A swedish company named TerraNet is developing a mobile phone that can function as a p2p node for communication. Each phone will look for existing nodes and tell others phones it’s a node as well. If another node is found it will automatically connect to it, thus forming a network. If a call is made within the range of the P2P network the information will travel from phone to phone to reach its destination. Creating the possibility of free mobile communication (as long as it is within range of the p2p network). What do you think will this disrupt the telco industry?

Last week I was invited to see Philips’ 3D TV at their lab in Eindhoven. I didn’t know what to expect and in our office we had speculated about all sorts of possibilities, but what I saw went beyond our imagination. You are really looking at a screen that unfolds its stories in 3D. Above all, everybody can see it. It doesn’t take that weird gazing look, that you need, when looking at those colorful 3D pictures in which I always fail to see the 3D image. So the question is: will Philips’ 3D screen be a successful new technology? In order to answer that question I’ll use the model that was developed by Coburn Ventures and that requires you to look at the crisis level and the Total Percieved Pain of Adoption. I might use it incorrectly, but I’m sure I will be corrected by the Coburns if so…

“I’ve gotten into a fight yesterday, with somebody you all know. But I’ll tell you more about that tomorrow…”

How would you all feel, when that was indeed my post for today? Would you feel betrayed, disappointed, cheated, or surprised, excited, attached? Just last week we were having a discussion about this after we’d interviewed Gary Carter, Chief Creative Officer New Platforms of television production company FremantleMedia and one of the members of our board of inspiration. Something similar to the first sentence of this post is being used all the time on TV. By ’scheduling’ content, creating cliffhangers or in short by creating a rhythm, viewers are attracted to the screen. So how does that work online? In Gary’s words: “rhythm is a very important factor to keep in mind when interacting with an audience“. Here’s my take on it…

In the recent discussions we were wondering wether you could be part of a community without knowing it (passive vs active membership). I had to think about three great books regarding this topic: Bowling alone (= the end of the community), Trading up (= community equals status) and Keeping with the Jones’ (= Community is peer group pressure). Three totally different approaches. A great example of the latter is the Ant mill: “A circle of army ants, each one following the ant in front, becomes locked into a circular mill. They will continue to circle each other until they all die.”... So, now you know what books to take to the beach during your summer holiday.

I just wondered inside our ‘office’, looking for a cup of coffee….and there it was, the iPhone. Not available in The Netherlands for another couple of months, but one of our American friends from Coburn Ventures brought one. While I was playing around with it for a bit, it struck me: I might actually use this phone for browsing the Internet.

Flow is described by psychologist Csikszent Mihaly as the bandwidth for the optimal human state, the state that equates with happiness. Flow gives you a sensation of exploration, moving to a new dimension. You feel strong, alert, you effortlessly do you work, you feel in total control of the situation and you perform at the best of your abilities. How do you translate this into an interactive environment?

In a reaction to my last post about Michael Crichton’s latest book, Arjan made a great observation. He observed a development of technological innovation moving from “near the body, to on the body, to in the body“. As always, as soon as you’ve paid attention to such a development you see signs of it all around you. Last week I came across this article in The New York Times (registration required). It describes research by NBC and Innerscope Research that has found that people are as much engaged when they fast forward commercials as when they watch regular tv shows. The research was focused on signs of this engagement inside your body. Will, in the future, advertising rates be based on physiological measures?

Joris, who is a personal friend and one of the members of our community, send me an e-mail last week and referred me to an article in the Dutch newspaper NRC about the blurring line between the virtual and the real. The article was about the thesis of Marinka Copier in which she argues that the distinction between the virtual and the real should be abolished. She’s in dispute with several gaming experts about Huizinga’s ‘Magic Circle’, a concept which is believed to describe that there should always be a distinction between the real world and the gaming world. Copier says the study of gaming should focus on the playing, rather than on the game. I think she might be missing the point.

As you probably read, we were blogging at the Next Web. While I was listening in via a live Skype session, I came across an interesting statement. “Web 2.0 is of the past“, according to its originator O’Reilly, we should rename it to “Live Software” instead. He argues that current “Web 2.0″ services are as live as any computer system has ever been. I question if Microsoft, the originator of the term “Live Software”, is able to deliver on the dream/vision of Tim O’Reilly. If “Live Software” is a more suitable replacement for “Web 2.0″ will “Web 3.0″ be “Living Software”? While the internet (and web) was a truly technological breakthrough, “Web 2.0″ is about the use and users (application) of this technology so what will be the next (r)evolution theme?