We are fascinated here at ReadWriteWeb about Hadoop. It can be used in so many ways. It gives you that sense of excitement that shows how big data can open up all kinds of possibilities.

So we got a tad excited tonight when we ran across a post by Mike Pearce about "10 Hadoopable Problems: or in other words, 10 things you can do with Hadoop. But excitement turned to disappointment when it reminded us of how limiting we can be when thinking about big data in standard terms.

We won't go into detail about each of the 10 ways Hadoop can be used. You can go check out the post yourself. Instead, we'll highlight a few and provide our own little view about big data, the failings of geek culture and the role information plays in our interface culture.

Sponsor

Hadoop is a transforming technology that through its analytic capabilities, can change the way we interface with the world. We use the term interface in deference to Interface Culture, the book by Steven Johnson that explored the Web's interactive elements and technology interfaces. He looked at buttons, links and metaphors such as the desktop and traced them back to medieval planning, Victorian novels, early cinema and the rise of our modern culture.

The interface culture we develop out of big data will spawn new works that help guide us into unfamiliar spaces as much as novels helped the Victorian era make sense of the new, industrial world.

Hadoop is a tool increasingly used to make sense of a new world that automatically creates data in overwhelming amounts. We manually create our own data through gestures on Facebook, from the images we post to Flickr and the tweets we post religiously. But data is also created automatically by intelligent agents who do the work on our behalf, sending information from machine-to-machine, analyzing itself along the way, increasing in intelligence through APIs or forking into new realms as its manipulated and turned into apps, recommendation engines and the rest.

Transforming data helps us make sense of an information universe, By analyzing it we create our own interface culture and in the process, better understand our world. New art, new intellectual movements and new societies will emerge from the data we are just starting to learn how to chisel into new shapes, new scuptures if you will that tells stories about who we are.

Unfortunately, the 10 examples (from a Cloudera presentation) don't draw us into a new world of possibilities. Sure, fraud detection (number seven) is important. Goodness knows how often we hear about it. I am sure there are lots of surveillance geeks out there who love the idea of monitoring trade with Hadoop as pointed out in number 8. Ad targeting comes in the four spot. That's a familiar topic. Search quality is ninth. More yawns. You get the picture.

All of these examples explore what we have become accustomed to in geek culture. Possibilities for how big data can be used in a strictly commercial sense or as a way to optimize processes or the technologies we have already developed.

It's implausible to believe that we will see any kind of diversity in geek culture if we continue grinding down this technically oriented view of the data around us. Focusing on incremental improvements in processes has been done for generations. It will make people a lot of money but its impact is minimal in the world we live. It will create jobs. We will without a doubt see a new generation of data analysts but there is more to this big data, right?

Perhaps it is too early to expect a renaissance. It's like we are medieval artists who are struggling to move beyond the concept of flat images. We are too consumed in the technological marvels of what we have created to fully understand the implications of what we have discovered and with it what we can create.

We will admit it is getting simpler to develop technologies and easier for people to use. More people are making apps. We have a new generation of developers who have taught themselves by following the principles of the view-source culture. More women are making inroads. We can thank open standards for that.

It's the software that mixes and cooks up that data which will truly transform our world. When that data is as accessible as flour is for baking or clay for sculpting then Hadoop and other analytics technologies like it will have real meaning.

And perhaps it is the ability to discover data and perform tricks with it that opens up this marvelous world. A world made from the big data we shape into images that help us realize an interface culture of a new modern era.

Earlier this week we looked at the upcoming launch of Google TV. It's slated for this fall (U.S.) and will be integrated into a new line of Sony Internet TVs. Meanwhile a Swedish company has just launched its own Internet TV, built on top of Google's open source Android Operating System.

The company is called People of Lava and its new line of Internet TVs is called Scandinavia (in the same way that Sony has a line of TVs called 'Bravia'). With the tagline "Window to the World," the Scandanavia comes in 3 sizes: 42", 47" and 55". The new product was unveiled this week at the IFA consumer electronics trade show in Berlin.

Sponsor

Firstly, to clarify that Google TV is a software product built on Android. It will be integrated into televisions (like the Sony Internet TV) and set-top boxes. It appears that People of Lava plans to integrate Google TV into its TVs too, but for now it has gotten a jump on Sony by building its own Android-based Internet TV software.

The People of Lava TV will come pre-loaded with applications, including YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google Maps, email client and a web browser. The browser is custom built, based on Webkit (the foundation of many modern web browsers, including Safari and Chrome). The company says that it will launch a "People of Lava App Store," but no time frame has been given. Also included in the TV package is a wireless keyboard with a pointer/mouse.

Right now the TVs are only available to purchase in Sweden.

How Will it Compare to Sony Internet TV?

It will be interesting to see how this fares against the Sony line when that's released in the fall, as Sony has the benefit of having the official Google TV software integrated from the get-go. Sony is also of course a well established TV manufacturing brand, whereas People of Lava is relatively unknown.

People of Lava is clearly trying to get a jump on Google's anointed partner Sony and establish a name for itself in Internet TVs. However it's likely to be short-lived glory, as Sony's offering will surely be more advanced due to the inclusion of Google TV. So the question will become: how fast can People of Lava iterate to compete?

You can't pay with your phone at the register yet, but you can use it to pay the babysitter. MoneySend, an application from MasterCard for sending and requesting money in informal person-to-person transactions, is now out in the BlackBerry App World.

MasterCard's app lags significantly behind PayPal's mobile payment app, available for Android, iPhone and BlackBerry, except perhaps that MasterCard has more cache and credibility with older generations. But MoneySend's shortcomings aside, MasterCard is clearly excited about mobile-enhanced shopping.

Sponsor

MoneySend for BlackBerry is the latest in a slew of MasterCard-branded apps including Marketplace Overwhelming Offers, which pushes users steep daily discounts, Easy Savings Program, which locates nearby discounts from participating merchants, Priceless Picks, an app to encourage shoppers to geotag and share deals, and ATM Hunter.

MoneySend lets users send, request, receive and manage money from the app. Hook the app up to your bank or credit union and link it to your debit card or MasterCard credit card to send money. You can also create a prepaid account through Bancorp Bank, an FDIC-insured online bank. Then manage your transactions, which are subject to some fees, from within the app. No financial data is stored on the device, according to MasterCard.

With MoneySend, both parties have to have the MoneySend app in order to complete a transaction. You can also send money to the mobile phone number of a non-user, who will then get an invite to join MoneySend and pick up the payment. That means until now, a sender would have to be sure the recipient was using an iPhone.

There was speculation that MasterCard's mobile payments could compete with PayPal's when the MoneySend iPhone app launched three months ago. That doesn't seem to have happened. MoneySend has three out of five stars in the App Store, compared to four out of five for PayPal. Simply put, PayPal's mobile app is more navigable and less restrictive. Also: PayPal's userbase is larger, you can connect its app to non-MasterCard credit cards and you can first bump to transfer money. But maybe opening MoneySend up to BlackBerry's well-heeled users will encourage adoption.

When Google announced this morning that it would be delivering search results to users in real time as they type a query, it rightfully generated quite a bit of chatter and intrigue in the tech world and beyond.

The changes are certain to fundamentally change the way people interact with the world's biggest search engine. But what is less clear is how this game-changing update will affect search engine optimization and search traffic referrals to Websites.

Sponsor

The Impact on Search Speed, Refining Searches and the "Long Tail" of Search

Google Instant does two things: it returns results more quickly and it predicts search queries as the user types.

While it's too early to predict the implications of this with any certainty, a few speculations come to mind. For one, searching on Google is going to become a much speedier process for the end user, who may now be less likely than ever to click through to the second page of results. Searchers will also be able to more quickly refine their search terms on the fly, which could either prove to be good or bad for site owners.

"It seems to me that the top three rankings will get even more value," says Ian Lurie, President of Portent Interactive and blogger at Conversation Marketing. "Also, long-tail search is going to be more important, since folks can just keep typing until they see what they want."

On the other hand, John Ellis at Search Engine Land wondered earlier if Google Instant would "kill the long tail" of paid search advertising by making it less worthwhile to bid on more specific, long tail keywords.

How the User Experience Will Change

According to Avichal Garg, former Product Manager of Search Quality at Google, the impact of Google Instant on SEO and search performance will come as a result of changes in the user experience, not the ranking algorithm, per se.

He cites query construction patterns, click patterns, page scanning behavior and the ease of making search query refinements (re-searching) as examples of user behaviors that are likely to be different from here on out.

"It will have a tremendous impact," says Garg. "User behavior will change. And good SEO is all about understanding end user behavior."

Will It Impact Traffic to My Site?

For insight into whether the volume of search traffic to one's site will change, look no further than the Google's own Webmaster Central Blog, which advises site owners that they "may notice some changes in your search queries data due to the launch of Google Instant." The post goes on to explain that the number of impressions for many search queries is likely to increase. In other words, the number of times a given site is displayed in results (whether they're clicked or not) is bound to go up, since users no longer need even finish typing a search query before the results show up.

Google's Matt Cutts Chimes In

Perhaps the most insightful commentary on Google Instant's potential impact on SEO came in a blog post from Goolger Matt Cutts a few hours after the company's announcement:

"The search results will remain the same for a query, but it's possible that people will learn to search differently over time. For example, I was recently researching a congressperson. With Google Instant, it was more visible to me that this congressperson had proposed an energy plan, so I refined my search to learn more, and quickly found myself reading a post on the congressperson's blog that had been on page 2 of the search results."

Are you concerned about how Google Instant might impact your site's visibility on Google? What do you think about the new feature in general? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

Google unveiled a new way to display its search results this morning, called Instant Search. Instant brings search results to your browser, as you type. Letter by letter - it's amazing. The feature will be rolled out to all users over the coming hours and days but is available to be tested here.

It's fast. It's satisfying. But if respected critics like Nicholas Carr have raised the alarm that Google's legacy search product might make us stupid - what might Google Instant do to our brains and thinking? There are at least two ways to look at the question.

Sponsor

Google Instant as a Mental Limit

"The normative influence of Google just got a lot stronger," Kevin Marks, a British Telecom technologist, former Googler and internet intelectual, said today on Twitter.

In other words, Google's influence over what we consider the norm, or what we take for granted as an assumption, regarding any particular topic, will become stronger now that we're instantly given suggested search queries and answers to questions we haven't even finished asking yet.

When the Great Google in the Sky interrupts you asking it a question and says (effectively) "don't even bother finishing, we know what you're going to ask and here's the answer" - how many of us might just concede to ask what Google expects we were going to?

Google Instant as a proscriptive and limiting influence over the boundaries of our consideration; that's something to think about.

Google Instant as Brain Stimulation

Think of this, however. Google executives said in a press Q&A session about Instant today that users participating in tests of the service quite often saw links they were interested in at the bottom of the page and then extended their search queries with text that would bring those results up to the top of the page.

Google Instant Search feels to me like a call-and-response exchange with the Google robots. "If I type this in, what are you going to say?" I ask. "Ok, I see that now, but what if I type this in" is the logical next step.

My theory: by making search a more interactive, call & response activity, Instant Search could stimulate mental activity, as opposed to Google making us stupid.

"That's very true," says Dr. Ellen Weber, President of the MITA (Multiple Intelligences Teaching Approach) International Brain Based Center in New York, "in that the brain holds multiple intelligences - and to engage more and diverse types of thinking is better than to engage less and with the same. Every time you do a thing the same way - you grow new neuron pathways for that same way of doing things. Do things differently, and engage your curiosity, and you physically rewire your brain."

Weber has written about how to use social media effectively to support healthy brain development.

The essential core of the idea is a timeless one, before Instant Search, before computers even: interact with new and different people and perspectives in order to expand your horizons and keep your brain functioning sharply.

Is that what Google Instant offers? I think it may; with its pleasing combination of rapid results, sneak peeks into potentially related topics as we begin to explore, and a responsive interface that encourages more sophistication in our interaction with search engines than the classic 2-word grunt-queries typically deliver. I'm not sure yet, but that's my theory.

What do you think? Is Instant Search a potential boon or bane for the health of our brains?

One of the big debates in the venture capital industry lately has been the growing argument between so-called "super angels" and traditional VCs - the former being prone to mention how they feel the latter "sucks." As one would expect, many voices in the industry have made themselves heard in the form of VC blog posts and passionate, profanity-laced shouting matches. But when the fog of war clears, what should startups take away from the debate? Should they seek investment from VCs or super angels? Or both? Thankfully, some level-headed perspectives have emerged that are aimed at helping young startups interpret the lessons to be learned.

Sponsor

"Put together an overall multiyear plan for your business, assume it takes longer and more money than what the plan suggests, and then determine what that means," writes Hazard. "The simple point here is that the financing sources that are appropriate if you need a total of $1 million are different than if you need $10 million or $100 million."

He also notes that while many would prefer to raise all of this capital at once, the smart decision is to raise it piece-be-piece.

"Funding through milestones such as these will allow you to raise subsequent rounds of capital at higher prices," he says. "Reducing risk and demonstrating potential upside will always translate into higher valuations."

Because every VC and angel is unique and has their own idea about where your company is headed and how involved they should be, picking one or another is not a decision to be made lightly, says Hazard. "One of the greatest sources of conflicts between entrepreneurs and investors happens when this alignment is not in place from day one," says Hazard.

There's an interesting chart making its way around the Net this morning comparing the number of iTunes app downloads to the total downloads of songs. The surprising reveal is that it shows apps are being downloaded much more rapidly than songs. In only 2.2 years, the iTunes App Store has reached the same total downloads as the iTunes Music Store did after five years. And before the year is out, the two curves on the chart will be around the same height - 13 billion downloads each.

Why is this happening? Why are apps becoming more popular than music?

Sponsor

More Apps Downloaded Than Songs by Year-End

The original chart was posted on Asymco's website, home to a hybrid industry analysis advisory and app development firm. Assuming the data the firm has collected is accurate (they say it comes from statements made by Apple representatives), Apple customers will have downloaded more iPhone/iPod/iPad apps than songs sometime in the near future, either by year end or just a few weeks later.

That's a staggering thought, when you really think about it. After all, the original iPhone didn't even support the development of third-party mobile applications when it launched in summer 2007. It wasn't until March of the following year that Apple released development tools (the iPhone SDK, or software development kit), allowing aspiring developers to begin work on mobile creations that would run on an upcoming version of the iPhone operating system, due out later that summer.

When launched, however, these natively-built iPhone applications quickly became more popular the previously supported "Web applications" in terms of usage. App downloads surged and have been surging ever since.

But why are these apps, popular as they may be, on the path to besting music in terms of sheer download numbers?

Ouriel Ohayon, the creator of mobile application sharing and discovery platform AppsFire, has ventured a few guesses and we think he's right on the money. Here are the reasons he puts forth on the AppsFire blog:

1. Apps Let You Personalize Your Phone

Apps let you personalize your phone in the same way as only ringtones and wallpapers once did. They are the new music playlists, in a sense, he says. In many ways I think that's true - I know the first thing I do when I get hold of someone else's mobile phone is look at what apps they're using. I could care less what their musical interests are. However, I don't think this is the main reason for the trend.

2.Many Apps are Free

Ohayon says that apps are surpassing music in part because so many of them are free. That's hard to argue with. Apps are probably sampled more often because they're free. However, some of those free apps probably aren't used as often as the 99-cent song you knew you liked enough to purchase is listened to. Nor do free apps make up the majority of iPhone apps available for sale - roughly 70% are paid. Free apps cater to our desire to buy things on impulse, but without the guilt of throwing our money away. So what if you only play that game once? It was worth the price - nothing - to kill five minutes of time while in the waiting room of the doctor's office.

3. Apps Provide Downloaded Music Substitutes

Mobile applications like Pandora, Last.fm, Deezer, Spotify, MOG and Rdio provide free and/or paid subscriptions to streaming music. You don't need to download and pay for a song in iTunes if you use one of these applications - you can just listen to it over the Internet instead. Apple itself may have caught onto this trend, too. The company recently purchased streaming service Lala.com, which many suspect will be turned into a subscription-based, Internet music streaming service for iTunes.

In addition, some apps are music themselves. Ohayon points to apps like this Lady Gaga one or this Katy Perry one, for example, that package popular music within mobile applications. Some games also feature music like Katy Perry Revenge or Lyric Legend, which, when you think about it, is actually a new format for listening to music. But there are many, many others beyond the few mentioned here.

In fact, we spotted this trend nearly a year ago, noting the rise of "music-themed" apps that offer tunes and other content from artists. We then cited examples from NIN, Moby and Usher as artists who were using apps to promote their songs. (See: "Forget the iTunes LP, Apps are the New Album"). Still, the most devoted fans will probably buy both the app and the album, since only the latter usually works in playlists and when you go offline.

While no single reason can explain this trend in its entirety, the reasons put forth by Ohayon are reasoned and sound, we think. Asymco's Horace Dediu agrees, responding to Ohayon via the comments of the post, saying "apps are indeed content," referring to how apps can replace other forms of content. "Apps-as-media has implications in the way they are produced, marketed, priced and consumed," writes Dediu. "All the data since has been nothing but confirmation of this."

Facebook is used for a lot of things. Family contact, business advertising, non-profit planning and municipal information among others. Drag queens, belt buckle artists and the Catholic Church all use it.

Now, employees of the Detroit Media Partnership, which includes the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News, and are using Facebook to Say No to -12%.

Sponsor

In an area rocked by persistent declines in central industries, like automobile manufacture, a group of Detroit journalists are being asked to accept a 12 percent wage cut. Unwilling to do so, they're publishing their distress to 100 Facebook friends and interested visitors.

In his Sunday introductory post, page administrator Matt Helms, a journalist with the Detroit Free Press, explained the situation.

"We're in negotiations now with the Detroit Media Partnership, which wants 12% pay cuts, a wage freeze (which we've had for two years) and higher worker payments for a crappier health care plan than we've already got. We've already kissed raises goodbye, switched to a less-than-good health care system ...and took furloughs while the higher ups in corporate get raises and bonuses. Enough is enough."

The newspaper industry has itself been in decline for quite some time. But a commenter, Steve Nealing, noted a discrepancy.

"While Gannett CEO Craig Dubow slashed thousands of jobs last year without regard to newsroom quality, he took home $4.4 million, up from $3.1 million in 2008. And he wants to cut the salaries of hard-working journalists by 12% and gut health care coverage while he pockets a 41% raise? Dubow, that's how you spell the demise of newspapers."

Is this page just a place to air grievances and blow off steam, or can it be used to sway public opinion? Will it prove to be a powerful way to funnel unwelcome attention on the Gannett chain's demands or a less-than-passing annoyance? As much as Facebook has grown, does the management of an old-guard chain even understand how much attention it can focus on a labor dispute most won't have been aware of?

I've asked both management and employees at the Detroit papers. But what do you think? Valuable tool or time-out room?