Microsoft has before it a golden goose, it’s up to them to decide whether to continue starving it or to feed it. The first step is to look at where they have already invested: everywhere, from the enterprise through to the cloud and mobile systems. They have a wide base and a tall hierarchy, but they aren’t capitalizing as successfully as they could or even should be.

Why are they failing? It comes down to 3 reasons: horrific marketing, horrific web presence, and lack of integrated focus.  The one I’m primarily wanting to touch on is their lack of integrated focus, because without it they are gone, but I’ll touch on the other two.

A few weeks ago, Microsoft released an update to their Office Live system, something that has been around for nearly 3 years, and yet many people still have no clue about. Why; why doesn’t anyone know about this? It is common for people to bash Microsoft, because they don’t offer a cloud alternative for the desktop Office Suite, but it’s simply not true. Who’s fault is this? It’s the marketing department, they haven’t bothered to promote the platform; it’s also partly due to how confusing Microsoft’s web presence is, it’s anything but simple. Their presence exists in two ends of the spectrum: a mangled mess of links to variations of systems on their main domains and a group of domains that can be hard to find, because of a lack of directions to them. So what they need is a simplified interface, and user direction, from both marketing and a user experience standpoint.

Microsoft, regardless of their poor marketing and website design, has a unique opportunity. Microsoft, is the only company to have an operating system on 4 platforms(enterprise, desktop, mobile, and consoles), a web presence that includes search, email, and cloud systems(enterprise & consumer), high-quality desktop software, and near-universal hardware support. The one thing they are missing in integration across all of these levels, and it makes them look like they are wandering aimlessly. The need to figure out what to focus on, and how to make the entire system more seamless.

My first recommendation to them is to start with the future of the desktop, quick boot systems that allow near instant access to the internet. I propose that they provide a hybrid-OS offering using an instant-on system, that provides access to a browser and several other basic applications. The next recommendation, is one I’ve already made, clean up your web interfaces to make them more user-friendly, and make your cloud systems more prevalent. After you’ve dealt with these issues, you’re ready to more actively promote systems like Live Mesh, that will allow you to integrate and sync cloud data, across multiple systems; I recommend purchasing DropBox to help with this.  The should continue to work on integrating Office and their cloud systems, during this.

In the foreseeable future, the majority of what we will be doing, will be on the internet, but that doesn’t mean that we won’t need our fully developed operating systems. Using a hybrid-OS approach, they will be able to provide both instant-on support for average use case, while still providing the ability to switch over to the full system for heavier workloads. This is what we need in the next few years, ChromeOS can match you in the first, but not the second, except via remote-desktop support. One issue with instant-on systems, is trying to get universal support, but Microsoft is at an advantage as it’s already worked with low-level compatibility, are there going to be hitches, I’m sure, but they should still have some ability to solve this problem, along with manufacturers.

Next step is to make their web presence more coherent and simple.  Promote your integrated services together, rather than splitting them across different domains, you have two live office platforms, three email services, and a search engine, and none of them are connected in a highly sensible way. You’ve also failed at promoting these from your main website, because of the kludgy method of navigation and association among your many many products. Simplify. Simplify. Simplify. Simplify. It’s all about simplification so that your users can find what they are looking for; help them out.

Now, you’re doing okay on this next thing, you’ve got Skydrive and Live Mesh, as well as Office 2010 integration with Office Live, but you can still do so much more to make it simple. Google is kicking your ass as simple collaboration, you need to get this right, and make sure you’re doing it better than they are. You need to get syncing to both the cloud and to other devices down, that’s why I recommend you purchasing DropBox, it would provide a great starting point.  This is going to be one of the key changes you need to get right, and get it right, now. The sooner you get people  using your system and having it seamlessly integrated between the desktop-mobile-cloud the better you will be.

Maybe they’ve been working on this in the background, and they’re just failing to compile the parts, or they have failed to have vision as to what they actually have, and how it can be connected. Either way, it seems that Ballmer is stumbling in providing his teams the ability to create a fully integrated system, either he has the vision or he doesn’t; I’d go with the latter. Now, is when they need to make the move, get to work on bringing your teams together, so they can create a seamless experience, and hire new marketing people.

I haven’t thought it out fully, it’s only been a few hours, but using APMLs as the starting ground. You sum the weights, per topic, for all of your followers and then divide by #number of followers, to get the APML for your Social Graph, per network which I’m calling GAP currently. I see this as an extended OPML format for APMLs , handling not only weights of relevant interest, but also handling access to the APMLs monitored by the graph.

One thing that would conflict with the APML format, which the GAP could stay very close to, is what is deemed Explicit Data. You aren’t the one determining relevancy, so it isn’t necessary. I’d either use or replace it for something that handles the APML list being monitored, the list becomes the explicit data for the weighting, but it also allows you to weight the APML’s individually as well, I don’t know that this is necessary, but it allows accessibility to possibly increase relevance to your graph, based on who is likely to interact more with you.

So this is just a thought, about a open-method for sharing graphs and relevance between services, rather than every service handling a proprietary model of the graph, and a proprietary model of relevant data. First things first, is that we need support for APML, which we have Chris Saad to thank for, then we can handle how we manage our networks relevancy.

One final issue with the GAP is that it has a specific use case, is that it is a way to share graphs and relevancy to exterior networks, but the file size for the GAP if it handled all the networks simultaneously it would become quite large, implicit data would be 1 line per topic, per network, and explicit data would be 1 line per person, per network. For early adopters and people with large following bases this could become quite large, even for a regular user on one network it would likely be 300-1000 lines.

*= MyLikes already uses a similar model, influenced by clicks per ad and number of ads you share. MyLikes Influence Rank

Still here? Good. This post may be a bit vague, I’m going to try and keep it simple and understandable, for you as well as myself, I’m already a bit confused after several hours of trying to map this. If you would like to discuss this, for a more in depth, though possibly less coherent form, feel free.

To begin, we have three entities: data, meta-data, and users. These entities all have various ranges of relationship, which go from near to distant, and occasionally don’t exist. To describe the range as an example of friends, “Those best-friends, with very similar taste, are near(1), friends, much different taste(2), acquaintances, similar taste(3), acquaintances, different taste(4), and people you’ve never met(0).” We’ll approach range using this method, based on relational distance, between entities.

Data is, in my view, the front facing objects, whether that be text, images, video, or even tactile objects. Data itself exists in a weak presence, as far as to what value it represents, when coupled with meta-data, it becomes stronger.

Meta-data is data about data. It is the entity that is manipulated and understood, to provide us with relationship information, on any level. There are many forms of meta-data, temporal, location, authorship, topics, etc., that provide us with fantastic ways of connecting data, but often times it includes disparate entities, that aren’t necessary.

The user in my case is a human which interprets the regular data, and may create tags of meta-data, but can be a machine in which case it is likely to work with meta-data, either directly or in composition of meta-data from data sources.

Now that the entities are somewhat defined, I can get into the discussion of how these various entities are connected in creating relevant connections, both in basic terms, and user specific terms.

Often times, the simplest way to construct a relevancy map between data objects, is to use meta-data about the objects, social-bookmarking tools work this way by way of topical tagging, the distance between objects is the range of 4. Making the system a bit more complex you add methods, you take your tagged set, and add in user selection, by how much a user likes various items to manipulate what topics they are likely to see, this is in the range of 3 because it is still picking out items by topic which is a very wide. Or you can provide what your user’s friends have read recently, this is still in the range of 3, because by adding in what other people read, can narrow the area of focus, it’s possible to be in areas that the user doesn’t care as much for. If you add in what the user’s friends like, rather than just what they read, you get closer to the range of 2.

In order to get to the optimal range 1 you have to add two more things to your system: direct relations between data-objects and concentrated interaction between users, these can both be defined explicitly by users, and can be shown as a simple social-graph, with one object/user in the center, and the closest elements near by.  Direct-relations, which are somewhat like Techmeme, can be created on a broad scale by a user-based system of bundling links to content, based on relationship. Concentrated Interaction is a bit more complex, because it requires an analysis of interaction, but presents an interesting system, helps reach the range of 1.

Note: If you treat Users like data-objects, which they are in a database, you can apply meta-data, to make the concentrated interaction, more specific by what topics the user is most familiar.

So I’ve discussed 5 ways in varying levels of implementation to reduce the range of relevancy.

The use of tagging to create a quick reduction in the range of relevant data.
User selection to narrow down what topics the user likes, or aggregate content that the users friends are looking at.
Further narrow it down by what these friends like.
Allow Bundling of content that is directly related.
Analyze the concentrated interaction graph to narrow down trust sources.

I’m sure I’ve lost someone in this antithetical pile, as I had to get this off my head it was driving me crazy, and I’m going to call it the beginning of a new arcling, to be adjusted down the line. So if  you are interested, I’m sure that we can possibly make it a bit clearer by having a discussion.

I can now focus on what I love, but I don’t know what that is. I’ve been through many phases and experiences over the last 5 years. In high-school, I focused on drafting(architectural & mechanical), engineering fundamentals, basic number theory, and economic theory. For my short period of college, I focused on philosophy, biology, and computer science. Since then, I’ve focused on systems, business, and customer service areas. Through out, I’ve done simple design work for friends.

My problem is I now get to choose where I want to go and I have rubbed such broad stokes of things that I enjoy that doing that is hard. Luckily, I have three things going for me, my age, knowing the areas I enjoy, and having a very simple set of needs.

To give up one dream, I am opening myself up to the many others that lie before me. I’m re-writing my life from this point, with a new perspective, and a new passion. This is a path less taken, I’m choosing to give up to move forward and find a happier medium, a happier me.

Micro-blogging lets you throw the idea out there, but doesn’t allow much room for the idea to evolve, or tracking this evolution.

Blogging in the conventional sense is much too concrete(though I’m doing it right now). I find the preconception of blogging to be you must push out a full thought. Why?

I propose a release quick, release often blogging structure and build arc’s as your story develops, making branching trees using link structures. Let the ideas build over weeks, or months, rather than waiting for one single burst of insight, and fleshing it out on the spot.

I propose using story arcs, along with links to the latest preceding events in the evolution, and trackbacks to the succeeding story events. Though this is possible in the current evolution of blogging systems, it’s complicated. I want an Arcling platform that makes the connection process easy, if not intelligent in managing the tracing of the structure.

Several Questions To Pose

1. How many people are effected by what I do, positively?
2. What matters most to me, people or things?
3. Why am I doing this?
4. Is there something I could change to improve the world?

The reason for each question is to determine whether or not you are a wealth creator or a money earner. They are also good questions to ask when ever you come up with an idea that you feel like you could sell. Each of these questions are hard to answer because you have to remove your personal bias of yourself, or the answers will be wrong.

How many people are effected by what I do, positively?

How many people are you effecting positively with what you do on a daily basis, dozens, several hundred, maybe thousands? Do you even know if you have an effect on their lives? If you can’t tell whether or not your doing something that improves others lives, either through productivity or providing a service that they can’t do themselves, your probably just trying your hardest to get rich. The only problem is that you are meaningless to others, you have a discernable value and can be replaced by many other people. If you’re working to provide value, you have cast your stone into the water and the ripples of your actions will return your reward in time.

What matters most to me, people or things?

Do you pride yourself over who your friends and family or over the material objects that surround you? Would you rather work hours on end to buy things to impress others or would you rather spend your time with those people? If you want to achieve wealth you have to look inward to see what truly surrounds you. You have to be willing to make a change in someone else, no matter how poor or insignificant they may seem. If you only make decisions about others to further your own status and to make more money, your failing yourself and the world.

Why am I doing this?

What do you get out of doing what you do? Are you passionate about what you do and where does the passion come from? Is it from coming from your heart and your dreams or is it coming from the need to fill your wallet. The truth is nothings worth doing if you don’t love it, truly and honestly, yet so often you see people make stupid decisions just to get enough money for something they didn’t really need. There is no doubt in my mind that if your willing to look you can find a niche doing what you love that you can make money, as an extra positive. Normally, the two are hard to see coming together and if you can’t see it you may have to make a sacrifice in one.

Is there something I could change to improve the world?

If you had one thing that you felt you could change wouldn’t you do it? Don’t give money to charities, they aren’t actually very good at doing what they say they do most of the time. They are mainly just a tax break for the rich that allows them to say that they’ve done something good for others.* If you really want to be involved with change, get out there and do something with your person. Show up face-to-face in a soup-kitchen, read to the elderly, do anything to assist, just don’t give paper. You don’t even have to set time aside, when you see an elderly person in an airport and they need help with their bags, drop what you’re doing, it’s not as important as helping, and assist them, ask if they need it first.

* I’m not saying all charities are bad, but ,quite a few, are just tax havens for the rich and very little money is shared with the actual recipients.

Looking back can you see how action and being there for other is far more important than money. Wealth is not a tangible asset. Wealth is what you are able to create out of thin air, it doesn’t exist until someone created it. Money is a tangible asset that we use to easily share wealth with others. Money is a representation of wealth that we can trade for wealth that we want. You can work at making money all you want but if you aren’t actually creating wealth your job is useless.

As we rise back out of this turmoil that has arisen, those that focus on making money without providing wealth are going to flounder. The only way that you can survive is if you can change someones life, even if it’s only in a miniscule way. We are going to see an uprising in wealth producers and watch as the middlemen start to die off. If you don’t figure out how to provide the value that people want in return for their money, you won’t have any for yourself. For too long we were screaming, “SHOW ME THE MONEY,” now those times are over and the money is fading away.

“Strive To Create Wealth, Not Money”

That’s a motto to follow now that we have seen what happens when your chasing something that isn’t real. Wealth is real, money is not. Go out now and become a wealth creator, go out and sell your product or service that will actually change someone’s life.

So I want to offer anyone who wants it a free Twhirl skin that makes tracking replies and direct messages inline alot easier. It also introduces contrast in the FriendFeed portion of the app between others’ comments and your’s against the regular background.

Here’s the installation info you’ll need to install the skin. Download the Mint Skin
1.)  Extract the Mint.xml file.
2.) Go into your Twhirl skins folder:

• For PC it’s in Program Files Twhirl colorschemes
• For Mac its in Twhirl- (Right click) show package contents, Colorschemes

3.) Copy the file into the folder.
4.) Restart Twhirl and enable the theme.

Hope you enjoy, leave me comments or send me a reply @jimminy if you do or if there is anything you would like modified. I’m also planning on working on some more so if you would have an idea of something you would like just let me know.

Update: @kyeung808 noticed a little issue with the image I have up above and I must take note of it. The image above appears to show multiple columns but it’s actually Twitter on the left and FriendFeed on the right.

Innovation (n.) That which is newly introduced; a change or, the act of innovating.

Innovating (v.) Beginning or introducing(something new); being creative.

In the conversation they discuss Innovation as being natural and being hard work. I find that it’s a natural change of thinking in order to adapt to the constraints that your facing. It is just as natural as evolution is, in fact it is real-time evolution of the mind. Anytime you grasp a new idea, your mind has innovated how you think, even if the idea came from someone else.

Innovation can’t be constrained by hard work, however, if that was the case evolution wouldn’t be possible. Look at the world, it has fauna and flora in locations where they can take the most advantage of their environs. Innovation is natural to the the universe, mathematics and sciences have reproduced constraints for this.

Imagine that you really want to get to the top of mountain with a semi-low grade, simple right, you just walk up. Now imagine that the mountain is a mesa, you can’t find a point were you could just walk up, you have to climb. That’s innovation, it’s a change from what you are used to doing with a mountain, because of the constraint of steep cliffs.

Now, many people think of innovation as changing something that is complex to make it simple. This is easily one of the most paradoxical constraints; as the solution becomes more simple, the problem gets more complex. The constraints in this case are constrained by their variability which makes it even more complicated to see the natural solution. This is why many people today see innovation as hard work, their dealing with problems that are increasingly complex.

Innovation is naturally simple and complex.

It is not what you know but, who you know that will get your through life.

Several, example businesses both for good and bad.

Google – This is one of the most famous examples of a trust based company. It has had a notoriously low marketing budget, with no real world advertising. They have built their business through users trust in the search results and spread into other trust-worthy services.

Digg – This company took off because of fans of Kevin Rose trusted in the service he was providing. It was his own ability to build trust in the tech community to provide the user base for his service.

eBay – This is a recent failure, it built itself up into a trustworthy business after years of being around. Recently, it has lost people due to it’s inability to adapt to the I want it now mentality, as an auction site.

Any Social Network – These sites just don’t work without other users, so you have to either market it heavily or hope that the early adopters love it enough to spread it around.

Familiarity is another key to gaining trust that allows your to become connected. Familiarity provides an easy way to provide a setting that people will be able to easily connect with. You can provide them with tools they already know how to use or, be focused in the same areas as they are, allowing them easy entry into the subject.

These are the way to spread an idea, product, or service. You provide them what they want or something they don’t know they need. Let your early adopters spread the idea to their friends, this is the reason what you do needs to be remarkable and memorable. Don’t knock off developed products you will not steal it’s users by doing that and it will hurt you in the long run, because there will be no trust in your abilities.

The work you do should rub off on you in positive ways that add to your value as a person, provides a skill or increases your abilities. In the formal education system we choose our education to help us get work when we’re done. Many  people don’t choose a job for what value it will add to their skills but for what it will add to their wallet. This principle is best suited for the younger job seekers, late teens-early 30′s. The older age groups may gain something from it but with far less potential for reinvesting those skills.

A great example is myself and how this principle has improved me. I’ve been socially inept all my life, except for close friends I didn’t enjoy dealing with people. Even in college I only interacted with the people I had to and friends from high school. However, just over a month ago, I got a job as a rental agent and have become a much more social person. I have to interact with people every day, settling complaints, providing them directions, and helping them find assistance if I can provide it. I have seen this skill improve as I’m more comfortable sharing with people than ever before. I went from a secluded introvert to a secluded extrovert(geographically secluded, for now).

I’m also working on several web projects. These projects have provided me a way to learn more languages and study them deeper, than I would if I was just doing it for fun, though it is. I have increased my knowledge in this area though it’s still inefficient and everything is in the red. Several hundred dollars versus several thousand for school though put’s it in perspective 40-60 hrs/week vs. 80-100 hrs/week. It seems like a fair trade; though, it punishes me if I want to go search for a job at a top Tech Company.

This is example of how successful it can be, I learned how to socialize and that wouldn’t have been taught to me in any school. If you wanted to learn skills through interaction; try and find a position, or create one, where you are forced to learn the valuable lessons, relating to that skill. Think about it your getting paid to increase your personal assets that you can take elsewhere, if you hate the job pick a new skill.