His demonstration has some strong point for a power-user but certainly not for the masses. The whole conversation reminds me of the controversy about iPod and music.

Yes, I would basically agree that reading content on a browser is more convenient for me. But reality proves that monetization of digital content via web is complicated.

Apple has created a value added chain of services from publishing to distribution. It’s easy to buy and use.

Newspapers over the world are facing their worse crisis ever. It’s the end of an era. And however we look at it, printing news on paper in 2010 makes no sense.

So will the iPad save the newspaper industry? I think it will. Web content will be limited to headlines, forums, past editions, but premium content will be distributed via apps.

The basic recurring argument saying people won’t pay for content because they can find fresher news freely on the web is just ridiculous. No one buys a newspaper for fresh news. Newspapers are here to bring a deeper, better understanding of the raw information. I don’t think Fred Wilson buys The New York Times to find anything new. He cares about the analysis, the vision brought by journalists and experts.

iPad distribution of newspaper solves many problems:

-       production cost [printing]
-       distribution
-       reachability
-       interactivity
-       loyalty
-       spontaneity

When it comes to market ipad/iphone study I turn to my mother. She discovered emails 2 years ago and never wrote a letter since. Same for the iPhone, which never leaves her sight. iPad has dramatically change the way she reads news and this is just the beginning. I bet newer devices will upgrade the digital experience to unprecedented levels.

Apple brought to the masses what the web failed to provide. SECURITY. My mother feels more secure buying an app online than walking to the newsstand down the road. And that, my friends, is the reason why I believe app stores will succeed.

The ability to pay for your digital content in ONE place, all in one click of a button is magic. Until the web can fix compatibility problem, offline reading, payment options, reminders, push notifications and much more, mobile applications will rule.

Is traffic a sign of popularity?

So I went on writing down numbers on a scrapbook. My primary goal was to search brand names and the number of search associated with that brand. To do so I used the Top 100 brand by Millward Brown [PDF].
Surprisingly Facebook, Twitter, iPhone, My Space are not listed by the research institute. Even in a brick and mortar world, Facebook should be in top 5 most known brands.

Below are results found using Google.com [US English page as of December 30, 2009].

Few basic observations: Google and Facebook together are more popular than Web. US takes the lead with over 23 billions search results. USA and War all together are less popular than Yahoo!

Behind those figures I see two conclusions. First, top brands -as described in the study published by Millward Brown- are yet far behind in terms of web image. Their online presence is a failure for 95% of them. This should give hope to all online viral social media jungle marketing agencies out there. The second conclusion is sadder: traffic doesn’t mean revenue. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, MySpace and Hotmail generating over 5.3 billion of search results have an estimated global revenue of $1.3 billion for 2009 representing 0,003% of Wal-Mart’s 2009 revenue.

It brings us back to valuation calculation- should we continue to use online popularity or traffic to rate online businesses?

What do you think?

“We’re confident that it works because we’ve been testing it now for a couple of years,” he said. “And so we’re really ready to start rolling it out.”

Of the 1.6 billion Internet users worldwide, Beckstrom – a former chief of U.S. cybersecurity – said that more than half use languages that have scripts based on alphabets other than Latin.

“So this change is very much necessary for not only half the world’s Internet users today, but more than half of probably the future users as the use of the Internet continues to spread,” he said.

Read more here:

International Domain Names: Internet Set To Add Non-English Web Addresses

.

Electronic books are not my cup of tea. I resisted as long as I could to move to digital content. Nothing can match the touch of a book, the smell of inked paper, the easy access to any page, sneaking preview of chapters and the legacy you leave to younger generations.

Anyway we have to live with our times and I decided to give ebook a try. My daughter has a Kindle and reads about 2 books per week. She takes it everywhere.

I personally find the Kindle ugly and lacking basic features making any attempt to try the device worthless. Choice was limited to Sony eReader or Kindle. Soon new devices will be released- obviously upcoming readers can only get better.

The #1 difference between Sony and Amazon is accessibility. Kindle is an online device with wireless capabilities (limited to US market and soon to be open to international) as the Sony eReader is an offline device where you need to connect to your desktop/laptop in order to download books.

I do not see the need to download a book wirelessly as a mandatory feature. It’s not a news or weather service. You can download hundreds of books on a Sony and be set for a long long time. The only thing you need to add a book to Sony eReader is a USB cable. You can even use memory cards. Sony supports all memory card formats adding more flexibility and more storage to the ebook.

Being wireless and connected to ONLY Amazon store is an extremely restrictive feature of the Kindle. Wireless doesn’t mean openness. You must buy your books from the 350,000 titles available. It’s a lot -I agree. But Sony eReader gives you access to Google’s library of 1million FREE books and tons of other libraries accessible online in all languages.

One of the top features Sony added is the touch-screen ability. I love flipping pages using my finger. Makes digital content user-friendlier for an old man like me.

At last my choice for the Sony eReader PRS-600 was final after someone showed me Calibre. Calibre is a magic piece of software that turns ANY digital content into a reading material on the Sony eReader. Magazines, word docs, books, tutorials…anything you can see on your computer can be readable on the Sony.

It gives also access to ebooks purchased by a friend who willingly lends you his book. One thing Kindle cannot handle. If you bought a book and your wife wants to read it on HER Kindle – she cannot transfer your purchase. Recently Amazon pulled OUT books that were purchased on the Kindle store directly from users device. This is inadmissible for me. When I buy a book – it’s mine and I can decide to lend it to my kids without violating any copyrights. There is no fear one will come to my place and take it off the shelf.

If books were not going from one hand to another – literature would have died long time ago. I do not encourage anyone to steal but I must admit it’s a killer feature.

Sony has learned from the ATRAC days that open file formats are more preferable than proprietary ones. By supporting the ePub format, Sony’s essentially guaranteeing that your digital library will always have a home. Stick with Kindle’s proprietary format, and you’re forever a slave to Amazon’s device.

Same feature that made iPod so popular. Take an mp3, drag it on iTunes and enjoy the music. No question asked.

Conclusion: my subjective review goes towards Sony eReader. Three good reasons: cheaper, better, richer. For a detailed review of Sony PRS-600 read Ilene Hoffman post on http://www.electronista.com/reviews/sony-prs-600-touch-ereader.html

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: XXX XXXX <yyyyyyyy@aexp.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Subject: Laduree
To: xxxxxxx@gmail.com

Hi Florian,

Please send me an invoice for $250 for your image of Laduree that ran a quarter page in our September issue.  The story name is “Airline Food.”

Thanks,

Jessica

–
XXXX XXXXX
Associate Photo Editor

Travel + Leisure
1120 Avenue of the Americas, 9th floor
New York, NY 10036
www.travelandleisure.com

September 09 issue must have been published and sent for printing late August. I guess my picture of Ladurée macarons in Paris airport was picked up on Flickr. Even though my privacy and permission policy is stated on each picture no one contacted me on behalf of the magazine.

Nonetheless the picture was taken, cropped, published and printed without my permission. Out from the blue and a month after the fact I receive an email asking for a $250 invoice. hmmm talking about journalistic ethics and moral this is legend.

Why $250, why not $20 or $5000? I don’t get it.

Wild guess is someone at Travel Leisure is following my Twitter stream and decided to make a move avoiding any bad publicity. Further down you will see they had nothing to fear.

100′s of my pics end up on the web everyday. Most of the reprints are on blogs, some ad supported some not. Recently I noticed an increase of my photos used on commercial news related site and papers. It’s very difficult if not impossible to track photos published in newspapers or magazines. On websites I can use some tools based on tags, keywords, search and events but usually viewers are prompt to alert me.

Below few examples of reprinted pics/videos on commercial websites posted without permission:

http://www.cafebabel.com/eng/article/29690/bernard-madoff-fraud-europe-victims-banks.html

http://varl.jp/i-see-stock/wordpress-plugin-photo-dropper

http://www.portaldenoticias.com/videos/yt-u4MaQ-LOFnw

http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/diggs-kevin-rose-weve-got-be-more-relevant (no credit given – here is original pic)

Schmap.com (check pic of Ritz Carlton in Key Biscayne on right column)

and countless French, US newspapers and magazines.

I receive requests on regular basis asking for permission to reprint my photos. Honestly I don’t have the time and energy to deal with that. A couple of travel guides asked me for reprint rights offering money which I promptly granted for FREE.

One picture in particular caught public attention causing tens of emails.

Question: how many pics are used without permission in conventional press? Maybe NYT has the answer.

Now here is my position : you can use, copy, reprint, publish, distribute, share any of my original material – pictures, videos or texts with no limitation. I’m just asking you give me proper credit. You do not have to link to the original, you do not have to ask me permission. You do not have to pay anything. I would appreciate being notified of published images, texts or videos as an act of courtesy but you don’t have to if you don’t want to.

You can’t steal what is given freely. I call this sharing, not piracy.

PS: my reply to Travel+Leisure was obviously consistent with this post. No money involved, no permission needed.

Yesterday a debate started on Twitter after I shared an article taken from Yahoo! Finance and posted in extenso on my Posterous page.

For those – like Charles Arthur- who do not know the way Posterous works, here is a small tutorial.

You surf the web – find an interesting post and want to SHARE it.

Then once you press the Share on Posterous button you have :

Et voila – content is shared and all credits are given to the original source here:

Basically Posterous sharing ie Digg, Techmeme, Google Reader is identical as a ReTweet of valuable content.

Now back to yesterday’s incident.

I shared the following: http://florianseroussi.posterous.com/ten-big-companies-that-are-veering-toward-ban reproducing EXACTLY what was posted on Yahoo! Finance page. Exactly. Giving credit to Yahoo! and Business Insider as per the original post.

You will note that Yahoo! has a generic link to Business Insider but not to the original BI article.

Charles Arthur then asked why didn’t I link the original Business Insider post. Tried to explain how I used Posterous add-on to share content but Charles didn’t know anything about Posterous.

Mike Butcher – Techcrunch UK editor- jumped on the bandwagon without checking the facts thinking I simply reproduced a paid content without giving any credits. Once Mike understood his mistake he blamed me for not finding the original post and manually adding a link to the Yahoo! re-post.  It was simply a ridiculous claim but I searched the internet, found the link and added it to my shared content credit to appease boiling journo blood. As someone mentioned to me via DM – Mike Butcher was much more eloquent to defend the right to publish stolen documents on Techcrunch aka Twittergate. Journalist bullshit duty I guess.

Charles Arthur lost the plot, comparing cars, free content, source code and who knows what all together. Within hours- Charles tone went from arrogant to sarcastic to insulting.

Ilicco Elias tried to minimize the incident but Guardian editor was not ready to give up so easily.

My buddy Paul Walsh came to the rescue with a fair statement:

Charles still on a roll threatens to sue me and foresees a class action against Posterous starting soon (ahem)…

At last in a final act of bravery Arthur decided to block me and called me stupid after I mentioned The Guardian.co.uk had lost over £24M.

Mr Arthur – as the tech editor of The Guardian who do not have a clue what Posterous is – you should have a much more humble attitude.

Journalists – your current business model is SINKING. You are dying slowly with 20^th century principles. Wake up! Look around. You do not have the monopole of information and sharing. We – your readers- have the ability to share, produce and rate content the same way you do. The only value added you can provide is by doing a better job – not by shutting us down.

Note: I didn’t want to go on the legal approach of copyright et al on this post. I’m not an attorney and IP laws (international laws should I say) are too complicated for a blog post. Yahoo! quickly replied to my email and stated they are not involved as no logo or Yahoo! material has been shared.

Hopefully Charles Arthur will use last pence of The Guardian to start a worldwide class action against Google and Posterous to prove his point and whatever the outcome shall be – we will burn in golden letters on The Guardian’s headstone : The Death Of Arrogance.

UPDATE Sept 24 : After an email exchange with Charles Arthur I have modified the Posterous post to an excerpt only – adding another link to Business Insider [there are now 2 links, one on header and one on footer]. It would be interesting to know the conversation rate between hits on my Posterous to links onto BI but my guess is we will never know.