Sorry for disappearing on you. Workload has become quite significant (we are nearing launch) and frankly I just ran a little dry. Then today I stumbled upon a good blog which sparked me again. Hopefully this is what the doctor ordered.

In Why handsets should be subsidized and are not today, Ram Fish makes a good case for an idea I have long been subscribing to. I strongly recommend reading the post (or better yet, adding Brief Comments to your RSS feeds).

The short brief goes as follows:

“we are looking at a serious case of the misleading rhetoric shaping the discussion….Handset are not subsidized today. Consumers are paying an arm and a leg for their handsets. And we don’t even know how much we pay for the service and how much for handset. The remedy… is to have operators comply with Carterfone and have a “service only” no handset bundled monthly plan. Then we will know how much we really pay for handsets..” 

“Moreover, I advise that the genocide in Darfur must be stopped”

      

Note: if you don’t feel like reading the whole post, take a moment to do something good for the environment and click ACT NOW.

I’ll start by saying if you can’t beat them… join them.

Not too long ago I wrote a post called Why web 2.0 is lame and web 3.0 even more. Sparked by listening to an interesting podcast by Jennifer Jones interviewing Guy Kawasaki on Social media. By that post’s name you can guess where I was going. My knee-jerk reaction to the 1.0 / 2.0 and recently 3.0 naming issue was the lack of substance behind the numeric naming convention.

So what’s up with this headline, you ask. A new Sequoia Capital back start-up called Collactive got me thinking.

Collactive (by their definition) is:

“a software service company that enables groups and lay people to make their voice and opinion heard though collective action. Collactive’s solution gives real people with real opinions the ability to make a difference. Collactive democratizes Web 2.0 sites by providing simple, easy to use tools for lay people to access and influence content that was designed and built to be accessed and influenced.”

So far this sounds very 2.0ish but its not. What makes Collactive interesting is the fact that its the CHILD of existing web 2.0 services. It’s not ANOTHER Digg, Sphere etc. - it USES them as a platform. I see Collactive as the first evolutionary step beyond the first generation 2.0 comps. Some may define this as 2.5 but since I don’t like the numerical values to begin with… I’ll stick to whole numbers

Back to substance - Collactive’s mission is to make 2.0 services accessible, providing real people the power to use them and participate in influencing thoughts and opinions. Case in point - in a recent post, my esteemed co-author, Aner Ravon, made a plea to sign off every post with “Moreover, I advise that the genocide in Darfur must be stopped”. If my father read this post and decided to vote his support / highlight the issue, one of the options would be to Digg the story. In reality he wouldn’t have because in many cases the barriers to entry to participate in social web are too high for ordinary people. This is just an example of how over-crowded, over-complicated participating in social web space may be.

You can DIGG a story SPHERE IT, REDDIT, FARK, NEWSVINE, BLOGSMARK, Y! it…. you name it.

So what do all the laymen do? Answer - nothing. Results - social web remains the domain of the young and very involved, in effect leaving most people out. If Collactive lives out to its promise the potential is big and important. Mass participation of people in the Internet’s democratic process, i.e. - voicing of opinions, voting and gathering support for ideas and opinions. This can exponentially increase growth of the social web (no wonder Sequoia invested in them).

Collactive’s offering consists of two components that essentially work separately and together. The APB system - which is their “Campaign / call for action” and their Web Assistant. The Web Assistant is by no means ‘innovative’ or rocket science but Collactive’s execution and focus on making it a one-click process to open an account on a web2.0 site AND the symbiotic relationship to the APB system - makes it very effective.

Where is the money, you may ask. Well, there is a third enterprise offering enabling corporates and organizations to effectively mobilize their community for action. For Collactive’s ‘campaign manager’ you will have to pay (could be an interesting tool for young start-ups).

All in all Collactive has potential. They are heading straight into a space where there is a lot of noise with an offering and approach that could provide them with the necessary traction they need to grow. If I had a ’cause’ and I would want to persue it I would definitely give them a try…. hold on, why not put this to the test… here we go:

Two months ago I wrote a post about what I think is a TREE HOLOCAUST. Joking aside, this is something I really believe in. Come conference time (which is all the time), companies worldwide create millions of marketing collateral handouts. I think 99% get thrown away. Yet for every single handout there is 100% of a tree that was cut down. This is an outrage! We are doing so many bad things to the environment these days that when it comes to marketing collateral, I am sure we can be more thoughtful towards mother earth. Really!

So, click my APB below to vote for that post on Reddit. Let’s see how far it goes: more votes = higher placement = more readers. Let’s put Collactive to the test and get everyone talking about the tree holocaust.

Lastly - defining Web 3.0 in this context is simple. Collactive and others claiming to ‘fame’ must prove and demonstrate that they cannot exist without web 2.0 infrastructure / services in place. Digg needed 1.0 news sites to exist, which makes it 2.0. Collactive needs Digg.

      

“Obi-Wan: The FORCE can have a strong influence on the weak-minded…”

Replace “Force” with “Money” and this sums up Microsoft’s problems. Its not talent, not creativity, not assets, not brand… Just money. Not because money doesn’t enable you to achieve things but because it blinds you of the talent, creativity and assets that exists within.

I read with interest several blogs / articles (1, 2, 3) that rationalized the pros and cons of a possible Yahoo-Microsoft take-over / merger / strategic partnership. Most of them, of course, vote against or think a partnership first makes the best sense.

Personally I say “Forget Yahoo” - Microsoft’s only way out is Microsoft itself!

But not today’s Microsoft. Tomorrow’s. I believe Microsoft can reinvent itself (OK - Vista isn’t a good start) and become a leader in personal and enterprise digital services.

So with a gross cash reserve of $50bn, why not go on a little shopping spree? Why? Because all that is bad in Microsoft, I believe, starts with that. Father Bill and Co-Father Steve should tell their kids the allowance this year just got cut and they better get creative if they want to stay at home.

The big conglomerate needs to do something TOTALLY different. Something COLOSSAL to break the status quo, something that can bring REAL change and not incremental.

Like what? Like become an umbrella to 10,000 start-ups. All using Live, X-Box, MSN etc. as platforms - INSTEAD of letting these platforms becoming THE company. Convergence has cleared the borders between enterprise and consumer applications, mobile and PC, desktop and online. The old fashioned corporate divisions will not be able to sustain progress, spur innovation.

Create robust R&D centers at the core of the corporate, encircle them with brandless, nameless platforms / services (currently Live, MSN, etc.) and let new mini, independent COMPANIES (not business-units) run new products / services on them. Don’t tie them down ‘Microsoft inside’ only policy - create a loose but synergistic relationship that will benefit both sides.

Let natural selection take its effect and like a mega VC select which companies you keep funding, which you cut off, spin off and or continue to nurture. Drop what become legacy structures and regroup to smaller, fitter units. This eco-system is much more likely to create a rival to Google [in its respective field] than Microsoft in its current form. In fact, this way there is no Microsoft that can be ‘attacked’ face on.

The “loose form” corporation will be a much more formidable (yet friendly) adversary then one giant gorilla. With no anti-trust issues to carry like a hump on its back.

The biggest difference between Google and Microsoft at this point is that Google needs to take-over / merge to grow and Microsoft needs to dismantle. This is why merging with Yahoo is a mistake. Its the opposite of what Microsoft needs to focus on.

Reminds me of the famous “Opposite George” episode in Seinfeld when George comes to the realization that in order to succeed in life he need to do the opposite of what he always thought was right “I’ll tell you this, something is happening in my life! I did this opposite thing last night. Up was down! Black was white! Good was… bad [Seinfeld]… day was night [Elaine]”.

Dwelling into the micro analysis of a Microsoft-Yahoo ’something’ is NOT what needs to be discussed. How Microsoft finds its FORCE back WITHIN - is.