Comments for FIXZR

Comment on Oh Master, Where art thou? by Garfield

Garfield — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:01:09 +0000

Napster for storage?

Comment on When will telephone numbers get a bit smarter? by John Connolly

John Connolly — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:21:53 +0000

Problem solved by Google: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/11/grand-central-to-finally-launch-as-google-voice-its-very-very-good/

Comment on Pricing in fraud - beware those willing to pay by Alex

Alex — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:51:48 +0000

Contrary to what you say:
1. PayPal GAVE AWAY $20m to outright fraudsters ($20 to each registered customer from the first million).
2. PayPal lost around $200m in it’s first year to fraud (and this money is still floating there!).
3. PayPal lost it’s reputation among the web developers immediately after it started freezing the funds in the accounts (fighting the fraud of course).

I think these days fraudulent transactions in PayPal (with stolen credit cards and stolen PayPal accounts) amount to several billion dollars a year, maybe more. Of course it is passed on to merchants and they HATE this system. And I’m not sure what in the world COULD be done to change this negative brand perception; apparenty they are doing nothing about that.

Comment on USB On The Go - where are the products? by Andy Cockburn

Andy Cockburn — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:25:58 +0000

I think this technology will be passed over and it’ll move straight to wireless sucking … so to speak. Here I think it’s an easier sell for the device manufacturers. I can see you arriving home, switching on your camera and it asking you if you want to transfer your files and then you say yes and you’re done. Wires have to be on their way out, surely??!!

Comment on Pricing in fraud - beware those willing to pay by Andy Cockburn

Andy Cockburn — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:08:37 +0000

Reconsider the game you’re in or get the experts in. There’s a reason that PayPal paid $170M for Fraud Sciences last year.

(And I think PayPal lost $9M to fraud in it’s first year. I think the $9 doesn’t help back up your point!)

Comment on Bandwidth remains expensive - bottleneck moves to chair by Andy Cockburn

Andy Cockburn — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:04:10 +0000

Can you add trackbacks to your comments. I’ve just written a blog post that is relevant to this on http://www.andycockburn.com/158/communicationchannels/ but I can’t trackback.

Comment on Bandwidth remains expensive - bottleneck moves to chair by Andy Cockburn

Andy Cockburn — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:02:26 +0000

This is very true. Although the issue that frustrates me more is the proliferation of channels rather than the lack of prioritisation. I’m happy to apply my own sense of priority to each channel (e.g. Facebook message - 2 weeks to reply; SMS - an hour). What frustrates me is having to constantly check multiple channels. I’d really value a portal that aggregated all my channels. If they could then be prioritised for me on top of that, that’d be great too.

Comment on Twitter by AOL, BT, GMAIL and … by John Connolly

John Connolly — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:31:10 +0000

Google Wave (http://wave.google.com/) is architected to allow multiple ID providers.

Comment on When will telephone numbers get a bit smarter? by fixmaster

fixmaster — Thu, 21 May 2009 10:44:37 +0000

I agree that numbers will eventually die, and that I will be able to have multiple telecoms personas just as easily as I have emails. These personas will be able to share a single device (e.g. my mobile phone), and each persona will be able to span multiple devices (e.g. my computer(s), mobile, landline). But the death of numbers will be long and slow, and there is plenty of opportunity in the meantime for a viable numbers based solution to my issues. Telecoms moves slowly, Fax is still operating in this day and age of scanners and email, and Fax numbers still features on most business cards!

Services like chi.mp make the use of multiple personas too explicit for me (much like the IVR solution does). People can see they have been ‘restricted’ to a sub-set of your identity and will either feel slighted by the category you have/haven’t placed them in, and naturally try and extend into other categories for ‘deeper’ access.

Comment on When will telephone numbers get a bit smarter? by Andy Cockburn

Andy Cockburn — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:34:04 +0000

Do you really want multiple mobile numbers? Surely it’s only a matter of time before numbers are dead. In a continution of the trend that’s seen those numbers that were once known by heart become hidden behind names on your speedial, surely numbers will soon be hidden behind profiles. In just the same way that ip addresses are hidden behind domain names. And then, just as friendfeed or chi.mp allow you different personas, you’ll be able to channel calls by those personas.