Well, it looks like there are a fair number of German rip offs of Silicon Valley web applications.  Nick Gonzalez points out to a Geni-clone, called Verwandt, which, when compared screens to screens, looks so identical, it almost looks shameless.  I guess after this post, its unfair to be knocking Chinese … er, knock-offs, as I’m sure “Web2.0″ around the world probably means taking a look at innovation in the States and making a [insert a national/local/ethnic version] with the appropriate language and cultural changes.

Not knowing any other languages other than English does make it hard for me to find Web2.0 copy-cats, but my first experience with it was a Digg-clone, of which there are many, many, many of them  [Sorry, co-Rank -- "Digg" has become synonymous with social voting systems, almost, but not quite like Xerox with photocopying and Kleenex with paper tissue] with quite a few being Chinese versions.

Heck, I got dugg to the frontpage of a Chinese Digg about a year ago and wrote about it over here (abridged version: you don’t quite get the same Digg effect, to put it mildly).  At the end of the day, it does pose an interesting legal question for those companies State-side which make it big, as these smaller international versions are clearly unauthorized representations — or, the reverse: if any of these international sites *do* make it big, but the one in the States (the ‘original’) does *not*.  Does that make it ripe for copyright “trolling”?  And that’s besides the interesting look at why it did in one country and not another.

While the actual debate might be months (or years) away while the while web application milieu around the world matures, for the time being, I’ll keep my own faux outrage in check.  After all, that Chinese Digg that I hit the frontpage of?

It’s went into the international dead pool a long time ago. ;)

Yahoo is finally integrating Flickr results for its image search.  My first thought was “yay — its about time they did something to integrate that property into yahoo proper — peanut butter manifesto’s notwithstanding”.  My second thought was, “I wonder how what Flickr is doing could influence how Yahoo sorts its searches?  Better yet, could it actually *improve* a search engine’s results?”

I think the answer is “… maybe!”

Well, this is an idea that Thomas Hawk goes into much greater depth with, but basically Flickr already has algorithms to determine popularity and relevance.  This is governed largely by the way that images are sorted and tagged and viewed by the community at large.  In fact, the community itself determines the relative importance of each photo, which in turn, has an important effect on how Flickr sorts through those photos and the order in which it serves them up if they are searched through.

Could Yahoo! learn a thing or three about this?  Sure.  And Thomas makes some great points about it, but suffice it to say, its a similar, but very different way of understanding importance.  The current model of determining relevance has to do with many different factors, but one of the principle ones involves the pattern of inbound links to a given page for given keywords.  Link structure and the evolution of that over time is what has driven how search engines do what they do.

But for results and data that are derived from social networks, like Flickr in Yahoo — its a bit different story because of the users tag, or even, internally rank (vote?) for specific photos for a given tag.

I think this introduces an entirely different dynamic, because acquiring inbound links in the World Wide Web at large seems like a very different kettle of fish than acquiring the same kind of positive ranking in the factors which matter in a social system. 

But is this an improvement over the way that Search Engines have done things?  I think the answer could be yes.  After all, Matt Cutts at Google has said that Google is trying to dabble with how humans can help the algorithm do what it needs to do.  And what are social networks if not human activity that involves adding, sorting and tagging information in ways that can be infinitely measured and quantified?

Which begs the question, of course:

If social networks can improve the search results of certain topics (and this is a huge presumption), does it make sense for search engines to start acquiring those social networks? 

Not for a content play — but so that it can examine how certain social networks *do* rank data, and so they can have access *to* that, but also, and literally, own the content of those search results?

I have no idea.  But if Google suddenly snaps up Facebook for people search, please reference me in any future posts you might do. ;)

Hot off the heels of Jerry Yang’s announcement as CEO, it seems like Yahoo! has dominated the tech blog cycles as of late.  (If two large stories could be considered “domination”, that is)  A rumoured 25% swap to acquire MySpace?  And now, a confirmed deal to purchase Rivals.com for a rumoured $100 million dollars.

I’m not going to debate the price paid out for Rivals.com — after all, unlike its other ‘new media’ properties and acquisitions, Rivals has already been profitable for the past year or so, generating (using my fancy back of the napkin math) about $18M in subscription revenue per year.

That’s pretty good.

But before I give Yahoo! a double-handed pat on the back (rarely done and hard to execute, I should add), one does wonder where this seemingly smart content acquisition will fit into the overall Yahoo plan.

You know — the Peanut Butter one.

As a bit of a refresher, in November of 2006, an internal memo was widely circulated throughout the technosphere about what Brad Garlinghouse, a Yahoo! Senior VP thought about the current state of affairs.  Some thought it was refreshingly candid (yours truly included), as he introduced an analogy that will probably stick with him for years — calling Yahoo!’s strategy something like peanut butter, because it was being stretched far too thin amongst a variety of disparate properties. 

Hence, the “Peanut Butter” Manifesto.

Well, amongst the widely publicized acquisitions in recent months, we have Flickr, Del.icio.us, and MyBloglogs … all social media / network plays to a greater or lesser degree.  All still floating, more or less, on their own, with a superficial integration within Yahoo! proper (although Flickr is making slow strides with a unified login system amongst other things).

Now we have Rivals.com, which isn’t a social network *per se* as its really a content platform for college sports.  Sure, its a smart move as it dove tails nicely within Yahoo!’s own sports network — but as I asked a few paragraphs ago:

Where’s the peanut butter?

How does it fit within Yahoo!’s grand strategy and vision for the future?  Or is it merely a revenue generating cog within the lumbering and discombobulated hulk that Yahoo! has become?  Or is it even a sign that Yahoo! is moving towards a more content focused, subscription oriented model?

And where do the rumours of the MySpace acquisition (for $12billion dollars), complete with a parternship with Rupert Murdoch, come into play? 

Well, lots of speculation, but I simply have no idea at this point.  But from the looks of it, one does wonder if Yahoo! has plans to morph into a social network content new media play with a freemium model thrown in for good measure.

Hell.  If Jerry Yang is in the house I’d love to know what he thinks about this.

Wait — I think he said something about striving for excellence or monetizing an audience or something … ? ;)

An interesting debate over what Marc Andreeson was alluding to, when, as it refers to web services an the evolution of “Web2.0″, Fred Wilson supported the idea that a new design pattern was emerging that was being pioneered by younger generation of web users — mostly because they are “net native”. What was interesting, of course, was how the issue became one of “Fred Wilson is an Ageist SOB — Let’s Do a Blog Pile-On”

I mean, at its heart, its a silly debate … one that speaks more of the bloggers who are protesting a little too loudly, and a little too long, about how they feel about their own ages.

I would like to think that I’m not old. I don’t think 30 is old. But, I *do* understand what Fred Wilson is getting at. Every few years, there’s a change in how young folk “use” the Internet. I’m probably a few generations away from how teenagers are currently using it, and it will continue to change and evolve even beyond how teens are using it now. And I think *THAT* is what Fred Wilson is getting at.

Would you like two examples?

How many of you check your email?

Or, this one: How many of you wear a watch when you leave the house?

Teenagers today use email less than any demographic, for example. Use ‘less’ email? Why might that be? Perhaps because they’re sending messages via their own closed networks, such as MySpace or Facebook. Or, perhaps because they’re using their phones to send text messages. I’m not quite sure of the reasons (where’s Charlene Li when you need her?), but this kind of fact carries incredible implications

Consider the usage of watches. I don’t have a link here, but I did see a bit on a local news station the other day, and I was surprised to hear that something like less than a quarter of all teenagers carry watches. Why is that? Well, when asked about it, most said things like “I’m carrying a cell phone around with me *all* the time — that has the time.” Or, “Why would I need a watch? I just look at my iPod”.

Both of these kinds of patterns are unfathomable to *me*, but it is precisely these kinds of things which define how a generation interacts with different media, and in this case, the rise and (off-line) ubiquity of instant messaging. Sure, when they ‘grow up’ they’ll all start using email and begin wearing a watch because business standards will force them to adopt them.

But it says a lot about how they would *rather* spend their time. And these two small examples are clear examples of how digital generations are “different”, even to individuals who might not classically be defined as of a “generation” than them (as I clearly am).

Now, just because you’re older doesn’t disqualify you from being a net native. However, its clearly the rule, rather than the exception. The average 60 year old will understand email, but because none of his or her peers are using instant messaging and off-line texting to communicate, I’d wager there’s an aspect of this pattern of usage that they just won’t “get”.

If you’d like an analogy, when boomers were listening to Rock and Roll, I’m sure there were folks who were part of the Greatest Generation who “got” that as well, and were just as happy to turn up the volume on Mick Jagger, Barry Manilow, or Paul McCartney (for those boomers who were into those artists). But, I’ll wager that most didn’t.

Furthermore, if you were in the music business, of course there were professionals that were older and seasoned, but if you wanted to learn more about creating a new sound that was fresh and new, unless you’re always in places and with people who were making that new sound, you just wouldn’t be right for the job.

Bottom line? It doesn’t mean that you have to be young, but it helps.

Fred Wilson’s post wasn’t a shot at people who have paid their dues in the technology business. All it was was a recognition of a phenomenon that happens with every generation. And, more importantly, something that happens with the exploration and maturation of every new medium.

You don’t have to *be* young to recognize and take advantage of new patterns for the “web2.0″, but you do have to be in it, thinking about it, and using it often enough to be facile with the terminology and usage that you *could*do it. That Fred Wilson sees so many “company’s” these days with younger and younger pitchmen is a testament to the fact that many of them happen to be 20-somethings.

Andrew Keen, widely regarded as the curmudgeon of the social media set, sat down earlier today to take a few questions and answers from a few lowly plebs about his thoughts on social media. For those not quite familiar with his work, I’ll paraphrase it up for you: Mr. Keen believes that user generated media is a pox on society and culture at large, and likens it to a digital kind of Marxism. Believers are fooling themselves into believing that the masses can — or should — create different works and this threatens to supplant the wizened and wiser knowledge of a few professional or cultural elites.

I’ll let you read the article for yourself, or perhaps a few snippits, courtesy of Mat Ingram.

Nevertheless, I have to applaud Mr. Keen on one thing: if you’re going to be a troll, why not be the most magnificently flame-baiting troll you can be? Furthermore, if you’re going to troll it out, why not write a book about it so you can take advantage of your flame-baiting habits?

I don’t think its worthwhile debating any of Mr. Keen’s points in any depth, for the reason that his premise is based on a foundation of sand. And that is that the future that he is so worried about, what with all the unwashed mouth-breathing masses creating Stuff, can still be changed.

The sad fact is that it can’t — because its here already, and — if you’re Andrew Keen? — its only going to get worse. We already live an environment that is changing, and with the incredibly fast changing trends amongst today’s youth (never mind those in other parts of the world), it is only going to change more. Something like an astounding 30% of them actually create media to share with their friends, for example. I can barely imagine this world when they’re adults.

You know, I view Andrew Keen’s position as one of a crusty curmudgeon not because he doesn’t have any experience with technology; he does, and he’s benefited quite handsomely from it at some point or another. Rather, he posits forth an assertion that’s has the air of prescience, but is in fact nothing more than a crusty attitude.

How else to describe a position that looks ludicrous in the face of overwhelming reality? We will no more go back to his idealized world of professors and professionals exclusively arbiting opinion and taste than … well, than we can expect Google to suddenly lose its share of the Search Engine wars to Ask.com. Its just not going to happen no matter how hard you wish it so — even if you have a $100 million dollar marketing budget (sorry, Ask.com).

And in that way, I applaud Andrew Keen.

If you’re going to take a controversial opinion that will act as an obvious lightning rod, I agree — why not be the crustiest, flame-baitingest, most magnificent troll you can be?

As Mike Arrington said it best at Mesh: “If I say things that are outrageous things? I make more money … Its good for my business to say things like that”.

And it seems like Andrew Keen is taking a page out of that playbook. And good for him if it sells him more books, I say.

Well, you may or may not have heard that Real has released a new RealPlayer — one that tries to shed its bloatware past, and tries to don some new lean, YouTube ripping, duds. Well, that’s what advance press has said about it anyway, in TechCrunch, Scoble, and the Wall Street Journal.

Interested in checking it out for yourself?

You’d be out of luck until the end of the month as alpha’s are hard to come by … unless you happen to read Deep Jive Interests, of course! :)

If you’re interested in checking out an alpha build of the “new” realplayer, which CNet describes as “impressive“, as it allows you to “download and organize nearly all embedded internet video content (Flash, WMV, QuickTime) including content from popular video sites like YouTube, Comedy Central, and of course, CNET” — this is what you need to do:

Leave a comment explaining what’s the very first embeded video you’d like save onto your hard drive that you never got the chance to do before.

Winners will be announced within a week (I promise).

Good luck, and start commenting!