Below you will find an introduction on the Hype Cycle and the Priority Matrix and where emerging technologies are in the Hype Cycle.

What is the Hype Cycle?
Gartner states:
“Gartner’s Hype Cycle characterizes the typical progression of an emerging technology, from overenthusiasm through a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology’s relevance and role in a market or domain. Each phase is characterized by distinct indicators of market, investment and adoption activities.”

What is the Priority Matrix Graphic?
Gartner states:
“The Priority Matrix is a tool for prioritizing emerging technologies by forcing technology planners to look beyond the hype and assess technology opportunities in terms of their relative impact on the enterprise and the timing of that impact.”

What does it mean for you?
As explained by Gartner it will help you as a company to understand what the trends are, where to look at (be it for internal or business/growth opportunities) and what the “state” of these technologies are.
Jumping bandwagons without solid trend information does happen often, depending on the corporate culture (Innovator for instance) this can be good, for many others an understanding before applying technologies is a sure way to go.

For us Agora Media / AppMarket.tv it means to understand technologies like Augmented Reality, mobile technologies and convergent technologies, what the benefit and mainstream adoption timeframe is.
The latter is important for planning and business development. Too early has its advantages but also challenges, entering too late the market means losing share and a certain brand recognition/positioning.

Gartner provides many Hype Cycles, which you can find on this page.
For this article, three of the Hype Cycles that are relevant for our business are:
“Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2010″
“Hype Cycle for E-Commerce, 2010″
“Hype Cycle for Business Use of Social Technologies, 2010″

Below you’ll find the individual technologies that are mentioned in the “Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2010″ and where they are situated in the Hype Cycle.

You can relate the phases below to the shown first image in this article.

On the Rise
Human Augmentation
Context Delivery Architecture
Computer-Brain Interface
Terahertz Waves
Tangible User Interfaces
Extreme Transaction Processing
Autonomous Vehicles
Video Search
Mobile Robots
Social Analytics
3D Printing
Speech-to-Speech Translation

At the Peak
Internet TV
Private Cloud Computing
Augmented Reality
Media Tablet
Wireless Power
3D Flat-Panel TVs and Displays
4G Standard
Activity Streams
Cloud Computing
Cloud/Web Platforms

Sliding Into the Trough
Gesture Recognition
Mesh Networks: Sensor
Microblogging
E-Book Readers
Video Telepresence
Broadband Over Power Lines
Virtual Assistants
Public Virtual Worlds
Consumer-Generated Media
Idea Management
Mobile Application Stores

Climbing the Slope
Biometric Authentication Methods
Internet Micropayment Systems
Interactive TV
Predictive Analytics
Electronic Paper
Location-Aware Applications
Speech Recognition

Entering the Plateau
Pen-Centric Tablet PCs

Augmented Reality is at the peak, meaning attention is reaching a all high record. Companies like Layar, T-Immersion, Junaio are pushing -with much success- the boundaries of this technology.
Microblogging on the other hand is sliding into the trough, meaning it will have hard times to prove itself within the environment and usage. In case of Microblogging I do see a bright future, but less hyped and much more relevant than in many present cases.
Interactive TV is climbing the scope, it has passed the trough and modified/enhanced offers are globally being developed, making it an interesting emerging market.

What do you think of the Hype Cycle management model?
Do you make use of it during strategic planning and growth strategies?

Related posts:

1. The Hype Cycle of Innovation: Key Questions
2. Top 10 Strategic Technologies for 2010 by Gartner
3. Real-time Web Relativation

The company will create severeal games based on Nickelodeon and MTV shows and characters.

Chairman and CEO of MTV Networks, Judy McGrath, says:

“Social gaming is one of the biggest drivers of the explosive growth in social media – it’s fun, it’s engaging, and it’s shareable,” said Judy McGrath, Chairman and CEO of MTV Networks.  ”Social Express brings us strong experience and know-how in this burgeoning space, which we’ll supercharge with the IP and scale of Nickelodeon and other MTV Networks brands to create great new social gaming experiences for our fans and cool tools for independent developers as well.”

On a conceptual level, it will be interesting to learn if MTV Networks will head towards transmedia entertainment concepts, incorporating television programs, websites and social games to create a full-fledged integral storytelling.
Each medium will serve another purpose and like McGrath already states, Social gaming is fun and engaging, two ingredients which could add a new experience and layer to existing or new concepts.

Transmedia concepts do exists and there are great examples, for instance the Happiness Factory by Coca Cola.
The Happiness Factory is a virtual world of characters living inside a vending machine. The series lives across multiple channels, including commercials, interactive video games, and a musical soundtrack that features a variety of artists. The series provides Coca-Cola with additional revenue streams, and customers with a fun brand experience.

MTV Networks could do similar concepts based on Nickelodeon and MTV shows and characters, taking it a step further, taking the engagement of the viewers of MTV a step further.

What do you think of the potential MTV Networks has with Social Gaming?
Is the Entertainment industry perfect for transmedia concepts?

Related posts:

1. Social Periphery & Mobile Social Networks
2. Is Google changing its Strategy? RIP Google Wave but acquisition of social app developer Slide for 182 million dollar
3. New milestone in Mobile opportunities with ATSC’s Mobile DTV Standard

There are multiple aspects that define the Social TV experience.

Some of these aspects are:

*Changing basic TV experience from lean-back to lean-in;
*Technology factors like Internet-Connected TV adoption;
*Remote controls that support the social experience effectively and
*Broadband access and so on.

These aspects are all external when we look at the social experience itself, namely communication/interaction.
Would (the type of) interaction be a determinant of how the Social TV experience is created?

What if instead of the enabling of interaction being the starting point for Social TV developments, we take the TV content and its public interaction as starting point.

In the Social TV: Designing for Distributed, Sociable Television Viewing paper, the type of interaction is being researched.

At a general level, we can characterize the comments exchanged by our participants using five broad types (Table 1):
• Content-based comments directly reference the content that is on or recently shown on the screen.

• Context-based comments are relevant to the show in its greater context, but perhaps not the specific episode or moment that is being viewed.
Examples are references to the actors, past episodes, show trivia, etc.

• Non-sequitur comments are social exchanges such as asking about one’s family, or talking about events unrelated to the TV program. These are usually more common in groups who already have some social connection with each other.

They often take the form of side conversations (usually whispered, or at least toned down) between two participants and rarely follow the structure of the show.

• Logistical comments are relevant to the television watching experience, but are independent of the programming.
Tasks like changing channels, adjusting volume, etc. must be verbally communicated to the group so that whoever has control of the set can respond.

• Phatic responses are almost involuntary reactions from the audience like laughter, gasps, groans, “Whoa!”, etc.

To summarize, our observations reveal that interactions between television viewers are tightly interwoven with the structure of the show they are watching.

Do the types of comments/interaction need to be taken into account when designing the Social TV technologies?

Yes, here’s why:

Depending on the TV show, one- or two-screen experiences can be dynamically created in offering widgets or sites in order to communicate in a way which is appropriate for that TV show.

For instance Content-based comments could be showed directly next to the TV content, whilst Logistical comments can be better displayed on a second-screen, without adding noise and irrelevance in relation to the TV content.

Key is to keep it simple without complicating matters in terms of usage and consistency.

This point of view might also explain why current Social TV widgets only clutter the screen instead of adding additional value for the viewers.  Twitter for instance is so broad it contains any kind of comment that will be displayed by the Twitter widget.  Intelligent systems could detect types of comments and distribute them differently.

Maybe intelligent systems are one step too far ahead, but the offered applications can be enhanced to the most probable or occuring type of interaction related to the TV show.

What do you think, does taking into account the type of interaction, enhance the Social TV experience or not?

Related posts:

1. Our Cross Media Social Platform -> Telephony 2.0 – TV 2.0 – Web – 3D
2. Business applicated Social TV and Social Convergence
3. MARUG Congress 2010 – Future of Marketing on TV – Social TV, TV 2.0I

It has been possible for a while now to download an iPhone app and using it as remote control for your TV. Examples include Apple TV themselves and Boxee.

These remotes are however slightly different to the remote control we know and love (or hate when it has slipped down the side of the sofa, or the kids have taken the batteries…because they needed them for one of their toys!). The Boxee iPhone app provides a ‘pointer’ mechanism, in that you can track your finger across the iPhone screen and it will direct the movement of a spot cursor on your TV. A nice gimmick you say and perhaps you are right, however one of the main reasons why these companies developed and launched these remote control apps is because it provided an easier way to input text into the search function or sign up function on the TV….have you every tried to type in a long phrase, or your email address using just the remote control…?!

Today, Comcast Labs announced their prototype for a new generation of remote control…the Xfinity remote.  It works on the iPad and any other IP enabled devices.

If you want to read the whole article, you can thanks to those great guys over at Interactive TV Today.

So why is this an exciting new development? I believe this could set the scene for a number of new developments in the connected home that will become the catalyst we have needed, to understand what the future holds for our 3 favorite buzz words right now – ConnectedTV, SocialTV and the 2 Screen experience…

This is the video from Comcast Labs which demos the Xfinity remote.  Read below the video for first thoughts on what opportunities this could have on the digital home of the future…

Heres why:

1. A remote control that is an app on my iPad / netbook / laptop / iPhone gives context between the content I am watching on the big screen, and other IP enabled services.

2. You will be able to use this app to browse and search through an EPG to find broadcast (linear) and video on demand content.

3. You can choose what content to watch on your big screen directly from the app…a simple touch of the finger will change the channel on your TV.

4. The app could use the content you have chosen to watch on the big screen as context for other related content on your ipad that you might like to snack on. It could become the ultimate tv companion e.g. see other content that relates to what you are watching, or help answer any questions you have relating to what you are watching (think tellylinks.com), join conversations about the content, add comments about the content and share with others, rate and recommend the content to others, buy the suit that the actor is wearing…all directly on your ipad app.

5. You can integrate social networks directly into the interface of the app so you can share and interact with others, whilst also getting recommendations from your friends, or choose to listen to a different commentary on a live broadcast event from one of your favorite social tv presenters.

6. Participative TV shows could have a new kind of format, with a new kind of audience.

7. Advertisers and Sponsors would have a new highly targeted and more personalised format that puts them directly in front of your eyeballs for the duration of the programme / film you are watching…and we wont mind so much because it will have context with what I am watching, but without the intrusion.

8. tCommerce could have a platform for enabling the easiest way for you to complete transactions.

9. You could see and choose which match to watch at Wimbledon ie. tapping into the red button services that broadcasters such as the BBC offer at big events.

Have you come across any other IP based remote control applications?

What other uses and consumer behaviours could these applications drive in the home, on the fingertips of your average coach potato?

Related posts:

1. MTV to make iPad into Interactive Social TV
2. Turn your iPhone into a Social TV remote
3. YouTube Aiming for the Big Screen in Your Living Rooms

Q: Where do these two mutually intersect?
A: On the level of two-screen solutions and applications/widgets.

Wikipedia says on two-screen solutions:

“Two-screen”, or “synchronous solutions”, are a form of interactive TV that enables information about a TV show to be accessed via the internet on a mobile phone, laptop or desktop PC. Unlike one-screen interactive TV solutions, where all of the interactivity is on the television, two-screen applications are typically done from a computer, and are free to the user. In these cases, users are not changing the content on the television, they are accessing supplementary information about the show. The difference between two-screens and normal web pages are the two-screens are relevant to the live programming, refreshed in real-time, and often provide social networking around live broadcasts.

Augmenting the TV experience in a one-screen solution is happening, sure, think of teletext or subtitles for instance.
But the augmentation is up to a certain level, due to the content and focus it has on that certain time.

Two-screen solutions on the other hand enable augmentating of the TV experience to a new level, where it comes into its own.
These kind of solutions are great for multitaskers and the information hungry society we live in.
Social complementary solutions which will connect you with friends and recommendations on the second screen, whilst consuming the core content via TV.
One can ask him-/herself if the TV content is primary or simply the reason for social activity.

The other intersection is with regard to the emerging TV applications and widgets which will enhance the core content on one screen.
there’s a learning curve though, simply cluttering the screen with additional information/widgets doesn’t work according to researcher Marie-José Montpetit at MIT’s Research Lab for Electronics on NewTeeVee.

Though the potential is present, a smart and enhanced usage and application of widgets is needed, to create and validate relevant and quality augmentation.
Almost anything can be an augmentation of the reality or experience, but as explained in Augmented Reality Semantics it has to be contextually qualitative and easy to use. Technologies are one thing, but if it’s not simple and powerful enough, users won’t adopt due to the high perceived risks.

On AppMarket.tv, we created the poll “ Two Screen or One Screen? What is the Future of Social TV?“.
Do let us know what you think is the future of Social TV.

Related posts:

1. YouTube Aiming for the Big Screen in Your Living Rooms
2. Agora Media’s AppMarket.tv – first online portal around TV applications and widgets
3. Augmenting Travelers

Again news for the travel industry, last week it was the rumor on a potential Google & ITA deal, now it’s Apple (increasing rivalry between them and Google) which comes with iTravel, Apple’s way of revolutionizing the travel industry.

What iTravel basically does is converging the complete travel process for the iPhone.
A complementary – thus competitive and unique – combination of iPhone hardware and software will enable travelers to search, plan and book flights, hotels, rentals and much more.
At the airport you’ll be able to handle luggage and boarding passes.

At this time, iTravel is in the patent stage, for more information on iTravel, have a look at PatentlyApple.

Two questions arise:
* What does this mean for travel marketers?
A new distribution channel might come available, because it’s Apple, will this mean a next step in disintermediation?

* Is Apple able to disrupt the travel industry, exactly because of the centralized position their device (iPhone) will have?
If Apple is able to penetrate key industries, the usage of one mighty device is in their advantage and reach.

Related posts:

1. Apple’s plans to revolutionize the ticketing process via iTunes and iPhone
2. Google + ITA: Will it change the travel value chain?
3. The launch of Apple’s iAd – Interesting rumor

The five game mechanics she refers to, are:
1. Collecting
2. Points
3. Feedback
4. Exchanges
5. Customization
Applying those to the context of social sites is easy to understand, it motivates. Motivation increases usage and usage increases loyalty, traffic, income and so on.

View below the aforementioned presentation:

Yesterday I found a presentation on Youtube of Amy Jo Kim, about the topic of Game Mechanics on Social sites.
Enjoy, it’s interesting.

Her approach to use game words like players instead of users is a start to see sites as games and how you can approach networks with this point of perspective.
Think of Foursquare, Gowalla etc.

What do you think of the gaming approach from a social architectual point of view?

Related posts:

1. EnerCities: The first serious game on Facebook – Friends from Paladin Studios Launch App!
2. Game Theory and Social Media Intelligence: Enhancing Strategic decisions
3. (Social) Gaming – significant numbers & the next level

As mentioned on Bloomberg:

“Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information, and ITA does that for travel,” said Henry Harteveldt, an analyst at Forrester Research Inc. in San Francisco.

With this mission comes their advertising model, adding ITA’s will enhance the travel information they can provide users.
Increased relevance for the users means higher earnings for Google due to the higher costs which are paid by advertisers.
Google has five times more search volume than Bing has in the US, with the addition of ITA’s software, quality can increase due to the enhanced search and buying experience.
Bloomberg Businessweek reports:

With tools that help users find flight information online, ITA Software may help Google compete with travel-search features offered by Microsoft. The companies are tussling for share in the U.S. market for online travel, which generated $88.4 billion in sales last year, according to Sherman, Connecticut travel consulting firm PhoCusWright Inc.

One of the most sophisticated travel-search features offered by Microsoft is the Farecast technology which is the basis of Bing Travel.

From the customer point of perspective it all sounds pretty logical and fine, who wouldn’t want a shorter buying journey?
Though from the B2B point of view, it’s a different story, hence my initial question.
Google would not only intermingle with the offline agents, but as well with their online equivalents, the OTAs. The ultimate “direct” supplier has signed in.
As mentioned by this analyst:

Since the GDS power both of those channels, there would most certainly be a major impact to their transaction volume for air ticket sales, which is what drives their business model.

If Google is able to kill two birds with one stone, namely further disintermediation of the travel supply chain and a higher search share from Microsoft (and others), it has a potential winner.
This will go accompanied by power shifts in both the industries (Search and Travel), how do you think they will respond?
What’s your general opinion on this possible acquisition?

Related posts:

1. iTravel: Apple’s way of revolutionizing travel?
2. Is Google changing its Strategy? RIP Google Wave but acquisition of social app developer Slide for 182 million dollar
3. Will Google be able to open up the TV industry? – Introducing Google TV

Yes, what it will do at least, is shake up the TV industry and get them out of their “Walled Gardens”, and actively look for business model innovations.  Google has the potential, reach and money to penetrate the market with more than just a shake up. It will likely be cataclysmic… and they will truly launch the concept of Social and Connected TV into the Zeitgeist by 2011.

The rumour mill has once again ground out another flutter of gossip about Google going into the TV market – but still – nobody will go on record. This time it’s about when they will release their official foray into this space.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that:

Google Inc. is planning to introduce Android-based television software to developers at an event in May, according to people familiar with the matter.

Google is headhunting for developers in this space, which validates the buzz.

Android and Chrome both have substantial development communities, but it will likely take some time before investments are made from software developers – and it will come when Google can show a critical mass adaption. Until now, Yahoo Connected TV has been leading in this space, but interest in their Widget Development Kit (WDK) is rather tepid. Google TV’s future development kit (likely based on Android and Chrome),  won’t likely be wide open, but will surely be more flexible and malleable than Yahoo’s.

But other news on Google TV recently came with a report from the  Korean Herald,  who published an article about a possible marriage between the world’s leading TV manufacturer, Samsung, and Google TV. In other words, Samsung, who is already tied to Yahoo Connected TV is considering cutting another deal with Google and building CE devices with Android architecture.

Yahoo won’t be happy if this pans out – but they don’t seem to be able to develop much traction in attracting developers to this space, nor creating enough buzz about Social TV, TV Apps, Widgets etc.

Will hardware manufacturers lose their control? They might, if they don’t play ball, Google just might start producing TV’s themselves.

According to a quote from the same Korean Herald article

Chun Seung-hoon, an analyst at Eugene Investment & Securities, said Samsung’s Google TV is plausible, given that Google’s Android is an open platform. “There is no problem for Samsung to produce Google TVs,” he said. However, he said the hardware manufacturer faces the risk of losing its control over the TV market to Google, a software firm, should it make Google TVs. “This is not a good picture. I think it would be better for Samsung to expand its own platform Bada,“ he said.

Google’s perspective is from the software side, manufacturers is from the hardware perspective, and a complementary growth strategy for both sides is more plausible.

Expansion of its own mobile development platform Bada – Samsung could perhaps itself  head towards their own Social TV development and make a play for both a two screen and one screen experience.  People’s demand in the end is what will make or break a Walled Garden, in this case Bada, which already has an ample app store.

Already mentioned in one of my earlier analysis Television 2.0’s foremost challenge is… , consumer control and attention are essential in understanding the coming paradigm TV shift.

In the end, all that people want is any content at their time, on their screen when they’re in the mood. Creating a battle between open systems, from any kind of manufacturer, is a risk for growth strategies and revenue streams.

Going from the platform to the actual content consumption which will be enabled by Google Android TV, it will be interesting to see how this will develop and evolve.
On NewTeeVee, researcher Marie-José Montpetit at MIT’s Research Lab for Electronics, says that Social TV doesn’t mean a cluttering of content and widgets on the TV screen.

Google has the resources to analyse this in-depth, create understanding how the new television experience could be enhanced in appropriate ways, not a simple centralisation of different content on a screen.

There’s more than enough landscape on the next generation of TV’s to allow for optional widgets to be popped in and out, and if sized correctly,  a single screen experience can work. The widgets, from a design perspective, can and should be optional and can and should be designed to be part of the overall TV experience, if planned well. If they can get the Interactive Design down pat – getting ‘social’ on one screen can work. There are many examples of websites that have this kind of alternative.  Our blog has an optional widget for Twitter that can be pulled out and retracted quite nicely 0n the bottom right.

Here again the ultimate quest is to provide users control to gain their attention which will lead to -new- revenue models.

Apps/Widgets have been said to be the new Cash Cow generators for the digitized ubiquity, the syndication of content and the consumption of it. If Google and the industry will be able to go forth in the evolution of television and the experience, conventional revenue models could be proven not to be the only valid ones.

What do you think, will Google be able to get movement in this cumbersome sector?

Related posts:

1. Google Aims at the TV market – Will they Succeed? Yes, and Here’s Why
2. People of Lava Erupt with the world’s first Android TV
3. YouTube Aiming for the Big Screen in Your Living Rooms

This afternoon, at exactly 14:00h (GMT+1), the Dam Square won’t be what it normally is, the Square will be taken over by people who explore the square by means of Augmented Reality, holding up phones and investigating their surroundings.
I do wonder what the expressions will be of people who don’t know about the Augmented Reality Flashmob?

This idea comes from Sander Veenhof:

“Every square in every major city in the world knows the ‘human statue’ phenomenon. On the Dam Square in Amsterdam Darth Vader, Superman, a Gladiator and some undecipherable sort of gothic characters colour the scene.“

Visit the website to install the appropriate software and such in order to be part of this AR event.
The procedure is as following:

PROCEDURE FOR SATURDAY THE 24TH:

- prepare your phone with the right software, see left column
- iPhone users can download and use the Layar app to activate the flashmob AR view
- downloadable ‘human sculpture’ models will be available for Android phones
- to bring your own 3D model, create obj/mtl files and put them on an Android phone
- to do so, get the AndAR application from the market (* on 23rd of April)
- AR tags on the ground will be provided

All use the #ARFlashMob hashtag!
Looking forward to comments and experiences this afternoon.

Related posts:

1. A new Augmented Reality information portal: NearestWiki
2. ABI Research Anticipates “Dramatic Growth” for Augmented Reality via Smartphones
3. Augmented & Virtual Reality Contest: Show your creativity!