So far nothing can come close to grabbing a pen and working out ideas on a piece of paper. With our minds we are free to create any associations, diagrams, shapes, without having to work through the metaphor of interface. It’s difficult when ideas are lost while trying to cope with input modes, or a tool that just doesn’t feel natural.

Some still say that the iPad is a ‘consumption’ tool, and it’s true that it is highly optimized for that.  With the advent of more iOS apps focused on creativity and free expression, we’ve begun to experiment with digital capture and documenting tools; with the advantage of instant sharing, collaboration and searchable content for archiving.

I have created a “Consulting” group of tools on my iPad. It contains a few experimental tools and ones that I am evaluating.  So far the cost hasn’t been a problem for any of them, (less than $5.00) though I have hesitated to spend $49.99 for the iOS verion of my favorite program: OmiGraffle.

In general, most seem to be attempting to try to solve the same problems. There are lots of drawing/stylus based apps, Mind mapping tools, and a rare few really novel implementations for capturing and documenting ideas.

With these in mind, here are a few that we’ve been working with:

Capturing and Presenting

Corkulous Pro ($1.99)

I love this application. This quirky and fun application replicates a virtual cork board, complete with all the tools you’d use… tape, post-its, and flags with access to contacts, photos and other items. It works well when you have a number of photos, and ideas that want to be ‘posted up’ in an arrangement, and then shared with others. You can create share a Corkulous file, or export a PDF version.  Two reservations: I worry about importing a large number of photos, as the file size will grow to be very large with photos at a native resolution. Also there is no tool for drawing lines or associations among ‘nodes’. I often want an arrow that might link a number of ideas… if this, then that kind of thing.

Sharing

Show Me (free)

Like tiny TED talks, Show Me is a tool that allows the users to record a talk, while drawing on the screen. Simple. Then it can be uploaded to a library, or shared directly via email. Unless you’re pretty skilled with a finger, the shows will be fairly primitive, but it is still a great way to share a quick idea with a description with a range of colleagues. One can also browse through saved talks in a range of categories. Think of it as a way to draw a quick post-it note and send it across country for a quick idea pitch.

Thinking

Paper (Free, but ‘tools’ cost $1.99)

Paper is perhaps the most paper-like of apps. It beautifully replicates the “Moleskine effect” – of having a notebook handy, and a rapid way to create ideas without too many interface restrictions. It uses the common iOS gestures like pinch and swipe well to create a natural effect. Multiple notebooks can be built, with an endless number of pages for each. These can be shared and sent through the normal iOS channels. This is mostly useful for that valuable white-noise brain time, when doodling can create some real ideas worth sharing. Think of it as a low-cost way to have free Moleskine space.
SketchBook Pro (Autodesk $1.99)

This is perhaps the opposite of Paper in terms of complexity. It is feature-rich, yet it is not overwhelming like the offerings from Adobe and others. It uses the iOS gestures well (multi-touch, pinch etc.) to extend functionality. Storable palettes of tools and colors make for a simpler approach, once one has explored the many options. The risk for many of these apps is that an idea can be completely lost while trying to wrangle all the menus and options available.  For a more complex drawing with layers and photos, this one’s worth a try.

Mind Mapping/Organizing

Mindomo (free) is where I have started among the many mind-mapping tools out there. The problem with all mind-mappers is that they draw and position information based on an internal data table. I find that most of the layouts end up imposing some kind of structure that I immediately want to override.  This one also makes it difficult to post photos, as they need to come from a URL. I am still looking for a tool that allows me total flexibility with the sharing/organizing tools of a good mind mapper. I would love to hear your suggestions.

For organizing,  I’m still using pen and paper.

We’ll look into Social and more Sharing tools in our next installment.

“I thought AOL was the Internet,” was her reply.

It’s funny to think about now, but for millions of AOL users their entire Internet experience was via America Online. They communicated with each other through emails and forums, read news and entertainment articles, and even shopped through AOL’s portal. It was a one-stop shop for them and with AOL’s merger with Time-Warner (Jeez, remember that?) AOL seemed poised to ensure nobody ever left by providing a flood of content.

Of course, things changed and more and more telecom companies became ISPs and the Web’s interconnecting nature spelled doom for anyone who tried to contain information…and access.

Funny then to see what’s going on in Facebook. With a half a billion members, Facebook is the dominant player in the digital world and they’re keen to keep it that way. Not by controlling access to information but by being that one-stop shop AOL was way back when. It’s now where we go to communicate with each other through status updates, wall posts, and direct messages; we browse news and entertainment articles our friends post and Like; and now, we can even shop.

Post, like, poop, buy. Image Credit: MediaPost

While social marketing is nothing new—and even some examples of social commerce have been bandied about (see: Pizza Hut)—Pampers’ new Shop Now tab, owned and operated by Amazon.com, allows users to buy without ever leaving Facebook. According to MediaPost, shoppers will be able to login using their Amazon account info to order products, but never have to actually go to Amazon to check out.

As Facebook’s membership grows and as it integrates with more partners, will we someday think Facebook is the Internet?

We love Oprah because she reflects the better parts of ourselves, but also because she’s developed a cult of followers who sometimes act crazy. They all emote to the extreme, which is part of the charm and the source of derision.

We love Mad Men because of the seamless story telling, the clothes and the character development but also because we recognize these fabulous characters. Pete Campbell is familiar and we’ve seen that bitch face on our long-suffering co-workers and family members who just can’t understand why life is soooo hard.

Their faces say so much.

TV has long been the opiate of the masses. It’s always been a passive activity where we, the viewers, could check out for a bit and simply watch. It’s why we call it the Boob Tube and our relationship to it “veggin’ out.” So what if we’re asked to actually DO something with our TVs?

The possibilities are endless and loads of fun to ponder: social tagging and sharing of video clips; user generated contributions; cataloging and indexing of video events. Think of how much data is out there in the 60+ years of continuous broadcast and then think of what you could do if that data was searchable. It’s TiVo on steroids. Yeah…

But will we? Are there moments where we really, truly don’t want to interact we simply want to chill? As this digital generation ages I guess we’ll find out whether downtime will go the way of the Vic 20, but in the meantime I can’t wait to ponder the possibilities of finding every TV utterance of the phrase “that’s what she said.”

Mobile is the 4th screen.
It’s always on and always with consumers in a very personal way. Beyond movies, television and the desktop web experience, the ubiquitous nature of Mobile all over the globe presents a huge opportunity to reach out to customers in a new and more personally relevant way. It is a technology that leapfrogs others, creating new opportunities where there were none before. For many people on the planet this not only constitutes their first telephone experience, but also their first personal computing experience. In the past year alone, the total number of smartphone subscribers increased 72% quarter-over-quarter, growing from 15 million subscribers in Q2 2008 to 26 million in Q2 2009.* This growth will far outstrip the number of web enabled computers.
The future of personal computing is in mobile.
With the advent of the iPad and other tablet systems, there is now a rush to develop distributed experiences that can make the same use of a vibrant, monetized ecosystem. Social networks now work to build connections manually, but mobile devices will soon automatically feed location and contact data to build a form of automatic relevance, ranking connections and providing a fascinating data channel to marketers.
These opportunities present the next horizon in marketing.
Today’s online customers want to take their experiences with them. It is not about creating a website that degrades to a mobile browser, but building a unique set of mobile principles that support this personal intimacy, and the unique use-cases that come with a personal device. Brands that can grasp this difference, and can develop meaningful relationships with individuals will excel in this new mobile age.

Want to know where the future of the Internet is? It’s likely in your pocket. Mobile web browsing is picking up steam—fast. Not sure this is where the future lies? Just look at the numbers:

• A year ago, the number of people using mobile devices to access news and information on the Internet more than doubled compared to the previous 12 months, according to ComScore. The dominant demo was 18-to 34-year-old males, who made up over half of the audience.

• 63.2 million people used mobile devices to get news and other information from the Internet in January 2009. Over twenty-two million (35 percent) did so daily — more than double the size of the audience of 2008.

• 427% – Increase in social media and blogging activities: from 1.7 million to 9.2 million, for the months of January 2008 and 2009 respectively.

• Facebook and Twitter Access via Mobile Browser Grew by Triple-Digits in the Past Year

• 30.8 percent of smart phone users accessed social networking sites via their mobile browser in January 2010, up 8.3 points from 22.5 percent

When asked about her former employer’s plan to charge some visitors for access to content online, she applauded the New York Times’ approach despite having killed the idea when she was chief over there. It’s an interesting turn-around that she defends as a matter of the times (and the Times) changing:

“It was important to build a mass audience. When we took the pay wall down we went from 12 million unique visitors per month to 20 million. That’s pretty quick. But today–and the internet works in dog years, so two years ago might well have been 15 years ago–the business model is that mass numbers won’t lead to an increase in advertising. You need to come up with a second revenue stream.”

I agree in some respects, but I think we might disagree with where the most potential is for that second revenue stream. Brands like the New York Times have a couple very valuable assets that are currently being under leveraged: brand and history.

Imagine you’re an upstart news organization or a company looking to add valuable content that builds on your own brand? You could hire an army of reporters to hit the streets or you could buy syndicated content from a name people already trust. Think of it as the local news citing national news stories from their network reporters and you’re getting close.

Now imagine you’re a researcher or institution in need of historical reporting covering the last 150 years or so. How valuable would daily reports from those years be in your research? How valuable are the images from those years? To really drive the point home: how valuable is 150 years worth of daily historical content?

The easy conclusion might draw from that is to put up a pay wall in front of users since they are who value the content, but that undermines the first part of the equation, something Schiller understood when she headed up the NYT, which she explained why in a September 2007 open letter: “We believe offering unfettered access to New York Times reporting and analysis best serves the interest of our readers.”

I ring this bell quite a bit but the newspaper industry will stop dying when they start to understand that the value is in the content they provide, not the ad space that surrounds it. Syndication should also not be undervalued, lest 150 years of great reporting be lost forever.