Path CEO Dave Morin

Path, the mobile app for cataloging your daily activities and sharing them with a relatively small circle of contacts, came under serious fire on Tuesday when it was discovered that Path’s iPhone app imports all of its users’ address book data onto Path’s own servers without notification or asking permission. Not surprisingly, many people saw this as a major breach of user trust.

Path CEO Dave Morin quickly responded to the fallout, telling app developer Arun Thampi, the blogger who first discovered the address book upload activity, that the data was only used to help users find their friends and “nothing more.” Even so, he also said that the Android app has the address book upload as an opt-in feature, and released a new version of Path for iPhone that does the same. The question still remained, though: What about all the address book data that has is already in Path’s hands?

According to Path, you can now consider it completely gone. In a company blog post Wednesday, Morin explicitly apologized for Path ever having such a feature and said that all the address book data that has already been uploaded will be erased from Path’s servers. The blog post, entitled “We are sorry,” reads in part:

“Through the feedback we’ve received from all of you, we now understand that the way we had designed our ‘Add Friends’ feature was wrong. We are deeply sorry if you were uncomfortable with how our application used your phone contacts.

…We believe you should have control when it comes to sharing your personal information. We also believe that actions speak louder than words. So, as a clear signal of our commitment to your privacy, we’ve deleted the entire collection of user uploaded contact information from our servers. Your trust matters to us and we want you to feel completely in control of your information on Path.”

It’s a very smart move by Morin and the Path team. Perceived privacy breaches can be hugely damaging to web companies, and especially so for a company like Path, which bills itself as a more private version of Facebook. Path is already on its second life of sorts (its first iteration as a pure photo sharing app did not take off so well) so its important for the company to value the users it has attracted. Path has not behaved perfectly, but its response to the outcry has been quick, sensitive and strong. The big test now is whether that will be enough from the users’ perspective.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications
• 12 tech leaders’ resolutions for 2012

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

If there was a bright spot in the latest quarterly results from the New York Times, it’s the fact that the newspaper’s metered paywall has attracted almost 325,000 subscribers willing to pay a monthly fee for the site. Despite all the celebrating from the pro-paywall camp, however, that bright spot was more than overshadowed by the other dark clouds in the numbers — including the fact that print advertising revenue continues to decline, and the paper’s former online jewel About.com got whacked by Google’s algorithm updates. Anyone who takes on the job of CEO at the media company is going to have to start thinking creatively about its business, because all the easy money has already been made.

Although the paywall and related print-subscription deals helped boost circulation revenue by almost 5 percent in the NYT’s media group — which includes the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune — and digital advertising revenue was also up by about 5 percent for the quarter, neither of those things were able to compensate for the continued drop-off in print advertising. Print ad revenue fell by almost 8 percent, which helped push the NYT’s fourth-quarter profit down by more than 12 percent, and for the full year the company reported a loss of million.

Paywall revenue isn’t even close to making up the gap

The New York Times didn’t provide any helpful charts that would make the reality of this situation more obvious, so one blogger decided to come up with his own. Paul McMorrow, an editor at CommonWealth magazine, put together a chart that shows the contrast between the NYT’s advertising revenue, circulation revenue and its total revenue:

According to newspaper-industry analyst Ken Doctor, the NYT is probably pulling in about million or so from its digital paywall — or “metered access,” as the paper likes to call it, since you get to read 20 articles for free before you get hit with a request for your credit card. But that’s not even close to being enough to make up for the decline in ad revenue, both print and digital, which dropped by 7 percent in the quarter.

One of the biggest problems for the Times is that its former online star About.com, which the company bought in 2005 for 0 million, has seen both its profitability and revenue-generating ability implode in the wake of an update to Google’s search algorithm — a change that was designed to penalize what the company called “low quality” content sites, or what some call “content farms.” In the most recent quarter, the NYT said About’s revenue fell by 26 percent, and profit fell by a staggering 67 percent.

As McMorrow’s chart shows, the Times is still far under water in terms of revenue, despite the benefit of its paywall. As I’ve argued before, there’s nothing wrong with having a paywall — although in many cases it amounts to building a wall of sandbags around the print newspaper edition, which provides most of the ad revenue — but if a paywall is your only strategy for responding to digital disruption of the media business, then you are almost certainly doomed, whether you are the New York Times or not.

Which way will the new CEO go — towards the past or the future?

So what should a new CEO be looking at to revitalize the NYT for a digital age? Ken Doctor suggests that the paper needs to look beyond just subcription revenue and focus on how it can target those 325,000 digital subscribers — since it knows who they are and where they live, and it already has their credit-card numbers.

I would take it one step further, however, and suggest that the new CEO think about some of the suggestions about “reverse paywalls” that have been made by journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, and also by former Washington Post managing editor Raju Narisetti (who is now at the Wall Street Journal in a digital role). The main principle behind this idea is that regular readers should get more than just a sales rep hitting them up for a monthly payment — the fact that they are a devoted fan should entitle them to earn rewards, whether it’s money off their subscription for interacting with the paper, or offers that others don’t get.

The NYT has taken a few steps towards trying to build relationships with its readers through what I’ve called the “levelling up” process that it recently added to its comment section, where readers can achieve preferred status for good behavior. Those are the building blocks of a relationship that the paper could use to its own benefit in all kinds of ways, many of which could generate new sources of revenue — real-life events, for example, which has been one of the things that has helped turn The Atlantic around, or a line of e-books based on the newspaper’s original reporting.

Another thing the NYT could — and should — be thinking about is what the role of an information provider is in the digital age. Is it to act as a gatekeeper for certain kinds of data and try to reimpose the scarcity that used to exist in the print era? Or is it to find partners to distribute that information in as many ways as possible, and to think of the paper as a data platform, as The Guardian has with its open-platform project? One way looks to the past, and the other to the future. Which way will the NYT go?

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users jphilipg and Giuseppe Bognanni

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• When video gets democratized, who wins and who loses?
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

In perhaps the biggest action of the open-science movement, a list of researchers 1,600-strong and growing is petitioning against the policies of Elsevier, one of the largest science journal publishers. Neuron Culture blogger David Dobbs reports.

Wired Top Stories

The ripples continue to spread from a recent Oregon court ruling involving a blogger who was sued for defamation, and argued that she should be covered by the state’s “media shield” law. The judge decided that she didn’t qualify as a journalist, which in turn reignited the old debate over whether bloggers are (or can sometimes be) journalists. Some have argued that instead of this question, it’s more important to define what journalism is, and ensure that it remains protected. But in many ways, that is even harder to define than who qualifies to be a journalist.

To recap the case, Crystal Cox — who refers to herself as an “investigative blogger” — was sued for defamation as a result of some blog posts she wrote about a company and its CEO. The judge who heard the case looked at Cox’s blog and ruled that she wasn’t a member of the media, at least for the purposes of Oregon’s media shield law, because she wasn’t affiliated with any traditional media outlets. This caused a wave of outrage in the blogosphere from many (including me) who believe that bloggers can be journalists regardless of whether they work for a mainstream media entity.

We shouldn’t be protecting journalists, but journalism

In the wake of the ruling, several bloggers — including Kashmir Hill at Forbes and David Carr of the New York Times — noted that Cox’s behavior went way beyond what most journalists (professional or not) would describe as journalistic: among other things, she created domains aimed at tarnishing the reputation of her targets, and then apparently sent an email to the company offering her services as an SEO consultant to repair the reputation she helped destroy.

As Rebecca Rosen at The Atlantic pointed out, this allowed journalists everywhere to heave a sigh of relief and say to themselves: “She’s not a journalist; she’s just a crazy lady with WordPress! We don’t need to protect her.” But this avoids the real question, said Rosen — not who is or isn’t a journalist, but what is journalism and how do we make sure that it is protected? The framers of the U.S. constitution weren’t concerned with journalists, she said, because they didn’t even exist yet as we know them. Instead, they wanted to protect free speech regardless of who engages in it.

Journalism professor Jay Rosen has made a similar point: we should be talking about protecting journalism, he says, not just trying to figure out who is a journalist. But how do we define what constitutes journalism? The judge in the Oregon case tried to come up with some qualities that he said Cox didn’t exhibit, including:

• proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest
• keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted
• mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources
• creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others
• contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story

All of these are excellent examples of things that some journalists do — but there are plenty who don’t, and practices are all over the map. The point about confidentiality alone is probably ignored by more journalists than adhere to it (not to mention the confusion over the exact meaning of phrases like “off the record,” “on background” and “not for attribution”). Should licensing bodies be giving tests, the way they do for doctors and lawyers before they are accredited? Some think they should. Josh Stearns of the non-profit group Free Press, who has been tracking journalists arrested during the crackdown on the Occupy movement, argues that actions should speak louder than labels.

How do we classify “random acts of journalism?”

Andy Carvin of National Public Radio, who has been using Twitter as a one-man newswire about the revolutions in Egypt and elsewhere, noted that he wouldn’t meet many definitions of a journalist because he isn’t actually a reporter — and I doubt that he maintains detailed notes of the conversations he conducts with people in the Arab world over Twitter, or discusses confidentiality agreements with them in depth. He also does a lot of “assembling the writings and postings of others,” as the judge put it. But I don’t think anyone would argue that what Carvin is doing isn’t journalism.

When a Pakistani Twitter user posted observations about the Osama bin Laden raid while it was happening, a debate sprang up about whether what he did qualified as journalism, and Carvin argued that there are more and more examples of what he called “random acts of journalism,” where someone happens to be in a certain place and provides on-the-scene reporting — or takes a photo of a plane that has landed in the Hudson River, for example.

Are these people journalists? Not really. But what they are doing is clearly one of the crucial elements of journalism now — as journalism becomes an ecosystem that anyone can become part of, rather than a static concept associated with a specific group of professionals and a specific group of platforms. Learning how to work within that process, to add journalistic skills (however we define them) to the streams of information that are flowing over us, is more crucial than ever, regardless of what we call the people who do that.

I think we have to resist the temptation to restrict our definition of journalism, just because there is some bad journalism out there (something there was plenty of before the internet and blogging came along). As Jay Rosen argues, journalism gets better when more people do it, and we should think about how to make that easier, not harder.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Yan Arief Purwanto and Petteri Sulonen

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Internet of things: creating tomorrow’s health care
• Themes for a connected world: GigaOM RoadMap review
• Dissecting the data: 5 issues for our digital future

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Critics have called out the Kindle Fire for some of its hardware and software shortcomings, which is not unexpected for a new device but hasn’t seemed to slow sales. But a bigger concern is emerging for parents who are thinking of buying the Kindle Fire: it has almost no restrictions to prevent children from accessing inappropriate content or buy whatever they like on the device.

Caryn Talty, a blogger with HealthyFamily.org, wrote about how she was able to access R-rated content on Amazon Prime Instant Videos, which is free for a limited time to new Kindle customers. She also noted that with one-click buying, which comes as the default option on the Kindle, users are not prompted to give a password with each purchase.

“I wish Amazon would install parental controls for their devices so that movies which are rated “R” can be blocked on the Kindle Fire as easily as they can on AT&T Uverse. We need to protect our kids from inappropriate materials online, and this includes electronic readers as well. Amazon should give Kindle Fire owners the option to install a 4-digit pin for content not appropriate for kids,” Talty wrote.

It’s not just movies: The Amazon Silk browser also has no controls for access, so parents can’t disable it for children. In fact, all of the magazines, books and comic books can be purchased with one click. There is a screen lock for the device with a password but almost everything is accessible once inside.

Amazon told Reuters earlier this week that it does provide controls for in-app purchases. But it’s still working on adding additional safety features. The company said it hasn’t had a problem with the way it sends devices pre-registered for one-click purchases.

“Customers tell us they love that Kindle Fire arrives registered to their account and ready to go,” Amazon told Reuters. “Those who prefer to have their Kindle Fire arrive unregistered can select ‘gift’ during the checkout.”

Apple has long had controls that allow parents to restrict access to iTunes, the App Store, Safari and YouTube. And it installed new controls on in-app purchases after parents and some legislators complained about the ease with which children were making app purchases and buying items inside apps. Barnes & Noblealso requires users to confirm a purchase on Nook devices.

Some of the problem is that Amazon is still on its first version of the Kindle Fire and it needs to patch up some rough spots on the device. But it also comes down to the central philosophy of the Kindle Fire, which is basically a big store front for Amazon. Amazon expects to sell a lot of goods through the Fire and as we’ve seen already with the iPad, tablets making very good shopping devices. That’s likely why Amazon is able to offer the device at such a low price with no profit, because it can make up for it on other transactions. Amazon’s trademark one-click checkout is part of the appeal for many consumers and it’s made some of my purchases easier on the Fire. But I’ve also caught myself a little worried that it’s actually too easy to buy something on the Fire. That can be bad for parents with children or people with bad impulse control.

I think Amazon needs to come up with more controls quickly. It may not be an issue with most consumers, but at the price the company is pitching it at, the Kindle Fire has a chance to be the first tablet in a lot of homes. Consumers want to feel safe handing their children a Kindle just as much as an iPod Touch. But it needs to come with more safeguards. I’m sure Amazon is working on this, but it would have been better to ship with those controls in place to show that it cares not just about selling but also respecting the different needs of its users.

Amazon is still going to sell a boatload of content legitimately on the Fire, but it doesn’t need to invite an uproar when parents find their children doing far more with their new tablet than they’d like.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Forecast: the evolution of the e-book market
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Connected Consumer Q3: Netflix fumbles; Kindle Fire shines

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Ten years is a long time. Sometimes it is so long that one forgets a lot more than one remembers — like the fact that it I have been blogging for a decade. I would have totally forgotten about the amount of time that has passed, had it not been for (what else) a blog post from Fred Wilson, one of the more engaging and rigorous bloggers on the web. It just so happens he is a venture capitalist, but he would be a great blogger without the VC tag as well.

His post made me ask myself: how long has it been since I have been blogging? Not an easy answer. I have had a website for a long time — mostly as a repository for articles I wrote for Forbes.com, Red Herring and a bunch of other publications. It had my resume as well. In the heyday of the dot.com bubble, I started writing an email newsletter (dubbed dotcomwala) and saved the archives on my website. There wasn’t much to do on the site. I ended up using Blogger, but mostly as a way to manage the site more easily — well, easier compared to Homesite & Dreamweaver, two tools I used for managing my website.

Along the way I became a reader first of Dave Winer and then Doc Searls. Their engaging and pithy, rapidly-updated style of linking and writing was so seductive that I started mucking about with Dave’s blogging platform(s.) I was trying out Dave’s Userland software long before it all made any sense to me. In September 2001, Dave blogged about the tragedy that changed our world. It was pretty clear that Winer had laid out what was going to be the future of media — and it still is.

Today we differentiate between blogging on blogging platforms and sharing on social platforms, but that is just semantics. The essence of blogging is not defined by a platform but by what I learned from Dave and his blogging platform — that media now is raw, collaborative and instantaneous.

And this is how it began

Over the holiday break in 2001, having just moved back to New York from San Francisco, I spent an inordinate amount of time on the Internet looking for new things and new ideas. The dot.com bust and the end of telecom bubble had made me think about writing a book. And I, eventually did. However, during those hours spent on the Internet, I ended up encountering MoveableType. An email later, Ben Trott (one half of the SixApart founding team with his wife Mena Trott) helped me set up a Moveabletype blog and suddenly we were off to the races. (Related: How Ev, Dave, The Trotts and Matt Mullenweg changed my life.)

Initial posts were still some of my articles from the Red Herring, but eventually I summoned up the strength to emulate my blogging heroes. I wrote and wrote and I guess I am still writing. In the process I became less interested in the rote work of a magazine — I was addicted to the blog and the daily interactions. I wrote every day and every day traffic went up. More importantly, more people joined the community of readers. My blog became a collaborative whiteboard /sounding board for my book, Broadbandits, which I had just begun writing.

Being addictive in nature, I was quickly hooked. The idea that all these smart people were sharing all their insights with me was the greatest feedback loop of all time. With every blog post, I engaged and learned. Ten years later, that learning continues. Not a day goes by that doesn’t see one of our readers leave a comment that makes me re-evaluate how I look at the technology or a topic I just wrote about.

I shared my opinions, I linked to stories I liked and more importantly, I used the blog to write/break news. My editors — Jason Pontin, Blaise Zerega and Josh Quittner — didn’t mind because I worked for monthly magazines and all of them knew that I was a “news” guy pretending to be working for a magazine. When I was working for Forbes.com during the early days of the dot-com bubble, I learned a vital lesson – you had to write every day to be any good and to have a complete handle on the beat. There was no way around the plain-old beat the pavement reporting.

Somewhere along the way the allure of blogging became such that I had to go tell my boss, Josh, that it was time for me to go and embrace my destiny. I loved Business 2.0 more than I loved anything, but  I overstayed by almost 18 months before I could pull the trigger. Ironically it was a late night drunken conversation with Matt Mullenweg, Mathew Ingram & Paul Kedrosky in Toronto (where I was a speaker at the debut Mesh conference) that did the trick.

In 2004, Anil Dash, also an early blogger (and inspiration) had introduced me to Toni Schneider (now CEO of Automattic) who had then sold a company to Yahoo. I wanted to talk to him because I had seen that we were going to enter a “lean startup” phase where the model was to build a product and exit by selling out to larger companies who needed some quick tuck-in products to complete their line-up. That one conversation led me to the other Tony (Conrad) and the story, The New Road to Riches.

Photo courtesy of Laughing Squid/Scott Beale.

So when it came time to leave, I went and chatted with Toni and Tony who led me to the newly formed True Ventures. A small seed round later, we were off to the races, trying to turn what essentially began life as brochure for my writings into a startup and eventually into a business.

As Josh would quip, I ate my own dog food. Life changed, forever, with that one act. And I am better for it. I have gone from being a lone writer to being part of a team. I am still learning the social skills that go along with being a founder. But that is a story for another day.

3 Posts a Day Keeps The Writer’s Block Away

Given that there isn’t quite an exact birthday (though December 13 is when I opened moveable type-powered GigaOm.com to the Internet) I thought this long break is a good time for me to sit and take stock. Here is the report card for past 10 years (not including the posts from my personal blog

• 11,165 posts
• About 3 posts a day, every day for roughly 10 years.
• About 2.06 million words.
• About 215 words per post.

Analyzing the data further helped me get these additional insights. For instance:

• In 2002, my first real and full year of blogging I wrote 187 posts and 35,105 words. By 2005, the total number of posts was up to 2,685 posts and 429,595 words. In 2010, the total number of posts had gone done to 283 and the total number of words slumped to 109,794. Average words went from 199 per post to 160 to 388 words/post.
• 2011 has been much slower – 136 posts at 465 words per post and a total of 63,223 words,  year to date.) I think majority of my writing for 2011 has been focused on big picture stuff including my occasional newsletter, Om Says.
• My top three most productive months are November, December and August — I guess I like writing during the holidays as it gives me more time to think and write.
• November 2004 was the most productive month of my blogging life – 339 posts followed by December 2004 when I wrote 283 blog posts.

Who’s afraid of Twitter? Not Bloggers

The second half of my blogging decade was marked by the rise of Twitter and other social medium. However, Twitter was (and still remains) the most active social sharing platform for me. I wondered if I my Twitter habit was costing me some blog posts. So I looked at my Twitter stats.

• 22,596 tweets over 1958 days or roughly 11.4 tweets a day.
• Assuming each tweet was about 10 words a day, that was still about 110+ words every day in tweets, though in reality actual words being spent on “tweets” were far fewer since many of my tweets are simple transmissions about my photos or blog posts.
• According to Tweetstats, I average roughly 510 tweets per month, with a preference for tweeting at 7 am (PST), especially on Wednesday, my heaviest tweet day.

So from the looks of it, Twitter has only acted as an accelerator for my blogging role, allowing me the luxury of writing less but reaching far more people. If the first five years were of extreme frenzy, then the second half is reflective of changes that happened not only in my work life but also in my personal life.

• As the data shows, my starting the company and taking on the founder duties acted as a speed bump and slowed down my blogging pace.
• Starting in 2008, I started to cut back on my daily work load and focus on my health. So far so good. Since 2010, thanks to GigaOM team, things have become more manageable for me.

What does the future hold? 

It is a good question. I have actually been thinking a lot about that lately and wondering how to reinvent the art form that I embraced over a decade ago. I don’t really have an answer, except that it is somewhere in the past and in the reasons why I fell in love with blogging.

It is pretty evident to me that chasing faux-stories that are cloaked as scoops or exclusives are of little or no interest to me. Sure, there will be a story or two like Microsoft buying Skype that will help make the old reporter in me ready to work around the clock, but in reality what does interest me is the “big picture” stuff. And if I can do it with more rigor and regularity, I would be happier (and better) for it.

One of the most pleasant (and surprising) developments of 2011 was me starting to write, Om Says: What To Read This Weekend. I started it mostly because I felt that we are continuously being bombarded with short, near term news and in the process failing to think about the big picture. I thought to myself hat our business has to be about more than just a feature upgrade or funding, or some new app.

At the same time, thanks to two awesome apps — Instapaper and Evernote — I was saving articles I would find and read during the week, often as triggers for further ruminations. I decided to share the best of seven from what I had read during the week, and the response has been pretty phenomenal. Why? Mostly because curation and sharing of content has become as important as writing. By sharing videos, photos, links, or quotes we are all essentially editors and the sharing itself is an act of editorializing. It was as Dave (Winer) showed during the dark days of September 2001.

Ironically, it was a lesson that I forgot. In late 2006 I started writing a link blog, The Daily Om, but stopped doing it mostly because a yoga-oriented journal objected to it and I didn’t feel like working on it. Lately, I have started culling interesting videos, quotes and news snippets on my personal blog. I have found it invigorating and will continue to experiment with new ideas.

Here are my 10 lessons learned:

1. Blogging is communal: In 2008, I wrote that “blogging is not just an act of publishing but also a communal activity. It is more than leaving comments; it is about creating connections.” That is the single biggest lesson learned of these past 10 years. Every connection has lead to a new idea, new thought and a new opportunity.
2. Being authentic in your thoughts and voice is the only way to survive the test of time.
3. Being wrong is as important as being right. What’s more important — when wrong, admit that you are wrong and listen to those who are/were right.
4. Be regular. And show up to blog every day. After all you are as fresh as your last blog post.
5. Treat others as you expect yourself to be treated.
6. (In 2006 I wrote this and it is worth repeating) Doc Searls once told me, and it has been one of the guiding principles for me: blog if you have something to say and respect your reader’s time. If you respect their time, they are going to give you some time of their day.
7.  A long time ago, Slate’s Farhaad Manjoo asked mefor some tips on blogging and here is what I told him – Wait at least 15 minutes before publishing something you’ve written—this will give you enough distance to edit yourself dispassionately.
8. Write everything as if your mom is reading your work, a good way to maintain civility and keep your work comprehensible.
9. Blogging is not about opinion but it is about viewing the world in a certain way and sharing it with others how you look at things.

The tenth lesson comes from Kevin Kelleher when he was writing for us back in 2010. In his post, How the Internet changed writing he noted:

Many bloggers tailor headlines and posts so that they’ll surface at the top of search results, making them at once easier to find and less enjoyable to read. And this decade, a lot of other bloggers mistook a strong writing voice for caustic irreverence. But most eventually learned that writing with snark is like cooking with salt — a little goes a long way.

If anything, avoiding that trap Kevin mentioned is the biggest lesson of them all.

Disclosure: Automattic is backed by True Ventures, a venture capital firm that is an investor in the parent company of this blog, Giga Omni Media. Om Malik, the founder of Giga Omni Media, is also a venture partner at True Ventures.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Themes for a connected world: GigaOM RoadMap review
• Dissecting the data: 5 issues for our digital future
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM