I know its old news, but I’ve still been thinking about the Facebook PR misfire from a few weeks back. A few people I’ve spoken to lately have asked me to write some more strategic material, so I’ll take one more hack at it here before writing about something else (I don’t want to bore people!). I can’t take credit for the central idea below though; a fellow by the name of Jay Gould used to do this a lot back in the 1800s, and it probably predates him too.
Forget what some people are calling Web3.0.
The first phase of the internet involved taking real world information, and moving it into a digital, connected format – i.e. making web pages.
The second phase of the internet involved taking that newly minted digital stuff, and bringing humanity into the picture (i.e. web pages that are “social”).
The third phase of the internet will involve taking “stuff” that was originally digital, and making it “live” in the real world. All that mobile phone geo-location stuff is just a tiny (and honestly, not very interesting) part of that.
The fourth phase of the internet is already upon us as well, and interestingly enough its as much about hardware as software. This phase involves breaking the physical constraints of the internet and allowing it to work seamlessly through ad-hoc, peer-to-peer, wireless networks (i.e. there’s no ISP and no phone company involved, except maybe for the long lines). This also involves replacing TCP/IP with DTN – especially if humanity is going to do anything useful in the rest of the solar system.
I just spotted the following article via slashdot that discusses manufacturers starting to give each and every lightbulb that they produce an IPv6 address.
Its an interesting development in something that I talked about a few years back (see here).
I think eventually virtually everything will have an IP address. Whether that is a good or bad thing is an entirely different question.
While I’m on the topic of tech stocks, I was reading the comments on the following story earlier today (article). The general gist seems to be that Cisco has lost its way, and that its low valuation of late is part of an overall downward trend.
My immediate thought is that at its current valuation, and with its huge cash reserves (never mind market share, product lineup, patents etc), Cisco is actually a potential target for a takeover. The first candidate that came to mind was HP, but they’re unlikely to risk antitrust action (they bought 3Com a while back). A more likely candidate would be Oracle, who appear to be positioning themselves as HP’s most immediate competitor. I’m not sure I’m happy about the thought from a consumer’s perspective, but an Oracle-Cisco merger might make good business sense.