Claude Ritter

Podcasts that keep me sane – Part 1, maybe

Posted by claude - 13/07/10 at 01:07:49 pm

I’ve just read Mark’s post about podcasts he loves and I figured why not do the same. My selection doesn’t really consist of things that I miss from home (as his does), but it’s rather stuff that I can consume to keep me entertained and sane at the same time. It’s really a relief for me to just tune in to one of these shows (be it video or audio) and just forget about the whole madness going on here without having to turn on the TV and watch the crap that’s on there (aka more madness). I do have to add that my viewing/listening habits will not be everyones taste since I am heavily leaning towards electronic music and sort of educational/news content when it comes to video.

All right, without further ado, here’s my selection.

Mixergy. Andrew Warner interviews entrepreneurs from around the world and digs into their stories to find out how they made it (or are going to make it). He pumps out almost one new 1 hour interview a day, which for me, is a bit too much but fair enough. It’s not like you have an obligation to watch everything. Anyway, I highly suggest to subscribe to it on iTunes.

This Week In Startups. I’ll just borrow their own description since it hits the nail on the head: “Entrepreneur Jason Calacanis and a rotating group of guest experts bring you this weekly take on the best, worst, most outrageous and interesting stories from the world of Web companies. Calacanis, a podcasting pioneer, gives you an insider’s look at what’s happening in the tech industry with his trademark blunt style and good humor. Looking to start your own company? Need strategies for improving your business or motivating your team? Just want to catch up on what’s happening in Silicon Valley and beyond? Your journey begins here.”

This Week In Venture Capital is my second show on Thisweekin.com. Basically it’s a weekly wrap up of what has been going on in the (mostly) valley VC scene. However, even if you are not in California or some other hot spot like NYC, this show has lots of good information about venture capital, how the industry works, how to raise money and more. Weekly, about an hour, worth watching.

Not much to say about Leo Laporte and his This Week in Tech (careful, iTunes link). Basically a tech talk show with not too much substance, but entertaining nevertheless.

Now on to something different in the sense that it is not a podcast per se. Khan Academy is a non-profit website that provides quality education videos, mostly hosted on YouTube. All the content is produced by Salman Khan, who runs the site. Topics range from Statistics, to History, to Finance and much much more. I have seen Salman on Mixergy and checked out his site. Since then, I have been nothing but impressed by his effort and his commitment. I am currently enjoying some of his videos on “Differential Equations”, feel free to join me

Ok, so now I’m down 5 of the things I watch (there’s way more) and we haven’t even started with music podcasts. This is taking more time than I thought so I call it a day. There will definitely be a part 2 so stay tuned.

Oh, and just quick side note. I honestly believe that internet TV, in whatever form, be it podcasts, on demand shows, independent productions or what not, will seriously kick mainstream TV’s ass. In 5 years from now, smart people will watch stuff they can learn something from on the internet (and maybe a bit Dexter etc. , while stupid people will still watch silly talk shows on whatever breakfast TV network. Ok, that’s it, sorry for the side rant.

Show me your friends, social graph visualization

Posted by claude - 04/03/08 at 05:03:02 pm

Creative visualization of data has always been something I was very interested. There are several examples on the web, which take interesting approaches to data visualization. One of the areas I am most interested in is the visualization of graphs, specifically the graphs of friends or related people (friend graph). Some developers or companies already worked on friend graph implementations but most of them just look good but aren’t really helpful. As we are currently working on a social networking website we wanted to have a look into this and see whether we could find a way to combine eye-candy with something useful.

Below, I’ve embedded a short video of our current version of the friend graph. Be aware that this is not a release version that contains debug output with test data.

Our graph currently features:
- Friends and friends of friends (FOAF)
- Connections between friends and friends of friends
- Filters (in development)
- Browsing history

(Sorry for the crappy quality)

This is the current status but we’re busy working on more features and a revamped interface (buttons etc.). We are currently focusing on the visualization of the friend graph within our network but due to Google’s Social Graph API and other initiatives there are almost endless possibilities when it comes to the visualization of friends or the complete social graph around a person.I will post updates as we progress.

Web 3.0 and Semantic Web

Posted by claude - 25/02/08 at 01:02:29 pm

Ever since Tim O’Reilly coined the term Web 2.0 people have been asking what Web 3.0 is going to be. A lot has been written about this topic and it looks like there is some sort of consensus about what Web 3.0 will be. Semantic Web.

The interesting thing with Semantic Web is, that the technology has been around quite a while. Back in 2002 Edd Dumbill published an article titled “Finding friends with XML and RDF”, which basically describes what we call the Social Graph today (see Google’s Social Graph API). This is somehow similar to the evolution of Web 2.0 with its user-generated content. Long before we even called this Web 2.0 we had bulletin board systems, dating communities, marketplaces and much more. Due to a growing online population, technological progress, falling prices and other factors, companies were able to leverage existing technologies and build new services on top/around them.

As I mentioned above, the underlying technology needed to add a semantic layer to the Internet is not really new. The two basic building blocks or core technologies are the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Xhtml Friends Network (XFN).

What’s missing?
RDF, XFN and other technologies related to the Semantic Web are difficult to understand. While there are projects such as Microformats or The Friend of a Friend (FOAF) project aiming at making things easier, we are still far away from having a mainstream Semantic Web application. In order to bring it to the masses, these technologies need to be implemented in the tools people use for their daily work. What I mean is that it must be transparent for the users so that there’s no need to bother about RDF etc. while using blog software, a social network or the web mail client.

Will there be ONE big Semantic Web company?
Due to the distributed nature of the Semantic Web I don’t think that there will be one company or service dominating this space. We will have thousands of blogs, social networking websites, discussion boards and other services participating in creating the Semantic Web. Users will get used to the fact that their information is shared between several services and that they are able to access their friends everywhere. Therefore the ability to share information between different services and websites will become a key success factor for all “social” services in the future. Semantic Web is part of the product, not the product itself.
A very interesting service, which is definitely worth watching, is Twine. From what I can see now, it looks like a social network built on top of a Semantic Web application, which also contains a friend aggregator such as Friend Feed. So far they are doing a good job in hiding the complex technology and making it understandable for consumers.

Why you should let users define your app, sometimes

Posted by claude - 18/02/08 at 02:02:14 pm

ReadWriteWeb has an interesting post titled “Why You Should Let Users Define Your App“, written by Josh Catone. First I have to say that I generally agree with that statement but I feel that some things have been mixed up in this article.

To explain my point I need to reach back a bit. Most businesses, be it online or offline, have to generate revenue in order to operate and grow. This is the case with our company. We operate a bunch of community websites and generate revenue with a mix of advertising and premium services (Freemium Business Model). Our company did not take VC money until know and is running profitable since the beginning. I said “most businesses” above because a startup could also try to get some external investment, grow as fast as possible and then look for an exit. I am not saying that’s wrong but it’s something to keep in mind when reading the post I linked above.

Josh mentioned Twitter as an example. Twitter is running with VC money and is trying to expand its userbase as fast as they can. Eventually they will become some sort of “Internet Messaging Bus”, people and applications will depend on it to a degree that they can’t live without it. And then, Twitter will be sold.

Seesmic, Loic Le Meur’s new startup, also heavily uses crowd-sourced product planning. Without knowing their strategy I would guess that they have a pretty similar approach like Twitter. Do what the users want, get as many users in as possible and then sell the company. Therefore new features don’t have to support the business directly by generating revenue but are built to attract new users.

Another example mentioned in the article is the game industry. User driven development has been practiced quite a while in the gaming industry and I think that it’s the only way to develop games that people really want to play. But, there is a big difference between services such das Twitter and games. Games are actually SOLD, for real money.

I said that I agree with the fact that you have to listen to your customer. But the approach to simply do what the user wants, won’t work in every case. The two examples from ReadWriteWeb are very different and don’t represent the majority of companies or startups out there. So, unless you have a world changing idea with first mover advantage, a profound business strategy is still the key to a successful company.

Search

Share on Facebook