It was a day of MooseCamp fun but the big dividend was our table of four at Vancouver's Shiro -- which roughly translated means "great Sushi". How I ended up sitting with Buzz Bruggeman, Robert Scoble and Maryam Scoble had more to do with Buzz's leadership and the small size of the restaurant than anything I did, but sometimes you just have to show up.

So what do you want to know?

The blogging community -- those that really believe this is a discussion not an elevator pitch -- know that we're all here to engage. We talked. What else can I say. Maryam is a compelling woman; charming and delightful. Robert is pensive, which may mistakenly be taken as aloofness. Buzz is engaging, articulate, a leader and an encyclopedia of personal experience. Buzz remembers things and he pulses with the connectedness of our digital age. When you sit and eat raw fish with these folks you know why the digital web can never match the analog stimulus of eye contact and great conversation.

When it's your turn to have dinner with Buzz and the Scobles, don't think about what you need to do to get a link, be noticed or sound controversial. You made it to the table; you are part of the tribe. Be prepared to listen. Ask questions. Some of the things you are doing may or may not be relevant. That's okay, we're having a conversation here.

Thank you very much Robert, Maryam and Buzz.

PS: Robert, we will hold a night open for you in Calgary when you come through this spring for the W3C. Come on Calgary bloggers and podcasters let's treat Robert to great dinner!

NorthernVoice NorthernVoice2007 NV2007
Buzz Bruggeman Robert Scoble Maryam Scoble

This is the first in a series of new web radio, netcast, podcasts: Current Thinking Radio, which is sourced at its new home on www.ctiweb.net. I'm retiring the Bradcast in favor of a more direct focus on technology business leadership. Please be patient with this new media "re-branding". I will be unveiling more concepts over the next few weeks. In the meantime you can pick up the podcast feed in the same place. I will make sure there is adequate overlap in transitioning to the new Current Thinking web feeds.
---------------------------------------

Michael Sikorsky, CEO of Cambrian House software, may be mistaken as a man of maxims:

"Cambrian House; its like open source but with money."

"If nobody hates it, nobody will love it."

"Act as if Karma exists."

Listening to Michael at a recent DMAA event in Calgary, Alberta , one could tell that there was more than maxims and slogans to his vibe. Cambrian House is a crowdsource software company with some bright ideas in the web & software space. Michael clearly has an plan for the start, middle and end-game of his ventures. He lays out some interesting plans for marketing and product development in this presentation.

Products can fulfill needs -- "vitamins", solve problems -- "pain killers" or create new categories -- "viagra", of which the Blackberry is a classic technology based example. Listen to Michael as he explains tech marketing and company development in a way that you have never heard before. What's Michael's "bias for action"? How mass collaboration can change everything.

Recorded live by Brad Gibson with great thanks to the Board of the DMAA and Michael Sikorsky. This content is evergreen and is suggested for those interested in:

• marketing
• technology management
• new media development
• business development

This web radio podcast originates from the Current Thinking Radio site at www.ctiweb.net and from the Bradcast, podcasting since 2004 at www.bradfordgibson.net .

Forget about history, competition, restraint of trade, restrictive licenses and virtual monopolies. Let's just look at where we are now in the world of operating systems and services.

Market forces -- big and small -- have led to a world where the first operating system you buy for a new computer is essentially free. Free.

I don't want to hear about the "Microsoft tax" or how darned hard it is to buy a computer without an operating system so that you can load your favourite distro of Torvaldux. Don't ask for a discount if do get a computer without an O/S pre-loaded because to do that will cost the manufacturer money; so you will not be getting a discount. The O/S on any computer you buy -- PC or Apple -- is free. If you don't understand the economics of what I'm saying then do you think this Dell Dimension E521 that sells for as low as $329.00 would be $130.00 if there was no O/S installed on it? Of course you don't.

"But Brad" you say, "manufacturers pay OEM license fees to big computer makers. They get a cheaper price than retail." So cheap in fact that the cost of the O/S is not a significant differentiator in any buying decision. So cheap that if you don't really know the "true" price (whatever that is) and you don't even notice it, well then it's free. Essentially free. Forget about all those O/S boxes you see at the computer store with the $199, $299, $399 price tags. Who are those for any way? Who the heck is going to "upgrade" a computer to Vista? Microsoft certainly does not expect you to "upgrade". This era of PC is built for the O/S that came with it, don't whine and complain that your 2004 AMD whatzit with the really old fashioned graphics card from Feb 2005 doesn't run Vista well. If you need the tea leaves read for you just look at the new "plain English" EULA from Microsoft.

The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time.

(Translation: Because you will not want to do it again.)

This is a legal way of giving us a clue. Microsoft is doing us a favour by pricing the retail product at absurd levels. You think all that Aero glass is going to clean itself without brand new hardware?

Much has been made of restrictive licensing covenants in the new Vista EULA. Buyer beware. If you don't like the idea of features disappearing or the possibility that your legal copy of the O/S may be designated for rendition or that your media files may all stop working then you have a choice. Don't boot the code. Nobody has taken that right away from you.

Microsoft Vista EULA OS

What the conniption is going on over at the Podshow silo? Since when is not providing complete descriptions of shows or show notes acceptable? I wanted to find out what Trucker Tom was up to on his last few shows and all I see are a few words in the show description followed by ellipses. I zoomed over to iTunes and the show description fields are incomplete over there too.

After playing with open standards for a couple of years, it seems the spicy curry from which Podshow was formed has been re-worked by an American family restaurant. Too bad. And too bad for some of the good shows over there that now have their show notes and extra features neutered by a dysfunctional, glam site. Is this what you wanted Mr. Gillmor Gang? (I would link to you but, well, you know...) Shame on you Doc Searls for taking part in this bland reinvention of American radio. Welcome to Myspacification 2.0.

My interest in broadcast advertising effectiveness was piqued recently by this scan of a McKinsey & Co. study in Advertising Age. The "grabber" in the article is that:
"...by 2010, traditional TV advertising will be one-third as effective as it was in 1990."

Hmmm... thought I. The numbers cited seem to indicate that this has happened. I went to the source in the McKinsey Quarterly Report to verify my thesis. What I have surmised is that the study assumes what has already happened to prime-time advertising will take hold in TV as a whole.

Just look at the numbers. A 40% price hike has bought 50% less viewers in prime-time since 1990. That represents about a 65% decrease in effectiveness, or as the study words it, "35% as effective as it was in 1990"; which sure sounds a little friendlier doesn't it?

One of the curious by-products of this market's collapse are the efforts by some advertising agencies to "shock" their represented products to greater effectiveness. This has lead to the spectacle of gambling on highly questionable imagery to gain market share. The old saw may say that there "is no such thing as bad publicity" but that just is not true.

Another tactic is to carpet bomb a property with logos and "messages". There may be some significance in the psychology of this but I question how useful saturation ads are in the long run. Do "exclusive to" products really get a bump outside of the controlled environment of their "exclusive" property?

The McKinsey Study has quantified what we really already knew: the age of TV dominance is over. Advertising and sales has already adjusted to the new channels available to it -- and they are not on television. Somebody send a Telex to the TV business.

Regardless of the "version" of the web you're working on these days you have probably noticed a curious trend in web site design. For some reason the 2 dot oh'ers are especially fond of the number "3"; as in a trio of words, pictures or links.

Part 3 in the Activity or Action series urges you to follow form and function; give fashion a break. Reduce the proliferation of web sites that use a trio of 'action' words and a cute google-able name. Like, you know "TechnoverBeethoven: Cogitate, Maneuver, Theorize" or "Wanna.Be.Whatever: Re-mix, Re-use, Gesticulate".

And for heavens sake, why do these sites invariably have either a tiny link or no link to real information about the site, service or product? If you're not ready to tell me that stuff, then why the heck would I use your tubular new app dude?

(PS: If you pronounce subtlety with a hard "B", then please note that this was part three of the series.)

Dan Farber reports that Mike Arrington said at Chris Pirillo's Hawkeyedex that "Web 2.0 is not an echo chamber".

Dan Farber reports that Mike Arrington said at Chris Pirillo's Hawkeyedex that "Web 2.0 is not an echo chamber".

Dan Farber reports that Mike Arrington said at Chris Pirillo's Hawkeyedex that "Web 2.0 is not an echo chamber".

Pinch hitting for Pedro Bourbon... Manny Mota! Mota. Mota.

Finally. Something to wake me from my slumber.

Reading about this here and here, I was immediately struck by this question:

Why is Scoble leaving the biggest stage he will ever -- I mean EVER -- have?

People will say money or stock options, and they were probably factors. It may have more to do with his son, which might be the best reason in the world. I sure hope it's about family because Mr. Scoble, you achieved notariety in the tech world with Microsoft the likes of which will not be seen again.

And with that, perhaps I have answered the question. What more could Robert do for Microsoft? It's not like MSFT stock options would hold him there, given that 1999 is so seven years ago. It's not like he hasn't been banging the drum for the company as loudly as any one man can. A life transforming experience like the death of his mother would stir him to his core; it might cause him to think more about tomorrow and less about today.

Here's the thing. It's a personal choice and if it blows up in a month, it will still be the right choice. Life is a twisty thrill.