The China Vortex

When the western media and some outside observers talk about “Angry China”, they really miss out on the real story, and even the real questions which need to be asked. For instance, how do very large groups of people, who at least on the surface, have nothing to do with each other, organize in large numbers so quickly in a society which many westerners see as authoritarian? Are they government-led or influenced, or do they do it themselves? How do they come to believe some of the wild rumors which come up, such as for instance, the belief that Carrefour sends a portion of its earnings to support the Dalai Lama and Tibet independence, and are seemingly oblivious to the fact that any large company would like to keep as much of its earnings for itself?

There is a very simple answer to all this: a large part of the organization is done on the Internet in China, specifically on BBSes. While the BBS (bulletin board system) is something outdated and antiquated in the US Internet, it has been a very important part of the Chinese Internet, and I would argue, it is growing and becoming more influential. For the Chinese government, it is a headache because in spite of Chinese government regulations, it is largely unregulated. For western corporations it is a good place to gather information but is useless for advertising, but for many Chinese it is the most important part of the Internet (along with online gaming and their IM client, which is most likely to be QQ or MSN Instant Messenger depending on their age and demographics).

Don’t believe me? Go to your nearest Chinese Internet cafe and watch what people are doing.

Most westerners who come into the China Internet market have no idea of its power and influence, and instead think that the Chinese Internet is largely the same as the US market, but it isn’t. The Chinese government doesn’t really like BBSes because it really is free (as in free speech), and is the breeding ground for all kinds of weird stuff. And while it is important for gathering buzz on products (as CIC, based in Shanghai, does) for corporations, nobody has really been able to monetize it. And, western journalists fail to monitor it, which is why they miss on so many big stories, and end up giving credit to some sinister Chinese government policies. ( I guess it’s kind of flattering for the Chinese government to be given credit for something when most Chinese know that it isn’t that powerful.)

Isn’t it amazing that such a huge and important part of free speech in China has been entirely missed? Fortunately, Tom Melcher’s new blog Live from Beijing! has a very good introductory article to BBSes (h/t to Andrew Lih). I got something of an introduction to the BBS in 1998, shortly after Sina was formed from the merger of SRS and Sinanet. One of the first web applications created by Wang Zhidong was a simple BBS which he demoed to me in the summer of that year. It really took off in popularity with the US’s accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in April 1999 when millions of angry Chinese hit the Sina news forum. Please don’t think of the Strong Nation forum on the People’s Daily site as being at all representative of Chinese BBSes; it is official and closely monitored for content. The interesting BBSes are all unofficial or semi-official.

Most of the angry Chinese in China, or fenqing, are organized on the BBSes, where they gather and shoot the breeze. These people have time on their hands, and play games, spend time in QQ, and gossip on the BBSes of their choice at the moment. They spend almost no time on what we would call the official Internet, except going to get news on Sina, Sohu and Netease. It is very hard to reach them with advertising.

Now, let’s talk about their persona. For the most part, they:

• They distrust the official media and do not buy magazines, and get as much information as they can from unofficial sources, such as BBSes. They only go to the official media for some sports information and major news information.
• They trust unofficial news more than news which comes from official sources.
• They are the perfect audience for spreading rumors, because they can be quickly organized by anonymous leaders, or “honeybees” as Tom Melcher calls them in his article.
• When organized, they can be huge, in the millions, and they can move like a swarm.

In simple terms, the characteristics of this unofficial crowd are:

• Chinese official government influence is very limited
• They are mostly self-organized
• The numbers are in the millions
• They move extremely fast
• They disappear just as fast as they appeared
• They are almost always anonymous and do not use their real names, preferring instead to use their own handles

In simple terms, they are an issue-focused flash mob. For corporations, they are:

• Not susceptible to traditional PR methods since you are dealing with an anonymous group
• Very tightly focused around one issue
• Move much faster than corporations and their decision-making apparatus is diversified,
• Do not trust/ believe in information from any government, including Chinese

My estimate is that more than 60% of non-IM traffic in China is to these unofficial BBSes, and that number is growing.

When it comes to advertising, most adspend hits that remaining 40% of the official and semi-official Internet, without reaching where many people are. CIC acts as the eyes and ears of corporations, but corporations have not been able to do anything yet with that information and are still reliant on mainstream advertising approaches for both online and offline which are largely out of date. This is the background for my article on why agencies need a new approach to online marketing in China.

So, BBSes are the real social media marketing tool, and as usual, the Chinese are ahead of everyone else, but just haven’t figured out that part themselves. While the west talks about social media and Web 2.0, China has had a version of it for the past ten years. It may not be pretty, but it works.

It’s just that vast majority of outsiders haven’t figured it out yet.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Technorati Tags: angrychina, BBS, carrefour, China, cic, fenqing, gaming, im, marketing, media, online, qq, sina, social, Tibet, US, web2

One of the great challenges in any relationship is about establishing the right tone of dialogue. Should it be friendly, adversarial, competitive, or something else? Can the two parties be constructively critical, or will they just be critical? Can they listen to each other without becoming overly offensive and/or defensive?

Just about the only thing more difficult than setting the right tone of dialogue, is setting a new tone for a new conversation when the old tone of dialogue no longer works, if only because the underlying dynamics has changed. If there was one thing which came clear through my article criticizing the Economist’s Angry Chinese article, it was that this was something which needed to be examined more closely and discussed more openly, if only because the article attracted a large number of readers and comments (34 at the time of writing).

At the heart of the problem is how to break through outdated stereotypes about China. I, for one, believe that its time to get past criticizing “China” and to start being critical about China. Many western media experts and journalists tend to think that Chinese need to be separated from the Chinese government, and become more outspoken about the shortcomings of the Chinese government, believing that only when this happens, will China become a more open society. If they speak out in support of Chinese government policy over Tibet for example, they are quickly dismissed as government-supported actions, or being not aware of Chinese government-sanctioned policies in Tibet. In fact, it is far more likely that the positions of most of the Chinese population will harden in the face of criticism from the west and the western media. Instead of making it easier to reach a compromise, it actually makes it more difficult.

The fact is that the official Chinese media, even though it is state-controlled and monitored, frequently is very open in its criticisms of some government policies. There is a huge number of magazines and newspapers, and all of them now have to attract readers in order to justify their existence as businesses. If you are not reading it already, you should read Danwei just to get an idea of how much Chinese society has changed. Just keep in mind that what Danwei is able to cover is just a small snapshot of what is happening in modern Chinese society.

This is not to say you can say anything in the Chinese press. There are limits, and the Chinese frequently talk about “stepping on the red line” for violating government ground rules. Part of the role of those working in the media is to know exactly where that red line is, because it sometimes moves.

A very interesting development is the rise of the Chinese Internet, as increasingly large portions of the population depend on it for information, trusting it more than the traditional media. Sometimes this means that some of the wildest rumors spread much faster in China than in the west. It is possible to make the case that there is free speech in China, and that it exists in parts of the Internet. But often this free speech is closer to the analogy of the man who falsely shouts “fire” in a packed movie theater. This kind of free speech is unfortunately, more than unproductive, and is sometimes used to whip people into a frenzy. This happened with recent coverage of western media coverage of the Tibetan situation. When the Chinese became angry, many in the western media were taken aback at the scale of the reaction.

Part of this can be ascribed to the power of the Internet and mobile networks in spreading information and rumors.

Welcome to the power of the Chinese Internet.

The problem many western editors make is that they seem to want Chinese to cross the red line, then when it happens, they can use hold it high as an example of how authoritarian China is. This is an overly simplistic view of Chinese society which tries to reduce everything to black and white terms. In an increasingly complicated world, it’s not enough to reduce important relationships to overly simplistic terms, this will only make things worse and set the stage for future misunderstandings which may have tragic consequences for everyone.

Fortunately, there is some dialogue going on, and there are some very smart people who are devoting themselves to discussing these very real and important issues, and are setting the groundwork for a new and more constructive dialogue.

On the English-language side, some of the more interesting websites are:

• EastSouthWestNorth
• Danwei(for coverage of the contemporary Chinese media scene, complete with constant updates on moving red lines)
• The China Business Network(mainly covers business but also includes cultural issues
• James Fallows (I also enjoy his coverage of technology
• The Washington Note(This website proves that something intelligent can come from the global capital of spin

If you want to keep on top of developments in China, these sites will keep you informed.

And of course, there is the China Vortex. You are always welcome here.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Share It: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Technorati Tags: China, Chinese, culture, government, internet, media, news, Tibet

I just read The Economist’s lead article this week titled “Angry China”. I came away from it disappointed, and I would like to explain why.

The main gist of the article is that the Chinese government should be worried about the rising tide of Chinese nationalism because a great deal of the anger now directed at western policies and interests are in fact, anger at Chinese government policy. Handled the wrong way, this tide of Chinese nationalism could very well turn against the Chinese government, leading to unpredictable consequences.

Here are the money quotes:

China’s rage is out of all proportion to the alleged offences. It reflects a fear that a resentful, threatened West is determined to thwart China’s rise. The Olympics have become a symbol of China’s right to the respect it is due. Protests, criticism and boycott threats are seen as part of a broader refusal to accept and accommodate China.

There is no doubt genuine fury in China at these offences; yet the impression the response gives of a people united behind the government is an illusion. China, like India, is a land of a million mutinies now. Legions of farmers are angry that their land has been swallowed up for building by greedy local officials. People everywhere are aghast at the poisoning of China’s air, rivers and lakes in the race for growth. Hardworking, honest citizens chafe at corrupt officials who treat them with contempt and get rich quick. And the party still makes an ass of the law and a mockery of justice.

This is a classic “bait-and-switch” argument. The anger directed at the west is in fact domestic Chinese anger at Chinese government policies, according to this thesis. This is a dismissal of any anger at the west as an argument completely without merit, and an attempt to shift all of the blame onto the Chinese government.

It is exactly this kind of argument which Chinese see as western hypocrisy and double standards. Of course there is anger at some Chinese government policies, but these are a separate issue. Please don’t try to change the subject!

Sure, there are some aspects of Chinese government policy which Chinese citizens would like to see change. But the pro-Tibetan independence folk have committed the sin of lumping Chinese citizens together with the Chinese government in their criticisms. To the Chinese, it seems like a classic attempt to hijack the Olympics, something which almost all Chinese are truly proud of, and to turn it into a bully pulpit for their claims of Tibetan independence.

What angers both the Chinese government policymakers and people is that while the country has developed in economic terms and yes, even in human rights terms, that has not been recognized in the west. Instead, there continue to be politicians and media figures who continue to hector China, and play a leading role in shaping western opinions and political policy about China. To the Chinese, it seems like no matter how hard they run to the finish line, there is always someone out there moving the finish line even further away while they are running the race.

Trying to steal the Olympics and letting the Chinese have their day in the sun would be very similiar to insulting an American simply because George W Bush is his president. This is exactly what the pro-Tibetan independence supporters, and the China media critics have done.

Why should these people, who have little deep understanding of China and the Chinese (or Tibetans for that matter) have such an influential role in shaping opinion about such an important relationship as the west’s relationship with China, and be given so much ink and free air time? In light of this, why shouldn’t Chinese get angry about this very unfair and one-sided view which is put forward in much of the western media, and then passed off as the truth? And why doesn’t the western media instead reach out to westerners who have lived in China, and maybe, even speak the language in order to get a deeper understanding of the country?

Is this fair?

The real reason many Chinese are angry is not redirected anger at Chinese government policies, it is a genuine anger at a very biased and one-sided view about China which casts it as irresponsible, selfish, oppressive and wrong, and then throwing all Chinese citizens into the same basket.

The Economist is, generally speaking, a fair and open-minded newspaper, and usually presents well thought-out positions and arguments . It should look deeper than dismiss all of the Chinese anger out of hand.

If this lead article is the best that they can do, then I’m not optimistic about relations between China and the west.

Popularity: 50% [?]

Technorati Tags: American, Beijing, bush, China, Chinese, economist, media, olympics, opinion, Tibet, US, western

Yesterday, Twitterdom in China was on fire with the news, first published on TechCrunch, that Facebook clone Xiaonei had raised US$430M from Softbank, which is huge, even by current Web 2.0 bubble standards. Immediately on Twitter, there was almost an uproar, especially from users in Taiwan, who said that it was ridiculous that a Facebook clone would have such a high valuation. Does Oak Pacific Interactive and Softbank know something which we don’t? (My answer to that is a simple “Obviously yes”.)

But before delving into that, let’s talk about the pluses and minuses of C2C, or “copy to China”, a term which I believe was first used by Tangos Chan, publisher of China Web 2.0 review. I believe that when an entrepreneur does not have a clear idea about what he is going to do, starting with a copy of a currently popular application is a good way to go. After all, if it got funded by VCs in the US, it is highly likely that given the team’s experience, they will also be able to get funded in China.

What is important is what happens after it gets initial funding. Where many startups lose direction is that they look too closely at their competitors, and don’t look at the challenges for many users whom they want to reach. Most ask the wrong questions: They are too focused on their platform and applications, and don’t study the problems their users have in their daily lives.

There are a few simple questions startup founders need to find answers to:

• What are the most important tasks for a person in any given day? (These are always changing according to age, situation, etc.)
• Where do they encounter the most frustration?
• Can you offer a solution to this?

I have a simple way of looking at this: If the need is urgent, then you can charge a fee or subscription for it. If you can help people make more money, you can charge a fee or subscription for it. If it is a hardware solution which simplifies and clarifies life and makes the user more efficient, you can sell it (as is the case with the iPhone).

If it does not do any of the above things, but still offers some informative or entertainment value, then your most likely source of revenue is advertising.

Back to C2C. When OICQ was launched in early 1999, it was nothing except a Chinese-language clone of ICQ. It had an advantage in that there was tremendous need among Chinese for easy convenient communications across the computer and the then-new mobile phone platforms. The management saw this need, offered the services, collected fees all along the way, evolving into QQ along the way, and the company is now worth more than US$11B.

Tencent, the parent company for QQ, saw a social wave in China, copied something which worked overseas, fulfilled the need, and evolved it into something tremendously popular and successful in China. Instead of looking iinwards and worrying about their technology and UI, they looked out, and saw the opportunity in users’ needs and frustrations.

Now the company has more than 500M registered user accounts. It has achieved brand lock-in among most younger Chinese users.

That is why I say that when anyone only compares UI features, they are not thinking deep enough.

Now, the question is whether Xiaonei or any of the Chinese Facebook clones can evolve into something successful. The China of 2008 is vastly different from the China of 1999, and there are all kinds of communications solutions competing for users. The dynamics has changed to favor the user, who now has almost too may choices.

Add to that my feeling that SNS (social networking solutions) are a solution to a problem which is not that urgent for most people (hence the reliance on advertising as a revenue source instead of fee or subscription).

Of course, if depending on income was the only way to make money in this business, then I’m sure that Xiaonei would not have received such a high investment. An article in Plus8star talks about possible strategy scenarios in the move (h/t to Kaiser Kuo).

Popularity: 27% [?]

Technorati Tags: advertising, c2c, China, copy2china, encent, entertainment, facebook, fees, ICQ, income, information, iPhone, oakpacific, oakpacificinteractive, plus8star, qq, softbank, subscriptions, taiwan, techcrunch, twitter, ui, US, VC, venturecapital, web2, xiaonei

China’s economic growth over the past several years has excited many members of the international community, who see it as an alternative to the US’s and west’s leadership of the world order for the past two centuries. There has been a deep underlying distrust of the west, but it was brought to the fore by the Bush administration’s single-minded focus on the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and what to many, have seemed like trumped-up reasons for the invasion.

This, along with China’s dramatic economic growth, has opened up a great opportunity for China to offer an alternative vision of economic and social development. But China has fallen short with the recent fuss over the torch relay, and the actions of the fenqing (angry youth). In a very short period of time, a great deal of the goodwill China has earned has dissipated.

This situation has forced many supporters of the reform and opening-up of China into a lose-lose situation. If they support the Chinese position, they become seen as Chinese toadies, and if they criticize certain aspects of what has happened during the Olympic torch relay, they become dismissed by the Chinese, especially fenqing, as western toadies. Intelligent people should not be forced into making choices like this which are not real choices, and further polarize the two sides. People should be able to make constructive criticism without being forced to make bad choices and being pigeon-holed into one group or the other.

I, for one, believe that there is validity to the Chinese criticisms of the way China and the Chinese have been shown in the western media. There are biases; some are based on ignorance and some may be based on malice. But anger and heavy-handedness are not the right way to correct these perceptions; instead they validate the views and fears of China’s worst critics.

But this is not purely a public relations exercise. If China was a smaller and less influential country, maybe that would work. What China needs is to offer an alternative vision to the western model of development. This model must include dialogue, institutions and rules without a pre-conceived agenda which are pre-packaged for others, who must buy into it. Basically, a new framework needs to be created for Chinese engagement and dialogue on a global scale.

One of the criticisms of western hegemony is that it has offered a pre-packaged vision which in reality, offers pre-packaged western interests at its core. Joseph Stiglitz talked about this in his book Making Globalization Work.

So what is China’s vision? Is it just anger for western wrongdoing and the way it is depicted in the western-controlled media? How much goodwill will venting anger get China? There needs to be a better more thought-out way which offers more constructive results.

More people need to be included, and it should not just be government to government. It should be open where all can offer their views, and be listened to. Differing opinions should be debated and allowed to co-exist. Out of this, some kind of rationale for China’s rise has to come out, and this vision needs to be consistent with the rest of the world, as well as the Chinese people.

China is now a real power in every way. Real powers listen to and debate different views. If they don’t like certain views, they can offer a point by point rebuttal, or they can debate those views, but there is no need to get angry.

New times bring new challenges, and new challenges call for new thinking.

Popularity: 24% [?]

Technorati Tags: bush, China, dialogue, economics, economy, fenqing, framework, government, media, PR, publicrelations, stiglitz, usa

This article is a follow-up posting to my previous article about why China Mobile should buy Baidu.

One of the rules for mergers and acquisitions is that if one company wants to be acquired by another company, they have to be moving in generally the same directions. This way, less management attention needs to be spent on changing direction and redirecting resources.

If we take a look at China Mobile, they are a Chinese company which has been looking aggressively outside of China. With 500M+ mobile phone subscribers in China, it has the user base and cash flow to be truly a world-class company. China Mobile is proposing to set up a development lab with Vodafone and Softbank to work on widgets and others services to offer China Mobile and Vodafone subscribers. From the surface, it appears that these two leading carriers are trying to wrestle some of their technology dominance back from Apple’s iPhone, which will offer its own Apple App Store, selling mobile apps directly to Apple iPhone users beginning in June.

Interestingly, Vodafone is helping to bring Apple’s iPhone into the Indian market. According to a recent article, Apple may be discussing launching the iPhone officially in China with China Unicom. (Note: I disagree the author’s tone about Apple not getting it right in selling in China, I think that Steve Jobs knows very well what he is doing, and is biding his time until the 3G iPhone comes out in June. China is another piece on his chessboard, albeit a very important one.)

On the business side, China Mobile has been most agressive in Pakistan, following on its purchase of Paktel in 2007, and has just launched its Mobile Zone in the country. This looks like a test learning market for China Mobile. There are not many companies which can afford to “test” in a country with a population of 180M, China Mobile is one of them.

Based on this, it would be fair to say that China Mobile is leaning forward into overseas markets. It has enough money in its coffers to expand more quickly, but the most serious barrier is lack of international management talent who can execute in non-Chinese markets.

In contrast, Baidu is much more focused on the Chinese domestic market, where it continues to grow and pull ahead of Google. Everything suggests that the Baidu management believes that there is much more room for revenue growth domestically in China. The only tentative step Baidu has taken outside of the China market is with Baidu Japan (baidu.jp), which has only 0.3% of the Japanese search market.

Compared to Google, Baidu still continues to go after the easy money in China. Google continuously introduces and refines it search algorithms which are the secret sauce of its success. In comparison, Baidu relies less on search algorithms, instead using human search to assist in search results.

Baidu’s search results are also fundamentally different from Google’s. While Google’s search results strictly differentiate between unpaid organic search and PPC advertising, Baidu makes no such differentiation. The end result is that unpaid search results are pushed further back in position on the search results pages.

If there is one challenge in Baidu’s reliance on human-assisted search (as opposed to automated search algorithms as Google uses) and giving preference to paid advertising over unpaid in search results, it is that while it boosts revenue in the short-term, it is not extensible outside China, except for some of the other East Asian markets (Naver.com in South Korea is one such example. It would be nearly impossible for Baidu to oust Naver.com from its leading position as the home-grown leader in that very nationalistic market.)

Here lies the challenge: China Mobile is looking outside of China now, and Baidu is still looking to grow revenue on the domestic market, while nearly ignoring the overseas market.

Is there room to narrow the gap and create a new company for mobile search advertising and location services, first in China and then which can be extended overseas?

That is the challenge.

Popularity: 30% [?]

Technorati Tags: advertising, Apple, baidu, China, chinamobile, iPhone, pakisitan, paktel, search, softbank, vodafone

A few days ago I read an interview with Steve Jobs published in Fortune in March. One of the ideas which Steve Jobs put forth is that you really need to understand the technology issues, then follow how they will roll out in order to be successful. Apple has a certain advantage because it owns the operating system and the hardware. This means that the hardware and technology can be integrated much more tightly together.

This makes me think that one of the issues with the current media and advertising space in China is that there is not enough understanding of the integration of the hardware and software. Basically, DoubleClick came up with the idea of the banner ad, then Google came up with the idea which came from came up with the idea of PPC advertising on the search results page, and the algorithms which would optimize the system to become a money machine for Google. For too long, players in this space have come from the media space, offering a “me too” solution full of buzzwords but with little real content to differentiate.

What did Google do which was so different from Yahoo!, the leading Web 1.0 portal? They got very close to the technology, to the point where they built the servers and disks, and created MapReduce, Google’s search technology which could run on huge clusters.

Now, I hear a lot of talk about all the startups in China, but most of the time, I don’t see how any new technology is used to take a whole new look at how advertising should be delivered over a complex network. Most are consumer plays which do not deliver anything spectacular. That would not be an issue if they had a good feel for the marketing process, but more often than not, they do not. As a result, most advertising buys gravitate to the big online media companies, which include Sina, Sohu, Netease and QQ, as Kaiser Kuo frequently talks about in his blog at Ogilvy China Digital Watch.

In fact, we are just at the beginning of a whole new wave for technology and advertising: this is the mobile wave. Handset makers now only pay US$15 per handset for software, and with the upcoming development and launch of Google’s Android, per handset payouts are going to go down even more. This means only one thing: there will have to be a steady advertising revenue stream to finance all the content. The mobile network though is not one network, it will have to be two:

• The search and search results network including GPS location-based detection
• The network delivery system

In software development, there is the MVC or model/view/controller system for software design. The rules are defined at the model level, there is the presentation end for how the viewer sees the content (Apple is now taking a grab at this with the Apple iPhone) for view and the controller, which connects the rules at the model level with the view, and handles delivery.

Basically, Apple is trying to leverage its control of the iPhone audience at the view level to get leverage with the carriers, who act at the model level. In some markets it has been successful, but not with China Mobile so far. The handset makers such as Nokia, Samsung, and LG have solutions, but since their product lines are spread across so many products, they have little leverage unless they came up with their own operating system and hardware as Apple has. What are the chances of that happening? Microsoft has a solution with Microsoft Windows Mobile, but it is just one among many players and does not have a dominating position on any of the model, view and controller levels of the mobile network.

China Mobile has made no secret of its plans to control the platform as much as possible by virtue of its near-monopoly role in this space. Ultimately, it will have to make marketing choices about what audience it wants to serve: the casual youth market or the productivity worker, and how to maximize revenue from the market they choose. The only way for them to avoid having to make this choice is to offer contextual advertising on the mobile network. It would make a lot of sense for China Mobile to buy Baidu to protect its mobile advertising revenue stream from Google, and then make a serious technology effort to combine improved search algorithms with location services. Search technology involves a great deal of non-trivial technology which cannot be easily replicated, even by a company as huge as China Mobile.

As for smaller players, they will have to come up with ways to get revenue from a market which has been bombarded with a huge amount of free content.

Google has a tremendous advantage with the Google Android operating system, which will have hooks built into it for search and location services. If you think that they are giving a mobile phone OS away for free just because they are nice people, you are delusional. They are offering a new mobile ad platform with other services to attract developers.

I expect that the mobile network will very soon become the “smart network” compared to the PC-based network, which will become the “dumb network” because it does not have location sensitivity. (Of course, newer computers will have location sensitivity. This will then combine with Google’s current services to deliver ads which will make the current ad networks look like something from the Stone Age.) The PC network will continue to be good for banner and brand advertising, but if you really want smart contextual advertising which operates on a PPC basis, mobile will be the leader.

The smaller mobile players will have to pay “toll fees” to the model (China Mobile, China Unicom, etc,.) and view (Apple) players. It will be much harder to get onto the technology ramp for mobile than it is for the PC, at least in the beginning.

Popularity: 34% [?]

Technorati Tags: android, Apple, baidu, China, chinamobile, doubleclick, google, gps, iPhone, lg, microsoft, Nokia, samsung, search, stevejobs, yahoo

In the past month, there has been much discussion about how the Chinese government’s policy to Tibet has been intransigent and shows that China has not changed and reformed and become a more open society. Either deliberately or by implication, there is this myth that China is one big country with an authoritarian government which has a great plan to gobble up the world and take away the world’s natural resources, only to turn them into cheap products exported all over the world.

And China will not change, or make any effort to accommodate the rest of the world.

Many in the western media have not only failed to take into account changes in Chinese society, they persist in putting forth this outdated myth which many unknowing observers in the west continue to believe. One favorite is when speaking about China to always put it in the context of events of 1989. News images in the west routinely use an image of a man standing defiantly in front of a tank. The subtext of the message is simple: this is a government which does not care about rights and is not open. The result is that western audiences’ image of China is frozen in the past, and does not update to reflect current realities, and that is the reality of what China is today.

This would be as wrong, unbalanced and irrelevant as showing an image of a shackled African slave to show how racist American society is. Yes, there are injustices in society, but selecting extreme examples and implicitly citing them as fact do not contribute to the conversation. In fact, they make it much more difficult to reach some kind of understanding which can traverse cultural and linguistic boundaries.

In fact, Chinese society in 2008 is vastly different from 1989. For the most part, people have more freedoms than they did in 1989: they are free to choose their jobs, buy their own homes, where they live, who they marry and even to travel (with some restrictions) outside of China. Politics has taken a back seat, and most care more about their grocery bills (which have been rising precipitously) than what is going on in Tibet and adjacent regions.

Are there injustices? Yes, just as there are in any society which is undergoing rapid change. Just as there is no child who can learn to walk without taking some falls, there are sometimes setbacks. But let’s put things in context. The general trend is forward and to more openness, to a society which more closely resembles any modern society, warts and all.

Now there is another side to the recent Tibet events. If the Chinese government is indeed so powerful and all-knowing, why were they so taken off-guard by the events of March 14, and the other events which took place inside and outside China in the days and weeks after?

Does this sound like a government which knows everything about its citizens? I don’t think so.

My experience is that governments are incapable of performing very smart, or even halfway intelligent, acts. On an operational level, nineteen hijackers successfully pulled off the 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed 3,000 people, caused lasting damage to the American economy measuring more than 100 billion dollars, not to mention the American psyche. This was all done by nineteen highly-motivated individuals who were willing to die in the process of causing lasting damage to America. There was no government involvement of any kind.

Then contrast this with the current US administration’s decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. So far, this war has cost more than 4,000 American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives, and according to Joseph Stiglitz, has cost more than three trillion US dollars (most of it borrowed money; this is probably the first war in world history where the expense was put on the tab to be paid off by future generations) without any end in sight.

Who was smarter? Who is dumber?

This is the trouble with government conspiracy theories. They imply a level of secrecy, coordination, cooperation and intelligence which are almost impossible to find in any government.

The Chinese government is no exception to this rule.

Popularity: 51% [?]

Technorati Tags: 9/11, authoritarian, China, Chinese, conspiracy, economy, government, monolith, politics, reform, Tibet, travel

If you are interested in the kinds of social networking applications Chinese are now using today, David Feng offers some ground-level observations in this article. I’m a great fan of first hand research and observations and David offers some excellent observations.

Maybe it’s been a reaction to some of media coverage of everything which has been going on with the coverage of China and Tibet, but I have been diving into technology lately. Specifically, I have been digging deeper into Apple’s frameworks for development on the Macintosh and iPhone platforms.

Here are some of my observations:

– Everything’s an object, and everything’s object-oriented. Think of actors on a stage, and passing data to objects, which act on them. All the time.
– The MVC (model, view, controller) analogy is used throughout, which makes it natural for Macintosh developers to make the leap over to Ruby on Rails development and other non-Ruby frameworks such as Django;
– While Microsoft has worked on developing new languages such as ASP.net and C#, Apple has stuck with one: Objective-C, which has roots in NeXT and OpenStep. (For instance, all classes begin with NS. What does NS stand for? NextStep.)
– Apple’s efforts, in contrast with Microsoft’s, has been on developing frameworks;
– Think of the frameworks as sandboxes which Apple provides for you to play in, which you can gradually grow and develop with, and then later contribute to;
– Cocoa and Cocoa Touch are frameworks of classes, all based on Objective-C. You use these classes to instantiate your objects;
– Instead of thinking about writing code, you spend more time thinking what you want your objects to do, and objects messaging each other;
– Apple provides many sample applications and their code. You learn by making minor changes to the code and seeing what happens;
– There is a small and very dedicated community made of Apple developers. Very smart people.
– The documentation is REALLY good, and includes videos which you can download into iTunes, online documentation, and documentation in Xcode, the development tool. It is clear, sharp, concise and jargon-free.
– Every Macintosh ships with all the development tools you need, including Xcode, Interface Builder and Dashboard so that you can develop native apps or web apps right out of the box.

After some play with it, I’ve come to the conclusion that part of the reason there are relatively few developers working on the Objective-C/Macintosh/iPhone platform is because it completely rejects procedural programming as a development model. In fact, procedural programming would most likely be a handicap in shifting to the Macintosh programming model because it basically requires programmers to relearn a new programming model.

If you embrace object-oriented programming and agile development as a model though, it’s the best.

Popularity: 56% [?]

Technorati Tags: agiledevelopment, Apple, cocoa, cocoatouch, Dashboard, development, Interface Builder, Macintosh, microsoft, next, nextstep, objective_c, openstep, rubyonrails, sns, socialnetworking, software, Xcode

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past six months, you have probably heard of Twitter. Developed with Ruby on Rails, it has now hit the big time, with many companies offering client versions of Twitter, so that you don’t have to keep the Twitter web page open to record your deepest thoughts, which you can share with your community/ies.

Technically speaking, there is not a whole lot of difference between Twitter and many other IM clients, including Tencent’s QQ, the immensely popular Chinese IM client. If there is any difference, it is that Twitter makes it possible for dispersed communities to keep track of each others’ activities. In contrast, the IM clients are mainly Web 1.0 tools which enable people to find and contact each other to meet offline. QQ, for instance, is a great enabler for that popular activity which we shall call “dating” in China.

The difference between Twitter and the Web 1.0 IM clients is not so much in the technology, as in the way people handle relationships. Put simply, the lines between offline and online relationships are blurring, and in many cases, more people spend more time online than they do offline. For this reason, their online communities are gaining value, and in a few cases, are assuming primary value, while their offline relationships become secondary.

This was not the case for most of