TIME TO START TAKING THE INTERNET SERIOUSLY

The Internet's future is not Web 2.0 or 200.0 but the post-Web, where time instead of space is the organizing principle — instead of many stained-glass windows, instead of information laid out in space, like vegetables at a market — the Net will be many streams of information flowing through time. The Cybersphere as a whole equals every stream in the Internet blended together: the whole world telling its own story.

more :http://www.edge.org/q2010/q10_index.html

Collaborative Futures

I bought this book in the Transmediale.It is an interesting book with an interesting process.
via

This book was written over 5 days (Jan 18-22, 2010) during a Book Sprint in Berlin. 7 people (5 writers, 1 programmer and 1 facilitator) gathered to collaborate and produce a book in 5 days with no prior preparation and with the only guiding light being the title 'Collaborative Futures'.

These brave collaborators were: Mushon Zer-Aviv, Michael Mandiberg, Mike Linksvayer, Marta Peirano, Alan Toner, Aleksandar Erkalovic (programmer) and Adam Hyde (facilitator).
.......During this first day we relied heavily on traditional 'unconference' technologies – namely colored sticky notes. With reference to Unconferences we always need to tip the hat to Allen Gunn and Aspiration for their inspirational execution of this format. We took many ideas from Aspiration's Unconferences during the process of this sprint and we also brought much of what had been learned from previous Book Sprints to the table.

First, before the introductions, we each wrote as many notes as we could about what we thought this book was going to be about. The list consists of the following:

* When Collaboration Breaks.
* Collaboration (super) Models.
* Plausible near and long term development of collaboration tech, methods, etc. Social impact of the same. How social impact can be made positive. Dangers to look out for.
* Licenses cannot go two ways.
* Incriminating Collaborations.
* In the future much of what is valuable will be made by communities. What type of thing will they be? What rules will they have for participation? What can the social political consequences be?
* Sharing vs Collaboration.
* How to deconstruct and reassemble publishing?
* Collaboration and its relationship to FLOSS and GIT communities.
* What is collaboration? How does it differ from cooperation?
* What is the role of ego in collaboration?
* Attribution can kill collaboration as attribution = ownership.
* Sublimation of authorship and ego.
* Models of collaboration. Historical framework of collaboration. Influence of technology enabling collaboration.
* Successful free culture economic models.

Then each presented who they were and their ideas and projects as they are related to free culture, free software, and collaboration. The process was open to discussion and everyone was encouraged to write as many points, questions, statements, on sticky notes and put them on the wall. During this first day we wrote about 100 sticky notes with short statements like:

* "Art vs Collaboration"

* "Free Culture does not require maintenance"

* "Transparent premises"

* "Autonomy: better term than free/open?"

* "Centralised silos vs community"

* "Free Culture posturing"

...and other cryptic references to the thoughts of the day. We stuck these notes on a wall and after all of the presentations (and dinner) we grouped them under titles that seemed to act as appropriate meta tags. We then drew from these groups the 6 major themes. We finished at midnight.

Day two – 10.00 kick off and we simply each choose a sticky note from one of the major themes and started writing. It was important for us to just 'get in the flow' and hence we wrote for the rest of the day until dinner. Then we went to the Turkish markets for burek, coffee and fresh Pomegranates.........

I think the result is really a success. Bravo.

It may be sad to ask if there is collaborative futures in the Chinese speaking world.

SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES SUMMIT

via
13-16 May 2009
Manchester UK

Digital culture burns bright with social connectivity

Futuresonic's acclaimed international conference, the Social Technologies Summit brings 500 opinion formers, futurologists, artists, researchers, technologists and scientists from the digital culture, technology and art communities together around shared issues to do with social media, society, art and the city.

The Social Technologies Summit has prefigured new trends and is a place where important international discussions take place on the latest developments in social media and their implications for society. Discover the small sparks that unfold into new ways of seeing the world and critically explore the latest upgrade affecting
today's digital culture.

It will combine keynotes, critical debates, demos and experiences with open space and participatory sessions, in a fun and engaging event.

Computers have become social interfaces for sharing digital media and collaborating to build online communities and folksonomies. Social technologies create an extension of social space, and new ways for people to come together, meet and share in today's society.

The Social Technologies Summit will explore the new social spaces and the social implications of technologies for the many different kinds of people who make, use and are affected by them. In keeping with the Environment 2.0 theme of Futuresonic in 2009, this year it will also explore the interface between our digital footprint and our environmental footprint, and new thinking on sustainability in a globalised world.

Inviting proposals for talks, presentations, workshops and session themes. Submissions of innovative formats for social interaction and experimentation are encouraged.

Call For Submissions -- Deadline extended 5pm, 3 November 2008

Download an application form / guidelines here:
downloads.futuresonic.com/social2009.zip

See also -- A GBP 5000 commission plus many other opportunities are available in the Futuresonic 2008 Art & EVNTS calls for submissions.
http://www.futuresonic.com/getinvolved

“Live in Your Own Future” (A conversation with Deborah Carter, PICNIC’s International Marketing Consultant & VP of Philips)

I know keep following Philips delvelopment since they have the same motto "Simplicity" as with John Medea:

Prof. Dr. Emile Aarts , Vice President and Scientific Program Director at Philips Research, will deliver a keynote presentation during the PICNIC conference on September 26th in the afternoon. In preparation for his talk, ‘New Ways to Feel, Make and Play’, he spoke to Deborah Carter about the creative process that makes Philips a world leader in designing and producing popular, everyday products and services.

What are some of the most interesting technologies that Philips is currently working on?

Emile: I’d have to say one of the most interesting technologies we’re working on is what we call PHOTONIC TEXTILES. We’ve developed a technology based on textiles emitting light which has the potential for all types of innovative uses: backpacks, furniture, walls, ceilings. We developed a proof of concept for it a few years ago and now Philips has launched a start-up company called Lumalive which will develop these products and bring them to the market.

The topic of your presentation is "New Ways to feel, make and play". How do Philips' scientists and designers create these new ways, through experimentation, refining existing technology, taskforces/work groups, etc.?

Emile: Yes, yes and yes. [Laughing.] We do all of these things. We discovered that we have been pushing technology too much over the past 90 years so we’ve now adopted a user-centered design approach which we categorize as EXPERIENCE RESEARCH. This involves concept, laboratory and field research. We try to understand what people do in every-day life through their habits and usage patterns. Believe it or not, technology is not part of the question when we conduct our research and focus groups. Our starting point is ‘What basic needs do our customers have?’ and ‘How can we help them solve this need?’

In order for us to bring a new product to the market, we first start with a concept and prototype, using our ExperienceLab for usability and feasibility studies. ExperienceLab consists of four labs: HomeLab, CareLab (for solutions for the elderly), ShopLab (for retail solutions) and a hospitality lab (for hospitality-related services and products). In all of these labs, Philips researchers develop concepts and prototype solutions. Focus groups are then immediately invited in to help us improve and refine these solutions through testing and feedback. That way, when we launch a product commercially, it comes to the market mature.

Let me give you a concrete example. A few years ago, Philips launched Ambilight TV in which light is emitted from the back of the TV which correlates to the on-screen image. The TV light affects the color of the wall behind it and this can be used to create a mood in the room. Our researchers posed the question ‘What is the best lighting grid which matches what’s onscreen?’ We brought ordinary people into our HomeLab to help us determine the lighting grid.

The Ambilight TV was brought to the market within one and a half years and is one of the ‘killer applications’ which Philips has released via its consumer electronics division. We have already sold more than one million copies of this TV and hope to sell a total of two million within a year, generating approximately $1 billion in turnover. We launched Ambilight TV in a very competitive market saturated by TVs and displays manufactured by Asian companies. And at theInternational Funkausstellung (IFA) in Berlin, Germany, which is one of the world’s largest consumer electronics shows, we recently introduced Aurea, the next generation of Philips Ambilight TVs, which creates an even stronger immersive, ambient viewing experience.

I’ll give you another example. We are working in close collaboration with a Spanish hotel chain, NH Hotels, which is one of the most rapidly-expanding hotel chains in the world. NH Hotels is already considered a design innovator, introducing proprietary concepts such as NUBE, a tapas-based dining experience, in their restaurants and hotel rooms. Philips is working with NH Hotels on concepts to create a unique wake up experience for guests which will distinguish NH Hotels from its competitors. A possible concept could be to create a pillow which detects the stage of sleep that a guest is in and postpones a wake-up call until the guest is optimally-ready to be awakened. We intend to test these concepts in test rooms in Amsterdam and Barcelona.

How is the creative process managed at Philips? Who leads this process? What kind of people are included on development teams?

Emile: As part of our Philips Lifestyle Program, we go through a time-consuming process at a frantic pace, say 12 hours per day for two weeks. We bring in different people, scientists, researchers, managers, etc. and ask them to throw out random ideas. We then group similar ideas into clusters. We then filter out non-relevant ideas by asking ourselves questions such as ‘Does this idea mesh with the brand strategy of Philips? Does Philips have the possibility to bring this concept to market? How much market size can we capture with this product? How much profit can we generate?’ Most importantly, we ask ourselves ‘Can we control technological development and protect the concept or product from being appropriated, refined and sold by competitors?’ Our last session generated 700 ideas, resulting in 50 clusters. The ideas which make it through this filter are then chosen for further conceptualization.

We allow many of our researchers to devote 10% of their time to work on their own ideas. We call this ‘Friday afternoon research’ because in the Netherlands, people start preparing for their weekends on Friday afternoon and we find people to be particularly creative and free-thinking during this time. This time isn’t managed in a formal way. All we ask is that our researchers show us what they’ve been working on once a year, at Philips’ Eureka Fair, which is organized by our researchers for colleagues and managers. We often see that a good idea for a service or product concept comes out of this Eureka Fair, which can lead to a new commercial success for Philips.

What about the tricky issue of intellectual property, especially when Philips is facing increased global competition?

Emile: Our strategy is to create what we call IPR FORTRESSES (Intellectual Property Rights Fortresses). For example, take Philips’ commercial focus on solid-state lighting. With solid-state lighting, we can now extract light from a computer chip. We can change the color and intensity and we can generate many sources of light from one chip. Light can be controlled as if it is a series of pixels. We are witnessing the convergence of displays and lamps. This means that we can manipulate light to generate pictures and images, to follow a person, to create visual effects such as sunsets, forests, the sky.

Solid-state lighting will become one of our IPR Fortresses. We have acquired a company called Lumileds because it has interesting patents which can be added to our portfolio to help us deliver unique and innovative lighting products.

What is your favorite saying/motto?

Emile: Inside Philips Research, anything is possible but you have to do it yourself. I also constantly say to our designers, ‘Live in your own future.’ Meaning that our designers should extend their labs into their homes so they can develop things based on their own everyday experiences.

New Book : Imaginary Futures

Dr. Richard Barbrook's newest book Imaginary Futures traces the political history of the Internet, showing how this powerful tool's destiny was pre-determined by ideological leaders in America's 60s & 70s. Visit www.imaginaryfutures.net for more information.

Cultuur 2.0 : International conference and lab on 30&31 May 2007

Cultuur 2.0 is a challenge, a 2-day international conference and laboratory to introduce a Web 2.0 mindset into the creative processes and strategies of cultural institutions.


‘Cultuur 2.0’ borrows from Web 2.0, the new generation of internet applications and practice that emphasize generating, sharing and classifying content, collective intelligence, collaboration, sharing, reviewing, ranking, rating, and empowering users. In which ways can such developments be applied in the cultural sector? Will cultural institutions generate other forms of content or approaches by embracing the Cultuur 2.0 mindset and connecting to the active internet user - or would this mean the end of culture as we know it?

Highlight of previous reviews from main organiser of Cultuur 2.0, Virtueel platform :

E-shrines -e-shrines by Saad


1.Exploding Borders
In the Netherlands, as everywhere else, the development of digital technology has coincided with a quiet revolution in the role of the museum in society. Heritage institutions have become more aware of their audience than ever before, thanks to the democratisation of the industry, a change in emphasis in collections away from the elite and the extraordinary and towards the everyday commonplaces of community and social history, and — last but certainly not least - the need to prove themselves worthy of funding. The latter factor has added urgency to the modern imperative to ‘find new audiences.’
At the same time, says Virtual Platform Director Cathy Brickwood, technology allows the once-insular heritage sector to address that increasingly important audience as never before. The question now is, how to do it, and what to say? Possible technological tools range from the ubiquitous (the internet, mobiles, and the PDAs which sometimes replace the familiar audio tour), to the up-and-coming (like the RFID tag, although hopefully not used to the extent of the pioneering Japanese museum which embedded no less than 7,000 into the floor of a single exhibition room), and the unique (the Memory Table designed by Mediamatic that was showcased in the VP workshop, the Take Away Museum, and which is now being used by Amsterdam’s Imagine IC in a project to preserve the memories of elderly Indonesian immigrants to the Netherlands). The choice is already extensive, developments are bewildering swift, and heritage professionals rarely know much about the latest technologies — except that they are lagging behind.

2. What gives between the curator and the informed amateur?

The networked society we currently live in is witnessing a change in the role played by cultural organisations. It is the heritage organisations in particular, with the traditional mandate to conserve material and develop knowledge that will have to adapt their strategy most. The digital classification of cultural heritage is not just a matter of building an online database. It is also a question of contextualising information and coming up with ways of sharing the knowledge created and experienced in those organisations.
Here a report on the workshop ‘Digital Cultural Heritage’, organised by the Virtueel Platform and Digitaal Erfgoed Nederland, as part of the Amsterdam New Media Institute Summer School 2004. The Workshop used practical examples of how these developments are changing relations in the cultural sector.

....It’s clear that in the future museums are going to become increasingly hybrid organisations.
The presentation model looks like this:

Level 1 presentation
Level 2 formats; enlargement/scenarios/stories
Level 3 selections; focus
Level 4 objects; standardised descriptions

In addition to these internal discussions, at an external level decisions are being made about strategic alliances and the forms of cooperation that will reinforce the museum’s own identity. In addition the museum will need to consider the need for a strong identity of its own, and whether it’s necessary to create a brand for the Rijksmuseum.
Heritage organisations are generally very much focussed on content. In the case of the Rijksmuseum it’s very interesting to see how they have exchanged a content driven strategy for a media strategy. This then raises the question: if the Rijksmuseum develops a media strategy on the grounds of its own media infrastructure, does the museum not then become a broadcaster? An independent media producer?....

3.The virtual community is the new lab

Waag society and V2_ are the most successful new media labs of the last fifteen years in the creative sector. It is without precedent that they have made their vision relevant to an organisation such as Surfnet, an academic node. From the margins to the academic discourse, how did that happen so quickly? The liberal climate of the eighties that supported the preconditions for the development from the public domain, has created space for this.

The climate has changed drastically now. The policy of tolerance has become narrower and the government propagates ideas like security and certainty. V2_ and Waag society are developing into independent knowledge environments in contrast to universities and corporate R&D labs. Their foremost challenge is in not wanting to become like them. University discourse is characterised by a textual approach to quality and this is recognised as being increasingly irrelevant to daily life; and with that also to policy making and the needs of government.

The question is which new creative strategies can develop in the present climate. Which strategies are able to respond to important social issues. How can we formulate the research questions embedded in current policy relating to everyday life? There are two important questions that have to be integrated: the creolization of the Netherlands, and the trend towards closed interfaces that are not accessible to professional amateurs (proam). If you’re looking for a new V2_, or Waag society you won’t find it. The new lab is the virtual community itself. The measure of openness of the alliances that come together there determines its role as the mover of the creative industry.

4. THE ANTI WEB 2.0 MANIFESTO from my favorite Andrew Keen (see link in Punk), author of the new book " Cult of the Amateur"
summary of his points:"The Adorno for idiots"


5. On the lighter side : Web 2.0 remixed

Future electronics

How does technology change our lives? How does technology make human more creative? How does technology make us better?

Intel's Ultra Mobile future concept video


Philips: Drag & Draw Technology


Simplicity or redundancy?


Are you disappointed with our future?