Universal Basic Income and a new Economics of Abundance -- "When looms weave by themselves, man's slavery will end"

Universal Basic Income (UBI) has become a hot topic, as noted in a recent NY Times article by Farhad Manjoo.  Confronting the rise of automation and robots, even libertarians and conservatives are warming to the idea of a universal income provided by the government, and some prominent technology VCs have become very interested. What we face is a new economics of abundance, and it will have many pervasive ramifications we can only dimly foresee -- some sooner than we may think.

The roots of this idea go back as far as Aristotle: “When looms weave by them­selves, man's slavery will end.” I read this quote in a 1964 NY Times article on automation, and it helped set the path of my "user-centered" career in technology. I wrote a high school essay taking off on it, extrapolating how it enabled utopias that blended Bellamy's "Looking Backward" and Wells' "Men Like Gods." Of course that was over 50 years ago, and my youthful utopian views were less seasoned with experience and pragmatism, but the core idea I expressed then still stands up:

...This raises the question whether the product of human labor is necessarily limited. The answer is that it most certainly is not. In this century a messiah has arisen -- perhaps Messiac* might be a better name for this role of automation. As Aristotle said, "when looms weave by themselves man' s slavery will end." The looms are now beginning to weave.

...One can easily conceive a giant automated complex, call it Messiac, that can produce nearly unlimited quantities of goods with only the labor of a few operators and repairmen. Similarly, farms can be improved greatly in efficiency by automation and eventually synthetic, mass-producable foods will be developed. Messiac could thus provide all with everything they needed or desired. It would not only eliminate poverty, but also remove all cause for stealing -- it is easier to push a few buttons for something than to steal it. Any individual who did not want to would not even need to work. The necessary labor would be of sufficient interest and lightness that volunteers could handle it. This remaining work would be of a professional nature and as such would have a high degree of interest... Messiac is thus an economic system that is far more utopian than that of the best traditional utopia.

It is timely that UBI is getting attention just as I have embarked on a much narrower and more immediate quest to develop a step toward that economics of abundance, based on some more sophisticated economics. While we undertake the long conversation about UBI, and the first baby steps on this road, there is a little-recognized opportunity for a related change in that direction.

Digital content and services already weave by themselves -- in the sense that they can be infinitely replicated at almost no cost. This has already caused great turmoil in the content industries -- journalism and music have been in crisis, and TV/video is not far behind. Content can be free, but who will work to create it, and how will they be compensated?

In my other blog, I suggest that the answer is in FairPay, a radically new strategy for pricing that adaptively seeks win-win compensation for creating products and services. Since there is no scarcity with digital, there is no invisible hand to allocate scarcity. Instead we need an invisible handshake, an agreement to set prices fairly to sustain creators, based on allocating "share of wallet" (whether hard-earned dollars, or UBI allowances).  FairPay suggests a simple, pragmatic mechanism for balancing power between consumers and creators/producers to agree on an equitable share of wallet.

Check it out. I suggest FairPay will shed light on how we will live soon, and even more so in a future world where all the looms weave by themselves.

---
*That was the era where computers had names like UNIVAC (UNIVersal Automatic Computer), ENIAC, and EDSAC.

Cuba's Digital Future -- Market Incentives, Resource Allocation, and FairPay as a New Path

My recent one-week People-to-People tour in Cuba presented a fascinating contrast to our market economy and suggests an interesting path forward for Cuba. I was focused mostly on what I saw of the real economy (there is not yet much of a digital economy), but on reflection, realized that Cuba's digital future could be unusually interesting. 

I began to think that the new FairPay strategy for more efficient and more customer-friendly pricing (especially for digital content and services) might fit particularly nicely with Cuba's desire to modernize and privatize its economy without giving up on its strong social values. Maybe Cuba has an opportunity to find a unique path to creating a new kind of market for user-centered media services.

Cuba's evolving real economy

What I saw of the real economy presented a sharp lesson in how essential markets are to providing incentives for productivity and efficient resource allocation. My tour program contacts presented an impressive view of how Cubans have applied socialist ideas resourcefully to develop sustainable production of food and provide strong education and medical care, but the backdrop was one of inefficiency and wasted potential.

• Most striking was the story of the owner/driver of the beautifully maintained 1950's Ford convertible serving as tourist taxi that I had a short ride in. He had been an experienced medical doctor with a specialty, who was making $80 per month (actually 80 CUCs, but close enough -- a very good salary for Cuba). Now, as as a taxi driver who owns an attractive car, he makes $80 per day! -- 20-30 times as much as he made as a medical specialist!  What a waste of education and scarce skills!
• Similar surprises were apparent under the surface in farms and food markets, the low standard of living of most of the population, and the striking decay of pre-revolution buildings and other infrastructure.
• The food markets in particular showed the contrast of government ration books and subsidized prices for a very limited selection of basic food items, combined with gradually increased acceptance of a level of black market trade in more scarce and desirable items.
• Modest efforts at allowing private development of restaurants ("paladares"), some of which were very nice, also presented a striking (but still very limited) contrast in how market incentives fuel productive enterprise.

A Q&A session with Reuters economic correspondent Marc Frank (in Cuba for over 20 years) added an interesting perspective on Raul Castro's ongoing efforts to shift toward more private enterprise and prepare Cuba to more fully participate in the world market -- now likely to accelerate with the thaw in US relations and a probable end to our trade embargo.

(Of course my understanding of the Cuban economy is quite limited -- these are just my impressions from what I saw in my one week there.)

Cuba's future digital economy

While Internet use and literacy in Cuba is low and will take time to grow, this cultural/economic climate raises the interesting idea that the new FairPay strategy for digital services might be especially relevant to development of user-centered media services for Cuban consumers. 

• A core objective of the Cuban economy has been the socialist/communist ideal of "to each according to his need," The problem has been that the "from each according to his ability" does not work well (incentives are too weak), and the combination fails to provide efficient allocation of resources. That has led toward privatization -- but with conventional pricing practices, privatization does not deliver "to each according to his need."
• FairPay creates a market solution to this problem -- not by hoping that productivity will be achieved "from each according to his ability," but by providing direct profit incentives for producers to learn what each consumer wants and what they should pay, and to produce the digital services that are desired accordingly. More like payment from each according to the value received (and willingness to pay fairly for that, to the extent able), and profit to the producer as a fair share of the actual value created. 

Consider the contrast between FairPay and conventional pricing models for digital:

• Both conventional models and FairPay seek to enable businesses to price their services in the way that realistically maximizes profits.
• Conventional models for pricing digital services, like freemium (and soft paywalls), may provide limited free services to all who want them, but support themselves by charging set prices for more advanced "premium" services. That prices the premium services out of reach of many consumers who can't justify that set price, but who would happily pay less. That is a loss to the market because digital services can be replicated at almost no cost, to serve a very wide population of consumers who would gain value from such services. Thus the value these services could bring to the wider market is wasted, as explained in my post: Beyond the Deadweight Loss of "All You Can Eat" Subscriptions.
• FairPay seeks to maximize profit by finding the right price for each consumer who finds value in a service. It does this by using an adaptive process to set win-win prices tailored to each consumer's needs: based on usage, value obtained, and ability to pay. FairPay exploits the unlimited replication of digital -- a lack of scarcity that makes rationing unnecessary. FairPay seeks to approximate an individually fair (and affordable) price for each consumer -- adapting over the life of the relationship -- to ensure that production is sustainably supported and incentivized, 
• The FairPayZone blog explains in detail how that works in a market-driven, dynamically adaptive way. FairPay is aimed at broad use in the current market-based environment of the US and most of the world. But the wondrous new economics of abundance in digital markets now makes it possible to achieve many of the ideals of socialism out of a profit-driven market-based system, in ways that are not yet widely recognized. 

So perhaps, as Cuba expands its Internet infrastructure to enable wide use, FairPay will resonate as a way to achieve its ideals of fairness in a market-driven way. Businesses can seek profits, and do so in a way that adapts to the needs (and resources) of each individual consumer. 

• For most of the world, FairPay can be viewed as adding a kinder, gentler (and smarter, more efficient) touch to the invisible hand -- what I refer to as an invisible handshake. 
• For Cuba, FairPay may be seen as adding new market drivers to a social handshake, to make it more productive and economically efficient (at least in the digital realm, and perhaps more widely).

For a full introduction to FairPay see the Overview and the sidebar on How FairPay Works at FairPayZone.com). There is also a guide to More Details (including links to a video).  (While most of my posts on FairPay are on the FairPayZone blog, this one seemed better suited to this blog.)

Patents for Entrepreneurs – Crown Jewels or Shiny Objects? -- MITEF-NYC Panel NYC 11/19

“If you don’t have a patent, you don’t have a prayer on Shark Tank,” as John Oliver began his diatribe on the problems with patents.  Black humor with questionable substance, but never has there been such widespread and deep confusion about patents, from the man on the street, to the press, the courts, Congress, the Supreme Court, and President Obama.  Joking aside, how should entrepreneurs view patents?

That is the subject of this MIT Enterprise Forum of NYC panel session on 11/19 that I am co-organizing:  Patents for Entrepreneurs – Crown Jewels or Shiny Objects?

We assemble a panel of entrepreneurs who have successfully navigated these issues and shepherded companies through the life-cycle of seeking and using patents -- working with investors and licensees.  We bolster that with patent lawyers who can update us on the fundamental legal turmoil that bears on this.

This is not Patents 101 -- it is aimed at a strategic perspective for entrepreneurs and those investing in their companies.

The John Oliver bit is very funny, but does a disservice to the real issues of why the patent system is valuable. For a perspective on the harder reality, check out this post on a respected IP blog, A toxic concoction of myth, media and money is killing the patent system.

But this is also not a debate on IP policy -- the focus will be on understanding the current landscape, directions, and uncertainties for good or bad, to address the strategic questions of whether and how young companies should seek patents.

(My personal view is that while there should be an important place for patents, those trying to fix the system have broken it so badly that the value of patents for many kinds of innovation is now highly doubtful -- at least until the pendulum swings back a bit. I did well as an inventor with patents in the past, but am no longer spending much time on that now.)

Wearables 2.0 Event at MIT Enterprise Forum of NYC 9/29/15

Once again, MITEF-NYC is presenting a thought-leading event on one of the most clearly "user-centered" aspects of User-Centered Media -- Wearables 2.0! (we have covered wearables for over a decade).

This 9/29 evening panel features Academy Award-winner Ken Perlin (NYU) along with other panelists, moderated by Dan Rosenbaum, Publisher of Wearable Tech Insider.

From the event description:

What seems certain is that as wearable technology evolves in the next five years, it will affect our lives in ways we can only imagine -- changing our ideas of wellness and medical treatment, how we work, experience entertainment, shop, and what we wear. With trillions of new sensors coming on line each year, and with more than 3 billion people connected to the Internet, and those who have access to it will also become increasingly "aware" of the wearables themselves, the people wearing them and the environment in which they live. 

How will this play out? How do we keep data safe while also staying on the bleeding edge of technology?

 Join us for a stimulating event!

Digital Camelot - The Once and Future Web of Engelbart and Nelson

If you care about modern culture and how technology is shaping it, this is worth thinking about -- A powerful eulogy for where the Web might have gone, and still may someday, and the friendship of the two people most responsible for envisioning the Web*  --  Ted Nelson's eulogy for his friend Doug Engelbart, as reported by John Markoff in The Times -- with Nelson's inimitable flair.

As Markoff says:

Theodor Holm Nelson, who coined the term hypertext, has been a thorn in the side of the computing establishment for more than a half century. Last week, in an encomium to his friend Douglas Engelbart, he took his critique to Shakespearean levels. It deserves a wider audience. 

Dr. Engelbart and Ted Nelson became acquaintances at the dawn of the modern computing era. They had envisioned and invented the computing that we have come to take for granted.

I first encountered both of them in 1969, and what I saw set the direction for my life's work.  Engelbart gave "The Mother of All Demos" in 1968 (I first saw him give a follow-up the next year, and then read most of his work).  Nelson dreamed of hypertext and hypermedia, and wrote papers on what he called "hypertext" in the '60s and the highly influential Whole Earth Catalog of "Computer Lib / Dream Machines" in 1974.

As Nelson laments, both received a degree of recognition, but both were marginalized. Powerful as it may be, expediency took the Web in more limiting directions.

Their ideas remain profound and forward looking. Anyone who really cares about the future of media, intellect, and culture, and how information technology can augment that, should consider their work.  Just because the Web took a turn to expediency in the past does not mean it will not realize its richer potential in the future. (One hint of that is noted in the next section.)

---

As to Nelson's comment about "keeping the links outside the file," he refers to the important point that HTML embeds the links in the HTML file, which largely limits linking and annotating to the author/distributor of the HTML page. Nelson views this a crippling to the vision he and Engelbart (and Bush) had, in which links could be created by third parties and associated with the page from outside, thus allowing anyone to link from, annotate, and enhance any work.

I was struck by the fact that  interactive hypermedia centered on TV and video are becoming mainstream, and much of it now does keep the links outside the file. Perhaps just a primitive version of Engelbart and Nelson's ideas, but a step in the right direction that might lead to further movement, and maybe spill over into other Web services...

Prime examples are the growing use of Automatic Content Recognition (ACR), which recognize a program and current viewing time-position, and is used to associate independent linkbases with video.  This is occurring both with 2-screen apps like Shazam, Zeebox, and IntoNow (Yahoo), and with 1-screen apps in smart TVs from most of the major TV vendors, and with support from major studios.

Video seems to naturally make embedded links problematic (where to put them?).  The TV industry tried to embed the links into the content (in such forms as ATVEF trigger streams in the VBI, and more recently in cable operator OCAP/EBIF platforms), but this has proven difficult to get to mass market.  Meanwhile, ACR has become popular -- first on the fringes, but now increasingly accepted by both the market and the industry.  Studios like Fox are even opening up their TV enhancement content to let independents like Zeebox use that content apart from (and in competition with) the Fox apps.  They recognize that the value of their services is enhanced by letting others re-distribute enhancements to their shows (along with independent enhancements) -- anything to increase attention to their shows.

---
*Of course there were others, most notably Vannevar Bush, who inspired both Engelbart and Nelson.

"The Future of TV" - MITEF-NYC Think Tank Session 1/14 (First in a Series)

Given our success at thought leadership in MITEF-NYC events, we are trying a new kind of Think Tank session that builds on the inventiveness of our MITEF community.  The Future of TV is the first of a series of Think Tank sessions on different industries, "The Future of X."

MITEF Think Tank Session: The Future of TV - January 14, 2014, NYC
Propositions for an audience that has seized (the remote) control

The first of a series of MITEF Think Tank Sessions on The Future of X
Tech-based opportunities for changing industries and changing audiences

...It is up to the brightest minds in technology to find solutions to these exciting challenges--and how to profit from that. MITEF-NYC is therefore introducing a new event format. In a highly engaged and interactive setting, a Think Tank session will gather ideas and concrete answers on how technology and innovation can shape the future of television

Some prominent industry participants (including seasoned executives and consultants, respected columnists, and successful entrepreneurs and inventors) are already registered, and space is filling up. Now is the time to register if you have not already.

We look forward to a stimulating session with strong audience participation. We hope to not only generate lots of good ideas for innovators, but also for learning how this format works and can be extended. 

Future events might target other industries in disruptive transitions where technology is both a challenge and an opportunity, such as publishing, music, retail, transportation, and education.

Some background on our Think Tank format...

As a long time co-chair of the programming committee, and co-organizer of this event, I am enjoying the process of trying this new format. I have been involved in applying several successful formats at MITEF since the late '90s, notably panel sessions, and we have done many ground-breaking events that established our reputation for thought leading coverage of important developments, panels of top-level innovators, and sophisticated audiences of entrepreneurs and those who work with them.

The Think Tank idea arose at a member/volunteer brainstorming session we did in August to generate new program ideas for the coming year, and emerged as the brainchild of one of our recently joined members, now co-organizer of this event, Katja Bartholmess. She is an energetic champion of new ideas with an eclectic background in e-commerce and branding. She pointed out that we have such smart audiences that maybe we don't need formal speakers and panelists, just a little catalyzing. We began to work together, settled on TV as the place to start the series, and are working to find a format that is manageable, brings out the best in our base of attendees, and lets them create. We thought of calling it a salon, brainstorming, or a round table, but went with think tank. We see our roles as facilitators, to help frame and herd the discussion, but with the real energy coming from our participants. We also hope to find ways to give the session continuing life, to build on ideas and human connections made that evening.

We are identifying a small number of "lead" participants who have experience innovating in the industry to help stimulate discussion, and shape it with their knowledge, but view them as "first among equals," with the idea that all of our audience participate actively, and that creative outsiders can often bring new thinking, outside the box, to sometime see opportunities that insiders ignore.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Twiiter Ad Targeting + Comcast Show It -- Crossing the Chasm?

Two very interesting moves toward mass market Interactive TV and T-commerce were made recently, and I suggest putting them together will lead to a major step beyond.

Twitter announced that its ad targeting now allows advertisers to send you promoted tweets if you tweet about a program during which their ad appeared.  A one-two punch, to follow up on the TV ad impression. A crude but clever way to synchronize Internet with TV, but potentially on massive scale, and thus a big step.  You tweet; that tells them what you are watching; they know what ads air with it; and let the advertisers tweet you. There are better ways (such as ACR and triggers), but not in wide deployment (but that will come).

Comcast announced that it is working with Twitter and NBC to enable tweets to include a Show It button that when clicked, tunes your TV to the program that was tweeted about (or sets your DVR to record it).  That is if you have Comcast's new X1 set top box. In any case you can also view the video on your Twitter device (second screen on phone or tablet). Comcast says they hope this will become a standard, used by other networks and distribution partners.

Given the scale of Twitter and Comcast, this could finally get Interactive TV across the chasm. Their reach can bring it to the masses, show the economic imperative, and lead to far richer versions. If the money is shown to be there, along with the mass market to deliver it, that will launch a major build-out.

[***Update 12/12:  A nice analyst commentary by Joel Espelien that agrees on the importance of these moves (in spite of little press attention) was posted today. (In the I almost told you so department, I had this post largely complete in mid-October, but let it sit as a draft until this week.)]

Soon:  Once these first steps take hold, other advanced features will be easy to add.

Some of this is suggested by Comcast: expansion to Facebook, and presumably any other Web service or app. This enables the idea of "the Web as program guide" that I described in my CoTV work,

...where all media types can be fully interlinked, in a manner that is fully consistent. Hotspots can serve as link anchors whether in text, image or video, and targets can be of any media type -- rich combinations of hypermedia browsing and navigation across devices.

It also seems that one valuable enhancement in TV advertising will be easy: telescoping ads synchronized across two screens.  From an ad on your TV to a video follow up on your phone or tablet. This has been done for years on some TV platforms, but not on a scale that gets much recognition or much interest from advertisers. But there is money there, if it reaches scale.

Telescoping to a second screen could be easy with Twitter Ad Targeting combined with See It with just one small twist.

• As it is now, See It is described as linking to a program, in the sense of content you could select by channel, or from a program guide. Nice, but what about advertising?
• As it could be, it might also enable links to advertising video-on-demand.  Comcast may have enabled this already, but if not, it should not be hard to add.

That enables telescoping across two screens. Ad Targeting flags a viewer who is seeing the ad on TV, and sends a link to his companion device that links (via See It) to a commercial video that picks up from there. A 15 or 30 second spot can link to a longer form video that drives home the message -- and can also include an online call to action, with all of the ease of interaction via a phone or tablet. All with widely deployed and widely used technology.

The Joy of Showrooming: From Profit Drain to Profit Center

Showrooming has become a major scourge of bricks-and-mortar retail, but maybe it is the way to a new golden age.  I suggest that showrooming can become a major source of profit, and can enable retail businesses to fully exploit the value of showrooms in our experience economy.

Brick-and-mortar stores like Best Buy and Walmart are struggling as e-tailers like Amazon and many others are stealing their lunch with more efficient channels and lower prices.  Adding insult to injury, they are losing increasing portions of business to the practice of "showrooming," where a customer comes into a store to view merchandise, checks for better prices online, and then buys from Amazon or others.  Services like Amazon's Price Check app have become popular to facilitate just that.  It is reported that 60% of Best Buy customers use thier smartphones to comparison shop.

Faced with this serious challenge, the reaction of retailers has been to try to impede it.  The main response has been to increasingly customize products so that they cannot be found and compared online, having manufacturers create SKUs that exist only for them (whether name brand or private label).  Oher counters are more dynamic pricing and price-match offers.

What I suggest is to take this threat, and view it as an opportunity:

• What if showrooming activity could be tracked, and e-tailers convinced to pay a "showroom fee" to the provider of a showrooming service, if the sale came from that showroom? 
• What if the retailer could filter Internet traffic from their store, and trace which URLs are for competitors, track purchase transactions that emanate from the store, and pass through only those that go to retailers that agree to pay the fee? 

There are a number of ways this can be done, and that can lead to a new retail ecology that benefits all.

Showrooming has great economic value.  It enabled customers to see, feel, and try products.  That has been a serious limitation of e-commerce, and has been exploited by those who recognize the value of show, like Apple.  Now Samsung is working with Best Buy to do that as well.  But this has been on a closed basis, for single brands.

How could showrooming fees be obtained? 

• One method that seems promising is for retailers to place microcells in their stores to carry cellular traffic, and work with the carriers to track and monitor the traffic, and seek agreements with electronic competitors to pay a fee in exchange for the showrooming service.  This might be done through independent parties that ensure privacy, aid in the negotiations, and address any legal issues that may be involved (such as the wireless carriers, or specialized third parties).  Sellers that refuse to pay such fees might be blocked. (This can be done using some combination of blacklists and whitelists.  A microcell alone might not eliminate all uncontrolled mobile access, but, if necessary stores might use shielding to prevent that.)  While blocking traffic may have legal ramifications, if it is done for such valid economic reasons, and in a way that ensures passage of non-commercial messaging, waivers might be sought as necessary.  Mobile carriers might find this a desirable way to obtain new revenues.
• Offering free WiFi service would provide a similar way to filter and track such traffic--and to introduce related in-store messaging services as well.  Even without any limits to cellular access, this might provide a value-added service channel, and do the job well enough, in simpler manner.
• Offering comparative shopping tools that are showroom-fee-compliant and given favored treatment might be a way to get get customers to facilitate such a process without need to filter all mobile traffic.
• This could also be facilitated via loaner mobile devices or in-store kiosks.
• An even higher touch service might be achieved with personal shopper programs.  The personal shopper might facilitate the online sale with partners that cooperate. 

If we open our eyes to the positive side of showrooming, this can lead to a virtuous value cycle for all.

On the e-tailer side, working with showroomers can provide numerous valuable benefits that are worth a reasonable fee:

• Customers can experience the items, know exactly what they are getting, and order with less likelihood of returns, reducing costs to the electronic retailer.
• Cooperating retailers can get featured access and be more likely to be found.
• Correct identification of products can be facilitated (reducing return costs and increasing satisfaction).

On the retail showroom side, working with electronic retailers in return for showrooming fees can provide a whole new range of possibilities for profit:

• Instead of spending money creating inefficiencies just to prevent showrooming, those costs can be eliminated.
• Fees can be negotiated based on the level of showrooming services offered, ranging from a boxed item on a shelf, to play with the item, to guided demonstratins and advice by sales staff and full personal shopper services.
• With greater probability of compensation from both direct sales and showroomed sales, physical retailers can spend more to make their showrooms into rich and valuable customer experiences.
• Showrooms might even emerge as free-standing businesses--sort of an experiential shopping Disneyland--with all sales and fulfilment done by an open market of electronic retailers.
• By passing some sales to electronic counterparties, the physical retailer finds real offsetting savings by eliminating need for much of their inventory and eliminating returns.  By cutting these costs, showrooming fees need not be equal to the full in-house sales margin.

This creates opportunities for more complex cooperation:

• Physical retailers can serve as pickup and return centers for electronic retailers, whether for products they do carry or for those they don't. Amazon, ThankYou Rewards, and others already are seeking just such physical services in non-competing venues, but much richer possibilities might be enabled in a more open ecosystem. (A complementary step in this direction is the ShopRunner service.)
• The various elements, costs, and benefits of the retail supply chain and service ecology can be deconstructed, and broken into elements that can be costed and charged for individually, and handled by whatever party is most capable of doing it in a way the is efficient and serves all. This can cover the range from marketing, selection guidance, demos, sales transactions, fulfillment, service and support.  Best Buy might even swap inventory for pickups of Amazon sales, with bulk replenishment by Amazon.  It might also facilitate blurring boundaries between sales and subscription services.

There is great economic value to a rich showroom experience.  We see that in many department and specialty stores, in Apple stores, and in The Samsumg Experience stores.  People like to kick the tires, see the alternatives in real space, talk to sales people face to face, and have a fun family or social experience.  What is the sense of a business ecology that pushes bricks-and-mortar retail toward commoditization and increasing friction?  Why not find a way for complementary players to work together?

---
Ideas in bottles.  This is one of what may become a series, publishing some of my inventions without any effort to seek a patent.  Just putting the idea in a bottle, throwing it into the Internet sea, and seeing where it floats, for whoever wants to apply it.  Of course this post just skims the surface, and patent opportunities remain in the details (such as filtering and payment/settlement systems) for those with the inclination to develop them (and at some point I might decide to jump in myself).  Creating such an ecosystem will not be easy, but I think there is very great potential here.  I would be happy to collaborate with those who might pursue this.

---
[Update 6/16/17: The press made much of an Amazon patent on much the same ideas, including ideas for doing counteroffers, that was issued this week (and was filed a year prior to this post). (I was pleased to see that the Amazon patent cited 17 of my earlier patents/applications as prior art, and also happy that I chose not to file for a patent on these particular ideas!) For those interested in applying the ideas outlined here, the newly issued Amazon patent may add a complication.]

SmartGlass: A Big Step toward Convergence of TV and the Web Across Screens

Microsoft Xbox SmartGlass is CoTV 1.0 (maybe) -- on to CoTV 2.0!

With the release of Xbox SmartGlass, I am gratified to see many of the concepts I described as "Coactive TV" in 2002 finally being realized. I had been seeing increasing progress in recent years, as noted in my January post, but those have been very fragmented, partial steps, and I was being optimistic to refer to it then as CoTV 1.0. SmartGlass might be considered a major complementary step toward what (when integrated with those other pieces) will become representative of what I had in mind as CoTV 1.0.

The basic concept of CoTV is that we have multiple screens and input devices, and multiple content sources that have a Web of interconnections.  What we really want (even if most do not realize it yet) is to use the right combination of screens and input devices, at the right time, in the right way -- to work with whatever content we want at a given time. What connects them is the cloud, and our devices should use the cloud to support our media use seamlessly, not constrain it.

As noted in that January post, and more fully in my January "CoTV Now" summary, we are getting there, but there is still much more to come -- what might be looked to as CoTV 2.0 and beyond.  Now we seem to be at a significant milestone.  That makes this a good time to review where we are now, and to look to what will follow.  Based on the announcement materials, it seems as follows.

Now/emerging (CoTV 1.0):

• Numerous  iPad, iPhone, Android (and soon Surface) companion apps
• Social TV
• Producer and third party enhancements on the second screen
• AirPlay (and Miracast) screen-shifting 
• and now a much richer any-screen experience with SmartGlass that includes rich remote control and enhancements, and steps toward full multi-screen hypermedia browsing.

Still to come (CoTV 2.0):

• Selectable, Alternative "Enhancement Channels" 
• Screen targeting 
• Flexible session-shifting
• Link-and-pause (and sync bookmarks)
• Full multi-screen hypermedia browsing  
• TV Context parameter/API
• Full Coactive Internet commerce and advertising
• Third-party linking rights/fees

Some links expanding on this are listed below.

-------------

I want my CoTV!  ...SmartGlass promises to be a reasonable start!

(Apple, your move. AirPlay was nice, but SmartGlass goes much farther.  Google?  Others?)

-------------

On SmartGlass:


A very nice video overview:
Xbox SmartGlass and Internet Explorer for Xbox - E3 2012 HD

Some descriptions:
Introducing the New Entertainment Experience from Xbox
Xbox SmartGlass goes beyond the second screen
Introducing Xbox SmartGlass

More video:
E3 2012: Xbox Media Briefing Smartglass Highlights
E3 2012: Xbox SmartGlass
Xbox SmartGlass Walkthrough

On CoTV:

CoTV Now

Filtering for Serendipity -- Extremism, "Filter Bubbles" and "Surprising Validators"

[The Augmented Wisdom of Crowds:  Rate the Raters and Weight the Ratings, (2018) puts this in a much broader framework and outlines an architecture for augmenting social media and other collaborative systems.]

[A post-2016-election update on this theme:
2016: Fake News, Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles and the "De-Augmentation" of Our Intellect]


Balanced information may actually inflame extreme views -- that is the counter-intuitive suggestion in a NY Times op-ed by Cass Sunstein, "Breaking Up the Echo" (9/17/12).   Sunstein is drawing on some very interesting research,* and this points toward an important new direction for our media systems.

I suggest this is especially important to digital media, in that we can counter this problem with more intelligent filters for managing our supply of information.  This could be one of the most important ways for technology to enhance modern society. Technology has made us more foolish in some respects, but the right technology can make us much smarter.

Sunstein's suggestion is that what we need are what he calls "surprising validators," people one gives credence to who suggest one's view might be wrong.  While all media and public discourse can try to leverage this insight, an even greater opportunity is for electronic media services to exploit this insight that "what matters most may be not what is said, but who, exactly, is saying it."

Much attention has been given to the growing lack of balance in our discourse, and there have been efforts to seek to address that.

• It has been widely lamented that the mass media are creating an "echo chamber" -- such as Fox News on the right vs. MSNBC on the left.  
• It has also been noted that Internet media bring a further vicious cycle of polarization, as nicely described in the 2011 TED talk (and related book) by Eli Pariser, "Beware online "filter bubbles," services that filter out things not to one's taste.
• Similarly, extremist views that were once muted in communities that provided balance are now finding kindred spirits in global niches, and feeding upon their own lunacy.

This is increasingly damaging to society, as we see the nasty polarization of our political discourse, the gridlock in Washington, and growing extremism around the world. The "global village" that promises to bring us together is often doing the opposite.

It would seem that the remedy is to try to bring greater balance into our media. There have been laudable efforts to build systems that recognize disagreement and suggest balance, such as services like SettleIt, FactCheck, and Snopes, and, a particularly interesting effort, the Intel Dispute Finder (no longer active).

• The notable problem with this is Sunstein's warning that even if we can expose people to greater balance, that may not be enough to reduce such polarization, and that balancing corrections can even be counter-productive, because "biased assimilation" causes people to dismiss the opposing view and become even more strident. 
• Thus it is not enough to simply make our filter bubbles more permeable, to let in more balanced information.  What we need is an even smarter kind of filter and presentation system.  We have begun to exploit the "wisdom of crowds," but we have done little to refine that wisdom by applying tools to shape it intelligently.

From that perspective, consider Sunstein's suggestions:

People tend to dismiss information that would falsify their convictions. But they may reconsider if the information comes from a source they cannot dismiss. People are most likely to find a source credible if they closely identify with it or begin in essential agreement with it. In such cases, their reaction is not, “how predictable and uninformative that someone like that would think something so evil and foolish,” but instead, “if someone like that disagrees with me, maybe I had better rethink.”

Our initial convictions are more apt to be shaken if it’s not easy to dismiss the source as biased, confused, self-interested or simply mistaken. This is one reason that seemingly irrelevant characteristics, like appearance, or taste in food and drink, can have a big impact on credibility. Such characteristics can suggest that the validators are in fact surprising — that they are “like” the people to whom they are speaking.

It follows that turncoats, real or apparent, can be immensely persuasive. If civil rights leaders oppose affirmative action, or if well-known climate change skeptics say that they were wrong, people are more likely to change their views.

Here, then, is a lesson for all those who provide information. What matters most may be not what is said, but who, exactly, is saying it. 

This struck a chord with me, as something to build on.  Applying the idea of "surprising validators"  (people who can make us think again):

• The media and social network systems that are personalized to serve each of us can understand who says what, who I identify and agree with in a given domain, and when a person I respect holds views that are different from views that I have expressed that I might be wrong about.  Such people may be "friends" in my social network, or distant figures that I am known to consider wise.  (Of course it is the friends I consider wise, not those I like but view as misguided, that need to be identified and leveraged.)
• By alerting me that people I identify and agree with think differently on a given point, such systems can make me think again -- if not to change my mind, at least to consider the idea that reasonable people can differ on this point. 
• Such an approach could build on the related efforts for systems that recognize disagreement and suggest balance noted above.  ...But as Sunstein suggests, the trick is to focus on the surprising validators.
• Surprising validators can be identified in terms of a variety of dimensions of values, beliefs, tastes, and stature that can be sensed and algorithmically categorized (both overall and by subject domain).  In this way the voices for balance who are most likely to be given credence by each individual can be selectively raised to their attention.  
• Such surprising validations (or reasons to re-think) might be flagged as such, to further aid people in being alert to the blinders of biased assimilation and to counter foolish polarization.

This provides a specific, practical method for directly countering the worst aspects of the echo chambers and filter bubbles.

More broadly, what we need to counter the filter bubble are ways to engineer serendipity into our information filters -- we need methods for exposing us to the things we don't realize we should know, and don't know how to set filters for.  Identifying surprising validators is just one aspect of this, but this might be one of the easiest to engineer (since it builds directly on the relationship of what we know and who we know, a relationship that is increasingly accessible to technology), and one of the most urgently needed.

Of course the reason that engineering serendipity is hard is because it is something of an oxymoron--how can we define a filter for the accident of desirable surprise?  But with surprising validators we have a model that may be extended more broadly--focused not on disputes, but on crossing other kinds of boundaries--based on who else has made a similar crossing--still in terms of what we know and who we know, and other predictors of what is likely to resonate as desirable surprise. Perhaps we might think of these as "surprising combinators."

[Update 10/21/19:] Serendipity and flow. Some specific hints on how to engineer serendipity can be drawn from a recent article, "Why Aren't We Curious about the Things We Want to Be Curious About?"  This reinforces my suggestion (in the paragraph just above) that it be "in terms of what we know and who we know" adding the insight that "We’re maximally curious when we sense that the environment offers new information in the right proportion to complement what we already know" and suggesting that it has to do with finding "the just-right match to your current knowledge that will maintain your curiosity." This seems to be another case of seeking a "flow state," the energized and enjoyable happy medium between not so challenging or alien as to be too frustrating, yet not so easy and familiar as to be boring. I suggest that smart filtering technology will help us find flow, and do it in ways that adapt in real time to our moods and our ongoing development.

This offers a way to more intelligently shape the "wisdom of crowds," a process that could become a powerful force for moderation, balance, and mutual understanding. We need not just to make our "filter bubbles" more permeable, but much like a living cell, we need to engineer a semi-permeable membrane that is very smart about what it does or does not filter.

Applying this kind of strategy to conventional discourse would be complex and difficult to do without pervasive computer support, but within our electronic filters (topical news filters and recommenders, social network services, etc.) this is just another level of algorithm. Just as Google took old academic ideas about hubs and authority, and applied these seemingly subtle and insignificant signals to make search engines significantly more relevant, new kinds of filter services can use the subtle signals of surprising validators (and surprising combinators) to make our filters more wisely permeable.

That may be society's most urgent need in information and media services.  Only when we can bring a new level of collaboration, a more intelligently shaped wisdom of crowds, will we benefit from the full potential of the Internet.  We need our technology to be more a part of the solution, and less a part of the problem.  If we can't learn to understand one another better, and reverse the current slide into extremism, nothing else will matter very much.

[Update:]  Note that the kind of filtering suggested here would ideally be personalized to each individual user, fully reflecting the "everything is deeply interwingled" and non-binary nuance of their overlapping Venn diagram of values, beliefs, tastes, communities of interest, and domains of expertise. However, in use-cases where that level of individual data analysis is impractical or impermissible, it could be done at a less granular level, based on simple categories, personas, or the like. For example, a news service that lacks detailed user data might categorize readers based on just a current session to identify who might be a surprising validator, or what might be serendipitous.

[Update 12/7/20:] Biden wins in 2020 with Surprising Validators!

A compelling report by Kevin Roose in the NY Times shows how Surprising Validators enabled Biden's "Rebel Alliance" to cut a hole in Trump's "Death Star" -- "…the sources that were most surprising were the one who had the most impact." "Perhaps the campaign's most unlikely validator was Fox News." This was by the campaign, external to the platforms' algorithms, but think how much more powerful this could be when fully integrated.

---
See the Selected Items tab for more on this theme.

[See also my earlier post on this theme:
Full Frontal Reality: how to combat the growing lunatic fringe.]

-------------
*The work Sunstein apparently refers to can be found by searching for "Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization," the title of a much-cited 1979 paper. I found some very interesting research and plan to review this further, seeking methods suited to algorithmic use. One interesting current center of study is the Yale Law School Cultural Cognition Project.

(On a personal note, this is an effort I have seen as having huge benefit to society since my first exposure to early work on computer-aided conferencing and decision support systems in the early 1970's.  I continue to see this as a vital challenge to pursue, and I welcome dialog and collaboration with others who share that mission.)  

i[Carter]Phone? -- Apple and Anti-Competitive Tying

Apple is pushing the laws prohibiting anti-competitive behavior, as noted in an interesting article by James Stewart in today's NYTimes, with reference to Maps and the iTunes Store.  It considers how Apple's efforts at total control of their ecosystem may be both harmful and illegal--at some point, if not yet.

For some time I have had similar concerns, and have been wondering how long until we see an "iCarterPhone Decision."  What do I mean by that?  Followers of communications history will remember the Carterfone Decision (1968) as a landmark step toward the breakup of the Bell System monopoly. Until then it was illegal to attach a phone not approved by AT&T to the US telephone network.  This was based on the AT&T argument that attaching any device not fully tested and approved by them to the network might introduce voltages or other electrical effects that would run through the wires and harm their central office equipment, potentially causing widespread harm.  The only permissible way to add a specialized device like the one sold by Carterfone was to use a Rube Goldberg-like acoustic coupler, with rubber cups that relayed sound in or out of a standard Bell telephone handset ear and mouthpiece  with no direct electrical connection (and with issues of signal quality).  Some of you remember early modems that connected to computers that way. The Carterfone Decision changed all that, and opened the way for the vibrant market in phones, answering machines, faxes, modems, etc. that we now take for granted.

The iPhone/iTunes ecology smacks of much the same kind of anticompetitive control, with restrictions that limit consumer rights, raise consumer costs, and limit competitive innovation.  The Times addresses the current flap over Apple's inferior maps app, as well as Department of Justice price fixing charges against Apple relating to e-books sold through the iTunes Store.  Similar issues apply to control of apps in general that Apple does not like for one reason or another --such as has been the case with Skype, Google, Flash, and many others.  Contrast this with Microsoft PCs that allow you to run any software from any source, with no involvement of Microsoft whatsoever.  Of course we are free of migrate to the Android ecosystem to get greater openness, and many have chosen to do just that.

As the Times article notes, Apple is not dominant the way Microsoft was (or AT&T), and thus its tying sales in the App Store may not reach a level actionable under antitrust laws. (Its alleged price fixing is another story.) But at an ecosystem level, given its disproportionate number of apps, it does already have a level of dominance that might warrant correction.

Other areas in which Apple is riding roughshod on the market (and consumers) relate to other kinds of proprietary behavior.  Apple champions open standards like HTML5 over proprietary standards like Flash when the proprietary standards belong to the competitor, and it suits their interests to smash them , but insists on proprietary standards of its own, such as for its iPhone connectors and its AirPlay protocol, for which it charges exorbitant prices (adapter retail $29?) or licensing fees (AirPlay speakers retail price bump $100?).

It will be very interesting to see how this develops -- whether the market rebels or the government finds cause to draw a line, or they just fail to maintain their edge.  From the market perspective, Apple is walking a very fine line, balancing the positive perception of product quality against the negative perception of arrogance and rapaciousness. Jobs was able to ride that balance for a very profitable run, but the maps fiasco, and the increasing success of Android (and maybe Microsoft, or someone yet to appear) suggests that this is a precarious and anti-consumer position, and that Apple's days of dictating to consumers and its ecosystem partners may be numbered.

A New Age in Patent Liquidity -- NYC 2/15 -- MIT Enterprise Forum Panel Session

This is a panel that should be very relevant to all entrepreneurs who have an interest in getting and monetizing patents, as well as those who work with them. "A New Age in Patent Liquidity: New Opportunities for Entrepreneurs," is presented by MIT Enterprise Forum of NYC.

I will be on the panel to present the perspective of an entrepreneur/inventor who has successfully navigated the Kafkaesque world of patents, which can be rewarding, but also hugely frustrating, costly, and risky.  I described some of the twists and turns of my adventures in a 2008 blog post "'The Six Phases of a Technology Flop' ...Patents, and Plan B." The theme was how I started seeking to build a software/services business, but also sought patents as a hedge to protect my investment -- a "Plan B." When the business failed to keep up with better-connected competitors with deeper pockets, I turned to the patents to try to capture value for my innovations.  Working with partners who brought the expertise and funding needed to do that, and eventually to undertake a patent suit, I went part way through infringement cases against Microsoft and Apple.  Some additional background on that is in last year's post that tells how Intellectual Ventures changed the game with a very creative, win-win deal.

I also expect to touch on my 2008 sale of another portfolio of patents to another very innovative company, RPX, as well as my ongoing work developing other patents.  I am pleased that Kevin Barhydt, VP, Head of Acquisitions for RPX (and formerly at IV) will also be on the panel.

From my perspective, IV, RPX, and others are making a real difference is offering inventors and other patent owners a way to monetize their IP for reasonable compensation -- in a market that is rational, and has a middle ground between "take a hike" and the nuclear option of litigation, with its huge costs in money, time, and disruption.

It is a pleasure to be a panelist and organizer for this event, especially given that I was the moderator and an organizer of MITEF's well-received 2000 panel session  "Patents for Dot-coms," which had an equally distinguished panel.

Coactive TV -- The World of TV is getting there, and more is yet to come...

The kind of advanced "coactive" TV that I been promoting since 2002 is finally reaching the mainstream, but there is still much more to come.

As noted in a new page on the CoTV Web site, "Coactive TV: User-centered Convergence Today and Tomorrow:" 

The increasing prevalence of "media multitasking" (simultaneous use of TV and the Web) on laptops and smartphones began to change perceptions, and 2-screen ITV began to be seen as desirable in itself. Users were creating their own manual ITV experiences by finding relevant Web services on their own.  That set the stage for the emergence of CoTV 1.0, which was then kick-started by the iPad.  One indication of CoTV crossing the chasm into mainstream attention was the survey by Katherine Boehret of the influential Mossberg/Wall Street Journal/All Things D team on 12/20/11.

Another indication this is getting real was the number of announcements at CES. As reported by Bill Niemeyer in the 1/13 OTT Monitor from The Diffusion Group:

One key takeaway from CES that has floated above the noise pertains to Automated Content Recognition (ACR) for TV and video platforms. CES saw announcements from a number of ACR vendors including Audible Magic, Civolution, Gracenote, and Zeitera.

What is ACR? It's a variety of technologies that allow a device or service to recognize automatically a specific piece of content and synchronize to it within seconds. ACR can be based on audio/video watermarking or fingerprinting (i.e., cloud-based pattern matching used by mobile music app services like Shazam). Let your cell phone hear a brief bit of a song and Shazam will tell you what it is and even provide synchronized lyrics.

How can ACR be used in OTT [Over The Top]? It can synchronize interactive experiences for programs - whether viewed live or time-shifted - as well as advertising or e-commerce apps. Distinct from watermarking, which requires insertion in the content, fingerprinting can be done completely outside the realm of content providers, networks, and PayTV operators. That said, developing third-party synced apps without infringing on copyrights could be tricky.

With ACR, literally "the possibilities are endless" (to use a trite phrase). It's a powerful tool that needs to be put in the hands of creatives to realize fully its artistic potential, as well as clever business-side types to see how much "extended revenue" it can create.

But this is just the start. To look further into the future of advanced TV and video-based hypermedia, check out the section on "CoTV Tomorrow -- CoTV 2.0" on that new CoTV page.  A partial list of advanced features:

• Selectable, Alternative "Enhancement Channels" 
• Screen targeting
• Flexible session-shifting
• Link-and-pause (and sync bookmarks)
• Full hypermedia browsing  
• TV Context parameter/API
• Full Coactive Internet commerce and advertising
• Third-party linking rights/fees

The Necessity of Steve Jobs: ...Inventor? ...or Necessitor?

The recent comparisons of Steve Jobs to Edison and Ford brought me back to an important point: Invention is the mother of necessity. We don't realize we need something until an "inventor" shows us what it can be, and what it can do for us.

Which came first? Is necessity the mother of invention? (as the saying goes) ...or is invention the mother of necessity? Is inventing unrecognized necessities the real heart of inventing? As Jobs famously said: "It’s not the consumers’ job to know what they want.”

Jobs was more important as a necessitor, than as an inventor.  It struck me that the point some have raised -- that Jobs did not invent the technologies he popularized -- has some validity, but fails to balance the picture with this important point.  It is true that the mouse, the "drag-and-drop" graphical user interface, hypertext, music downloads, MP3 players,smartphones, tablets, touchscreens, computer animation, and many more key "inventions" applied by Jobs were not invented by him.  It seems widely recognized that Jobs' key contribution was that he saw how such things could be put to use in new configurations, and to serve needs that others did not see or saw less clearly (and also that he had the drive and resources to realize his visions...)

This resonated with me, because I have often felt that my own history as an inventor has a similar focus (even if hardly on the scale of Jobs').  The contribution is not so much in solving a recognized technical problem, but in seeing what technical problems should be solved, and why, and what else that would mean.  (That is why the theme of this blog is "user-centered media" -- that is pretty much the theme of much of my work.)

In a sense, this relates to innovation at the level of "systems thinking."  The necessitor does not just solve a problem, but creates a whole new system, within the larger system of people, technology, economics, and culture.  Jobs saw that what was missing in the music business was a new model for aggregated, simplified sales of music, and integration of an e-commerce system (the iTunes store) with a user agent (iTunes) and a device (iPod).  Once people saw that, they needed it.  No one created the wholistic vision that enabled that necessity to be recognized and acted on until Jobs did.

Similarly, some argue that Edison's real impact was not the light bulb, but the electric distribution system and related infrastructure that he recognized as needed to make the light bulb broadly useful.  It is perhaps more apparent that Ford was not so much an inventor of cars and mass production, but a necessitor, who realized that we needed simple black cars, and lots of them.  Often such cases are not simple inventions, but whole systems of invention.  One necessity/invention leads to other necessities/inventions, to whole ecologies of inventions.

So which came first? the necessity or the invention?  I suggest, as in most things, the answer is a non-dualistic "yes, both."  It is hard to separate the two.  Our patent system seems to think of inventions as the thing that matters.  The constitution defines patents to be for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof."  This has always seemed to me a limited view of what inventors do.

I suggest an equal form of "invention" is what Robert Kennedy spoke of:  "I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"  Once we take that step, we may need to invent some technology, but often what we need to do is take the vision, understand all that it entails, and assemble a whole system from technologies that may have previously existed, but not been combined and adapted in the right way.  This kind of systems thinking, is on a much different level than the more commonly recognized engineering tasks of solving the technical problems to meet a previously recognized need.

...This also has led me to questions about the place for such contributions in the patent system.  It seems to me that such contributions may be equally deserving of some kind of patent protection, to reward the creative thinking that advances our "useful arts" and our civilization in general.  Just as with more narrow senses of technical invention, this takes not just inspiration, but perspiration (to paraphrase Edison).  But just how this kind of invention of necessity fits (or could be fit) with our current patent system seems a bit unclear.

------

[Should anyone know of any good thinking by others on this theme, I would welcome references.]

Social TV -- The "Killer App" for Coactive TV -- Ready for Ubiquity

Social TV promises to be the killer app for coactive TV (CoTV).  (A "killer application" is an application that is so desirable to users that it drives the adoption of a larger technology.  The concept emerged when spreadsheets and word processors drove the adoption of PCs, which have obviously broadened to far wider importance.)

There are a number of signs that Social TV is emerging as such a killer app (some mentioned in previous posts).

• IntoNow launched in January 2011 and was quickly acquired by Yahoo on 4/25/11, and Spot411 re-launched 7/18/11 as TVplus.  Both have gotten prominent press and both do fully automatic syncing to any program, without need for any involvement by the TV distributor. 
• The Wikipedia article on Social Television was created in 5/07 with 3,244 bytes, grew to 5,528 by the end of 2009, then grew to 10,469 by the end of 2010, and to 16,851 by 8/23/11.  It now includes a list of 32 such systems (not all of which involve two-screens).
• One of the most popular FIOS TV apps was the Twitter app.

Being a killer app does not mean it will ultimately dominate the use of the platform, but only that it drives early adoption.  I suggest there are other killer apps for coactive TV as well, and that the long term value will span a wide range of apps.

• From a user viewpoint, EPGs (electronic program guides) are another important killer app, not least because it is one the MSOs (multi-system operators, TV distributors) are embracing along with users.  EPGs showcase the value of the companion device to allow interaction with a nice UI, and without interfering with current viewing.   The irresistible power of the iPad UI and relatively open ecosystem has finally convinced the MSOs that they must go outside the box (at least as to the set-top box and the TV screen).  Comcast and Time Warner Cable have moved quickly to offer tablet-based EPGs and DVR programming.  The coactive EPG will evolve into the full "Media Concierge" service that I have been blogging about since 2005). 
• The real money to drive all of this is in advertising.  Obviously this will drive the service providers and advertisers, but I submit that users too will recognize and increasingly demand the value of well targeted ads that exploit the flexibility of coactive UIs to be unobtrusive.  Well targeted ads can be a valuable service, as long as they are no more intrusive than the viewer wants them to be (which may vary from time to time, and from ad to ad).  Coactive ads--driving from a short spot to a companion microsite (whether linked to live, or deferred using a bookmarking feature)--can be far less intrusive and far more useful than a longer TV ad with no coactive companion element. A good UI can give the user control over when and how such ads appear.

All of these promising killer apps have synergy with one another.  Coactive TV is at heart hypermedia, and thus "everything is deeply intertwingled." (Quoting Ted Nelson, who also coined the terms hypertext and hypermedia.)

• Social TV apps can work both as program enhancements and to provide program guide/media concierge services.  
• Social TV can also be about ads, such as during the Superbowl, or when any ad of interest to my social circle appears.
• All of these will drive usage of enhancement content (such as IMDB pages), which will create further synergies.

But there is one more thing that is essential, and that is ubiquity. While full, ubiquitous coactivity is not central to all Social TV, I suggest it is essential to enabling it to reach scale.

• Synchronizing Web browsing to TV can be done manually, and has for decades.  Viewers have created their own Social TV ever since the first two people sat with a laptop in front of a TV, and ever since the first online chat about a TV program.  It can also be automated with program specific apps.  ABC did it a decade ago with Enhanced TV for the Oscars and other shows, and now on the iPad for Grey's Anatomy, but program and network apps cannot create massive synergy.
• What is essentially to enabling Social TV (and most other CoTV apps) to cross the chasm is ubiquity.  Siloing companion apps to a separate app for each network or program or advertiser is hugely self-defeating.  How many users will load more than a few apps, and how many will bother to open those apps more than once?  Just as the Web eliminated the need for separate apps for every content service, a ubiquitous CoTV service will require only a single context-linking app to reach services for every program, to every Web service. There will be all kinds of mashups driven by that context, but an effective context-linking service must be essentially universal.

A truly ubiquitous coactive TV service will be always on, and always aware of a viewer's TV context (except when disabled).  Such a ubiquitous service can activate any Web service and any application, in a rich ecology much like that on the Web.  That way a user can just set up the coactive companion context service just once, and get synchronized for any program or ad, to any social networking service, content service, or whatever -- whether directly, or via mashups.  (Just how such services can be structured to enable flexibility and user control was described in my published patent disclosures, and will be a subject of  future posts.)

It now appears that Social TV is the next big thing in TV, and will drive full coactivity -- but a whole lot of other functions will ride its coattails.