set of arguments we’ve been making at oneDrum this year.
Conversations need to be more contextual. Place them as close as possible to the thing you are discussing and narrow the scope of the conversation to the thing you are discussing.
Conversations need more flexible structures where you can move from ad hoc conversations to greater formality without cost. I argued this here.
User experience is critical - implicitly Google are arguing that the current generation of browsers and HTML4 aren’t good enough. It is unfortunate that the stand-out feature of the demo - dragging and dropping from iphoto into the browser - isn’t in any current or planned HTML version.
Open API’s, extensible behavior and federated services provide critical mass of functionality and users and communities with ownership of documents and conversations.
But it also left me with a bunch of questions and concerns:
Is it too different an approach to communication for a mainstream audience many of whom use email badly and still don’t use instant messaging?
Is it too remote from the tools people use today? Most people don’t Twitter, Facebook, or Google Docs. They do use email and MS Office.
But there is some great technology on view:
Operational Transforms are a powerful approach to collaboration that we employ in oneDrum, but do require a shift in emphasis from managing conflicts in documents to managing convergence.
HTML5 will really improve the browser experience (but when will it be universally supported?).
Google Web Toolkit is a fantastic tool for building websites and we utilize it significantly within oneDrum.
So we’re pretty excited at oneDrum about the capacity for Google Wave to convince users of the need for better ways of communicating, in the same way that Google Docs convinced users of the need for better collaboration tools.
2 years ago
Yesterday I had the pleasure of talking at the Butler collaboration symposium, to an IT management audience drawn from an enterprise and government background.
I argued that we need to enable employees to have conversations about their work because it increases their productivity. I provided as examples, the need to:
- Let users employ the conversation tools they want (e.g. their preferred IM client)
- Provide mechanisms that allow employees to ‘discover’ other employees, follow their status and enter conversations
The audience response was schizophrenic. Lots of heads nodded at the premise and argument but remained still at the conclusions. I interpreted this to mean that they agreed, per se, but that in practice they did not believe it was sellable internally.
The implication is that enterprise culture is closed to this approach.
This reminded me of something I’d been saying a lot recently: there are profound consequences in the distinction, being default open (e.g. Twitter) versus default closed (e.g. Facebook). Enterprise culture is default closed: If you cannot think of a good reason to make something open then don’t.
Companies would rather not do something that might make them 15% more productive if there was a danger that it might make them 5% less productive.
There are of course scenarios where we need to strictly manage/control information and conversations. But typically, these are a significant minority of scenarios and when we are default closed, we are closed to success. If you want your business to thrive, become default open and open to failure.
In practice, organizations never fail because they are too open; they fail because they are too closed: just ask the banks! Are you worried that competitors might see your roadmap? You should be worried about whether your customers can see it, and whether you are in a meaningful conversation with them. It is so easy today, if you’re not, your competitors will be.
2 years ago
