Rogers OnDemand Online Vs. Netflix

A week after the condo I’m renting suffered from a bathroom flood fiasco, I sat down last night to watch some TV at home. Now, my whole unit is a mess, and furniture has been moved around so I couldn’t really use my TV, instead I decided to use Rogers on Demand Online (RODO). However, I am also a Netflix customer, but for some reason I chose to try RODO.

Rogers On Demand Online

I first signed up to RODO when it was in beta and was invited to sign up for it via Twitter, back then I actually liked it, the streaming was decent and I was actually impressed. That was the last time I used it until last night. Of course I forgot my password, and I needed to reset it. Strangely the guys at RODO decided that I need to answer my hint question first before they e-mail the address I signed up with the reset instructions. So off I go to the Rogers tech support page, which now seems to have a “24/7″ online support chat. Yeah right. I downloaded the software they wanted, and waited for someone to “be right with me” for  quite some time – probably 10-15 minutes – before I gave up. 
Next, I call the Rogers support team and tell them the problem, they reset my password and ask me to try again. However RODO still shows my profile has been locked and I need to reset the password. The support service lady resets it again, and I still can’t get in. Then *drum roll* … dropped call.
I’m getting a little agitated right now, but I still can’t log in. Then I get an e-mail to my phone saying my Rogers’ portal password was reset. Great, so she ended up resetting the password to the billing portal. Isn’t it bad enough that we have all these different passwords to remember, now we need to remember different passwords for the same company?
So I call them again; this time the wait time is “greater than 5 minutes”. What does that mean? am I going to celebrate my 28th birthday before someone helps me?. 20 minutes later someone gets to me, and they reset the password for the right service. Awesome, now lets watch a movie. 
I log in to RODO, everything seems okay, so I start browsing the shows and movies. I don’t know what the logic was for some of these movies and shows, but it almost like different channels have different presentation. The stuff that I would normally watch via Rogers on Demand on my TV looks great on the site, and I see a picture and some description and ratings. However, when I look at the stuff on TMN or another channel, it looks different. Its garbage.
Anyway, lets get on with it, so I pick a movie and then to my horror the quality was crap – even pixellated – and it was lagging as well. Great, all this for nothing. Ok, let me try a show, maybe it was just the movie. I wanted to catch up on Modern Family, so started that. No. Same shit.
Okay, I’m out of here. I leave a comment regarding their service and that I’m going to Netflix. (I’ll leave the rant about the TV version of ROD for another post, but for now think about this: how come they still can’t figure out how to display the full movie name? Is it really rocket science? If someone knows, please tell me, seriously, please.


So, after my unsatisfactory experience with RODO, I go do what I should have done from the start. Netflix. Now, I signed up to that on my PS3, which I can’t use right now due to the mess after the flooding, so I need to reset my password because who knows what I set it to when I created the account from the PS3. Anyway, go to, and reset my password. Holy crap, I don’t need to answer my hint question, the password reset got sent to the e-mail, amazing! 45 seconds later I am logged into my Netflix account – and even fixed my billing address since I moved 2 months ago and Netflix hasn’t been able to charge my credit card. I pick a movie (and yes the selection is not as new as ROD but there are still some awesome shows, documentaries and classics there, some even delivered in HD. 
Netflix got their streaming technology nailed. Awesome quality. Great streaming. You only need to wait a minute at the start while it sets the player up, decide on the quality it will send, and buffer the movie. So why is that? Why is it that Netflix can do such a better job at the whole customer experience thing, than Rogers could?
The answer is on the Netflix Tech Blog.
Netflix is a technology firm that delivers media. Rogers is a media/communications firm, using technology to delivery media. Similar to my post about Yahoo’s Culture vs. Google’s Culture, Netflix would definitely have a higher innovation ratio than Rogers because of this difference in both companies. When technology is viewed as a cost center (as it is most likely the case at Rogers), then you end up with sub-par client facing technology such as Rogers On Demand Online, and even the Rogers portal itself. This goes to most “corporate web applications” as well.
As we get more entrenched in an online world, the big corporate world needs to let go of the perception that “technology” is a cost center and not a partner for delivering excellent and innovative customer experiences. 
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Mobile e-commerce & augmented reality?

When you think e-commerce what comes to mind? For me, I think and I remember reading somewhere that Amazon wasn’t the first online bookstore, but in fact it was – which is gone now by the way, and instead redirects to Barnes & Noble. Today, Amazon doesn’t just sell books anymore, heck I can even order 18-inch wheels from there. But, what comes next? The e-commerce market is already at a point of saturation and it comes down to a battle-of-the-brands. Do I order this book from Amazon? or Barnes & Noble? or even Walmart? Should I buy a Dell from or from

I blogged about social e-commerce at the beginning of this year, and some things are getting rolling in Collier’s predictions, but we still have more to go before all her 2010 predictions are realized; sadly it won’t be 2010; we’re close I think, but I think social e-commerce is still a few years ahead. Its hard for these data silos to get broken down to really enable me to receiving recommendations from Amazon based on my Facebook friends or even tweets. Maybe I’m wrong.

But while these silos are up, m-commerce and augmented reality can go hand in hand, and it solves one of the problems faced by online shoppers; the “I’m not sure how this will look” problem. Its not a problem that every online store has, ex. I won’t question how a PS3 will look like in my living room, nor will I question how a Mac mini will look like on my desk, so its not a problem there. It is a problem when buying something bigger, like furniture, appliances, decorations, wall paint, etc. Things that either take a lot of room, or might lead you to the dog house if your significant other does not approve take a lot of time to undo if you don’t like where you placed it.

For e-commerce a picture is not worth 1000 words for most products out there. In the crazy world between my ears, I would go to the new place I’m moving into this month, pull out my iPhone 3GS and go to and start up their augmented reality furniture browser. I can then load up all the furniture I’m moving from the old place and see how everything comes together. It will then recommend other products based on the data it’s collecting via my phone’s camera, maybe different colours? maybe furniture pads to prevent the table from scratching the hardwood? Perhaps it’ll recognize the TV and recommend a different place to reduce the glare in the morning since the windows face East?

Can it be done? I think so. The technology is already available. Where do you see mobile commerce heading in the next two years?

Posted in personalization, thinking out loud | Leave a comment

Don’t tell me your TV supports Twitter (Part 2)

In Part 1 I ranted about the Samsung commercial that I caught on TV raving about accessing Facebook and Twitter from their new TV. I questioned how TV manufacturers are repeating the marketing campaigns the telecoms did a few years ago when the iPhone came out on select telecoms. The ones that weren’t chosen such as Bell and Telus raved about their Blackberry, Palm and HTC lineups. They coined the term “social phones” or “smarter smart phone” and being able to access Facebook on their phones. Anyway, the future of mobile is in the apps, not the device nor the platform. I believe the same is true for TV.

In Part 2 I question the role of TV service providers and broadcasters in this new “smart TV” era that seems to be around the corner. The good thing that is going for these guys, is that they usually are Internet providers as well, or are at least partnered with an Internet provider. Smart TVs obviously need an Internet connection, so these guys will still be there. Their role could change a bit. As more Internet ready devices hit the market, it doesn’t make sense for them to split their business into three lines; Internet, TV, Phone. What happens when we start getting fridges with WiFi / data chips? or washing machines? or even cars? I predict they’ll just all converge into one line, connectivity and you pay for the data you use. Before we get there, we’ll probably go through a stage where a standard package will give you X devices, a “gold” package gets you Y devices, and a “VIP” package gets you Z devices. Soon after that, that too won’t cut it as it becomes the norm that devices have these connectivity chips built in.

Today, TV service providers also play the role of content providers, limiting the content you have access to, and charging an arm and a leg for the content you do get. They can do that, because you really didn’t have any other option. They all played by the same rules. Internet enabled TVs will change these rules, and the fast movers will gain the upper hand.

So here are somethings that I think will change:

Channels vs. Apps
Channels will be gone. I remember one TV when I was a kid. It was a Sanyo. We had 11 channels, they were all radio frequencies the TV was able to pick up. Now, most are on digital boxes with really unlimited channels. Tomorrow, channels will no longer exist. If you want to watch CNN, or surf their site, you would install the CNN app on your TV. Maybe you can configure a CNN feed on your TV’s “home” screen. Apps will slowly dominate TVs, and just like no two Androids or iPhones are really the same, no two TVs will be either.

On Demand Features
These costly and limited packages will soon become obsolete when I can watch stuff straight from Youtube, or Netflix on my TV without using my PS3 or stream it from my computer. Everything becomes on demand when I can install Apps on my TV.

Channel Guide
No channels, means no guide. That too will go, and all the ad revenue that guide channel produces for the service provider will be gone too. Oh oh. This is bad news for TV providers. The ads will come with the platform, the platform owner and the app developers will rake in the profits.

Local TV & papers
It will become so much easier for anybody to reach a TV audience, just like an app, blog or podcast. Take these local blogs for example: The Lesliville’r or BlogTO. Even podcasts like Leo Laporte’s TWiT. These guys can easily broadcast their content on your TV, all they’d need is to build an app for it.

An App market place or store
The channel guide, basically evolves into an app store, however its owned by the platform now, not the service provider. People are already used to this concept, want something? find an app for it, or make one.

TV Shows
Today I can already subscribe to seasons of shows I want to watch online. This will just arrive to my TV as well. As soon as the provider publishes that season, it will be ready to watch on my TV, just like a podcast on iTunes.

Service providers will return to their core business; provide the connection service. Their days of controlling your content are coming to an end. Their arrangements with international broadcasting companies such as Fox, CNN, BBC will become in jeopardy as I’ll be able to subscribe directly to the content I want, when I want it.  If I just want The Movie Network, and The Discovery Channel, thats what I’ll pay for.

Maybe in that day and age, someone for pure nostalgic reasons will have an app for the 9PM news. Odds are, that person will have the Fast Mover Advantage.

Posted in personalization, thinking out loud | Leave a comment

Fast Mover Advantage?

I just finished reading the book “The Accidental Billionaires” by Ben Mezrich. The book provides great stories into the lives of the “founding fathers” of probably the most successful website on the Internet today – Facebook – although it wasn’t a first mover. What amazed me the most about the book is how fast everything was happening.

Maybe once upon a time “First Mover Advantage” was important, that time I believe is long gone. Maybe it was important when building and shipping any product or service was extremely costly and time consuming. It was probably an important idea or theory for the Space Race in the 60s and 70s. I don’t think it is all that important today.

Image from

I think people should think more about the “Fast Mover Advantage” (I’m surprised there is no Wikipedia page on this today). The fast mover is able to counter all the hypothetical advantages associated with the first mover. Here is why:

First Mover gets to write the rules
True. They get to set the standards. At the beginning, these are the rules everybody gets to play with. However in a highly connected and digital world, the first mover needs to be fast. The market changes, and if the first mover isn’t fast to realize that, the rules sadly only start to apply to the first mover; crippling them.

First Mover dominates distribution and scarce resources
Yes, if by distribution you mean trucks, trains and ships. This doesn’t apply to the Internet. Its not scarce. Its open, its free, its a jungle, and there is no scarcity of customers. You can’t conquer it, you can’t beat it, you can only hope to own a niche in it; if you are fast enough. Online, your “distribution network” comes down to hitting that “publish” button to release your app, site, post, or tweet into the wild.

First Mover gets a head start on brand awareness
Yes, if you are building your brand on print, TV and radio. Building an online brand is a completely different beast. The Old Spice guy online commercials fed by questions on social networks like Twitter earlier this summer shows us that there is such a thing as “Fast Mover Advantage”. For the first time in advertisement history, personalized ads were pumped out and broadcasted on Youtube over the course of a few weeks. It hasn’t been done before and it wouldn’t have been possible to do it if the agency wasn’t allowed to be fast.

First Mover doesn’t have to worry about switching costs and buyer loyalties
This is still a valid reason. Did Facebook have to invest tons of money to steal people from MySpace? Did Google from AltaVista? Did iPhone from Nokia? Switching costs still exist online and you would be dreaming to think you can steal users from Facebook. You can however, find a niche that compliments Facebook or targets a different audience all together. I think both the First Mover and the Fast Mover can have this advantage, even if the Fast Mover is late to the market. In Facebook’s story, this didn’t matter all that much. People joined the social network that their own friends were already on. Another example is They weren’t the first mover, unknowingly to many the first mover was today redirects to Barnes & Noble.

Stop worrying about being first, the benefits are hypothetical, and a lot of “firsts” are now out of business. Its the fast ones that are more fit to survive, and odds are you’ll also eventually be first if you focus on being a fast mover.

Update August 29: Just found this this post on FastCompany He Who Moves First Finishes Last. This surprised me even more – its 10 years old. Why is “First Mover Advantage” still mentioned today?

Posted in Books and Movies, online marketing, thinking out loud | Leave a comment

Don’t tell me your TV supports Twitter

Last night I caught a Best Buy ad on AMC about Samsung’s smart/social/internet TV.  It reminded me of the Telus/Rogers/Bell BlackBerry ads a couple of years ago marketing Twitter and Facebook as features of their smartphones. They’re still doing it with terms like “social phone” or “smarter smart phone” which I don’t really understand.  I was still really excited about this ad, especially because it got the gears in the crazy place between my ears turning again…

Samsung seems confused about what to do with Google entering a market in which Samsung is one of the largest players. Add to that, Apple’s arrival later this year with iTV. The same two companies that pretty much destroyed Samsung’s chances in the phone industry. Samsung has its own OS for its phones, which also powers their smart tv – Bada. This is a bad idea:

  • PopularityRecent market results show iOS and Android capturing about 80% of the mobile web consumption. (Not including iPad). Since these numbers were gathered in June, the iPad has probably gained some more ground for iOS. Let’s keep it at 80%. Samsung Bada’s share is a fraction of that 10% for “Other”, with probably an equal if not greater chunk of that “Other” going to SymbianOS.
  • Apps. As of today, Bada’s App hotdog stand Market has < 1000 applications. Yes I know, its not about quantity, but if the quality of apps suck, then you need quantity. Its okay that the iTunes App Store has a load of “fart” apps, thousands of other useless crap, but the quality is clearly visible. Its obvious that soon enough remote controls will become optional, and the expectation will be that you control your TV from your mobile device. iPhone? iPad? iPod Touch? Android? Whichever. Why would you buy a Samsung then? I wouldn’t want to manage a different set of Apps through a different market place than the one I am using now.
  • Ad support. Apple has iAds, Google has AdWords. What does Samsung have? Nada. Developers flock to the platforms with greatest potential for revenue. Clearly that is iOS and Android, not Bada.
Regardless of the above, Samsung is stuck. Either risk promoting their own platform against the other better established ones in hopes of gaining entrance into the lucrative app market place and the ad market at the same time. Or bet on iOS or Android. I think the second option seems the most reasonable. Clearly software is not Samsung’s strength, they’re the lead or at least one of the leads manufacturers of TVs. They should keep focusing their innovations there. Many have already failed at setting up a rivaling app store to iTunes.

Google’s TV push poses dilemma for Samsung

Yoon Boo-keun, president of Samsung’s TV division, reaffirmed this month that the company was looking at the business feasibility of Google TVs, but he said that he was not fully optimistic about its prospects.

“Android is for mobile and searches,” he told reporters on May 14, adding that the company was examining whether the platform suits televisions, which are viewed by many people, such as family members, not by a single person.

By supporting either iOS or Android, your TV’s input device becomes personalized for the user, and hence so does the TV. The TV can tell which user is accessing the TV and present different views, favorites, apps, schedules, etc. Another use is for parental control. Unlike my childhood, a lot of kids today have smart phones. Parents can set schedules for when TV can be watched by their children, the TV will know because the smart phone identifies the user. Maybe I could even get a log of how much TV was watched? maybe setup “TV hour credits”? the list is endless.

What is important is that these features ought to be left to the developer community to create. The TV manufacturer would support some iOS or Android interface and let the developers go nuts. The iTunes App Store is proof of how creative people can get to fill a demand, even if it is a niche. Don’t tell me your TV supports Twitter or Facebook, tell me its on iOS or Android.

I wanted to write about how this affects broadcasters, and TV stations, but I’ll leave that for part 2. The “smart tv” will change the rules of the game for them if they don’t jump on board. (Update: Jump to part 2)

Where does BlackBerry fit in this picture? it doesn’t unless they go Android.

Posted in personalization, thinking out loud | Leave a comment

Yahoo’s culture vs. Google’s culture

Two interesting articles I have read in the past week had to do with Yahoo’s “hacker-centric” culture – or lack of. Two different views, one from Paul Graham’s “What happened to Yahoo” post and the second from Ryan Grove’s “What’s happening at Yahoo!”. Both were excellent reads and provide an interesting look into Yahoo’s culture.

These articles got me interested in comparing both Yahoo! and Google, and see which is more a technology/software firm. I started out with the leadership team of both companies and counted how many engineers, scientists and mathematicians are in both. I could be wrong, but I’m considering a “hacker-centric” culture is composed of a high number of engineers, scientists and mathematicians. So I’ll refer to these as “techies”.

The results were pretty amazing. The higher that number is, the more “hacker-centric” that company is. Feel free to comment about this, if I’m being biased or overlooked something. One thing I did, but not on purpose was I double counted some members if they were in both the board of directors and VP lists, so the ratios are a little skewed, but still the difference is huge.

First insight was the very different leadership structure in both companies. The boards of directors for both are rather similar, nine members in Google’s, ten in Yahoo!’s, roughly the same number of “techies”; four in Google’s vs three in Yahoo. Nothing surprising here.

On to the operating leadership and executives at both. Google is at an outstanding 70 executive positions in their leadership; 42 of which are engineers, scientists, or mathematicians. That is just huge. Yahoo! on the other hand has 15 members in the management team, seven of which are engineers, scientists, or mathematicians. So, Google has a much larger number of “techies” in their leadership than Yahoo!.

I also looked at how the leadership is structured at both. Google has 25 executives in Engineering and Products, 23 of which are “techies”. Yahoo! isn’t structured in this manner, they in fact have one EVP for Engineering, one for Products and one for Research; two of which are “techies”.

Seven out of the 15 members of Yahoo! management team are in business oriented roles such as Sales and Marketing. They’re organized by regions, and operations like, finance, marketing and customer relationship.

Of course Google also has business oriented VPs, also organized by region/operations. They have 17 of them. However, even within these ranks you can see a few “techies”. Out of Yahoo’s business oriented leadership, they had 3 techies; the EVP of Customer Advocacy and EVP of Human Resources and the CEO. I’m not sure about Carol, her past seems full of roles in technical/engineering companies and foundations, so I considered her a techie.

Anyway, Google’s much higher number of techies in their leadership compared to Yahoo!’s drives me to side more with Paul Graham on this.  If you look at Google’s Engineering leadership, you’ll see where their products fall under like Maps, Search, Mobile, AdWords, Android and even the infrastructure and plumbing that power these products. There are about 4 or 5 VPs that have a role in leading Google’s infrastructure division.

Not to say that developers and techies at Yahoo won’t make it to the top of the food chain, but the odds are much lower since it is clear that Yahoo is not as technological oriented as Google. There are great teams and products at Yahoo, such as YUI, and Yahoo! Pipes, but where do these products fall under? I’d bet its under the Research domain, and engineers and developers in that department must feel like Yahoo! is a technology company, but I don’t think it is.

So what is Yahoo? Paul Graham sheds some light on this:

One of the weirdest things about Yahoo when I went to work there was the way they insisted on calling themselves a “media company.” If you walked around their offices, it seemed like a software company. The cubicles were full of programmers writing code, product managers thinking about feature lists and ship dates, support people (yes, there were actually support people) telling users to restart their browsers, and so on, just like a software company. So why did they call themselves a media company?
One reason was the way they made money: by selling ads. In 1995 it was hard to imagine a technology company making money that way. Technology companies made money by selling their software to users. Media companies sold ads. So they must be a media company.

Agreed. Yahoo is an Internet media/content company. Of course they need developers, but not every place developers work are technology firms of course. Still a lot of great things came from Yahoo! I used YUI for years before switching to Dojo. Steve Souders is a god, and his book on “High Performance Websites” is the bible for building high performance web applications. Too bad for Yahoo! Steve is now at Google.

So what do you think? Do you work at either?

Here are my notes on the leadership numbers:

Board of directors: 9, 4 techies.
Operating committee: 16, 9 techies
Executives: 54.
Engineering: 17, 17 techies.
Products: 8, 6 techies
Sales: 17, 5 techies,
Legal: 5 1 techie,
Bus Op: 1 1 techie,
Finance: 4, 1 techie,
People Operations: 1, 1 techie, 1, 1 techie,

Total “techies” in “leadership”, 46/79 = 58% 
Total “techies” in Executives =  60%

Board of Directors: 10. Engineers/Sci 3
Management team: 15, 7

Total techies in “leadership” 10/25 = 40%

Posted in thinking out loud | Leave a comment

Daily Digest

Last night I came across this sweet web app called that generates a newspaper of your Twitter feed daily. It comes with a pretty basic embed that displays a table of contents for your own personalized news paper that you can embed on your blog or website. The people I follow are mainly from the tech community in North America and the Toronto Twitter community. You’ll find posts from the usual suspects like GigaOM, TechCrunch, Mashable, and Seth Godin. Also some local people like Alex Blom, Scott Stratten, Breanna Hughes and Joallore have appeared in my daily digest today. Anyway, if you are interested in seeing what the Twitter community I’m following is publishing on Twitter, feel free to bookmark this page.

Posted in personalization, social media, web apps, websites | Leave a comment

Matt Ridley: When ideas have sex

Just came across this fascinating video on TED. Needless to say that when technological ideas have sex we can end up with the Twitters, Facebooks, iPads, iPods, iPhones, etc. etc. Enjoy.

At TEDGlobal 2010, author Matt Ridley shows how, throughout history, the engine of human progress has been the meeting and mating of ideas to make new ideas. It’s not important how clever individuals are, he says; what really matters is how smart the collective brain is.

Posted in TED videos | Leave a comment

Stay on your toes, think proactively

I was coming back home today and while in the elevator the lady that just got on forgot to press her floor’s button. She realized a little too late as we passed the 15th floor; her floor. She then press 17, but that too was too late, then she pressed 18, and again that was too late. She gave up and got off the 20th floor with someone else. At that point I was thinking, if she pressed 17 and 18 at the same time, she probably would have gotten off at the 18th floor. Anyway, no harm done when you miss your floor, I just thought its an interesting intro to this post.

When things don’t go to plan, most start to think reactively, how do I get back on plan? We panic and try all sort of different things to reduce the damage – with little consideration to the consequences of our remediation. Ex. You are driving on the highway and tailgating the person in front. Breaks go on, and now you are forced to slam on the breaks to avoid a collision. Thinking proactively would mean you wouldn’t have been tailgating the person ahead, it would mean you were aware of what is happening around you. Isn’t that what you get taught at driving school? Defensive driving is proactive thinking.

Even when things go to plan, you can begin to think reactively. Task 1 is done, on to task 2, then task 3, and so on. Following your plan blindly is also reactive thinking. I also think the longer your actions have been in line with your plan, the worse the consequences of your reactions will be when things eventually don’t go to plan.

So, shit happens and you can’t do anything about it, but good leaders shine when shit hits the fan. Good leaders are proactive thinkers. People who think reactively, are good at following, they’re bad at leading; and that is okay. Not everybody can lead, and not every leader can lead all the time. I’ve been in positions where I followed great leadership; proactive leadership. I have also been in ones with reactive leadership. Its very different, but both offer lessons to learn. Good leaders know when to step out of your way and let you run with it. Because reactive leaders are bad leaders, and they’re good at following, they expect others to blindly follow them – blindly following someone isn’t proactive thinking.

Proactive thinkers are Linchpins.

Posted in thinking out loud | Leave a comment

@flipboard – my personal magazine

I haven’t tried this yet, and I don’t have an iPad still, however this video is just screaming at me to go buy an iPad just for this app. It’s kind of like how Shazam and UrbanSpoon apps in the iPhone ads were the “kick over fence” for me.

I’m not all that interested about using it for Facebook, the use case that appeals to me the most is its Twitter integration. Twitter is a brilliant way to keep up on news in any field, on any topic, any event.

I’m not that interested in reading any individual’s Twitter feed on the Flipboard. What I’m interested in is something like NewsMap however personalized like Flipboard. For this to work the way I think I’ll find it useful, it needs to support Twitter lists, more than off my feed. Following 350 people is not easy, it stopped being easy at 25, and this is where TweetAgora came to the rescue. TweetAgora tackles this problem from one angle, identify the noise to amplify the signal. Its a very good angle. I tried a lot of Twitter clients for the iPhone and Mac, and honestly no other app tackles it as effectively as TweetAgora.

There is another angle, the angle that Flipboard could come at it, from what I have learned from Bretton MacLean it doesn’t support that angle yet. When the characteristics of the noise are known, we can improve the signal to noise ratio, however if you don’t know these characteristics, then you could reduce the actual signal. One of the great things about Twitter is that it opened my mind to all sorts of different topics that I didn’t know I was interested in, I can miss them in my global feed, and I won’t have them in my agoras because the characteristics are still unknown to me.

So here is the meat of this post. I’m thinking some sort of crazy mashup of Twitter lists, combined with Twitter lists of members on Twitter lists I follow. Ex. If I follow list A, and user 2 is on list A and they own list B, perhaps mashing up the content in list A and list B will bring to my attention new stuff for me to read when I look at the Flipboard magazine that contains list A. After all, the magazine’s soul purpose is to show you something you didn’t know, and kill time. : )

Anyway, congratulations to Mike McCue and the Flipboard team. All the best. I can’t speak for the app itself, but the video is sick! Help me kill time more effectively.

Posted in social media | Leave a comment