Published by Robert Scoble
I give you a front-row seat on the future. Focusing most of my efforts now on next-generation augmented reality and artificial intelligence, AKA "mixed reality."
SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEWSLETTER: http://clevermoe.com/scobleizer-news/
BUY OUR NEW BOOK: https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Transformation-Robert-Scoble/dp/1539894444 "The Fourth Transformation: How augmented reality and artificial intelligence will change everything."
WATCH MY LATEST SPEECHES:
State of VR with Philip Rosedale (done in VR itself, very cool): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zAA1EVGUZU
At GEOINT, June 2017: http://trajectorymagazine.com/glimpse-new-world/
Augmented World Expo, June 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4xHILvLD8E
At Leade.rs, April 2017: https://youtu.be/52_0JshgjXI
+++++++++++
BIO:
Scoble gives you a front-row seat on the future.
Literally. He had the first ride in the first Tesla. Siri was launched in his house. He's been the first to share all sorts of technologies and companies with you, from Flipboard to Pandora to Instagram.
Today he's focusing on mixed reality, AKA "next-generation augmented reality" which will include a new user interface for EVERYTHING in your life (IoT, Smart Cities, driverless cars, robots, drones, etc).
That's based on his view thanks to his past experience as futurist at Rackspace.
Best place to find Scoble? On his Facebook profile at https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble
He has been a technology blogger since 2000, was one of five people who built Microsoft's Channel 9 video blog/community, worked at Fast Company Magazine running its TV efforts, and has been part of technology media businesses since 1993.
++++++++
SPEAKER PITCH:
Apple and Facebook now have revealed their Augmented Reality strategies, which means your business needs one too. Rely on Robert Scoble, the world's top authority on AR, to bring to your conference what businesses should do next.
SPEECH ABSTRACT #1:
TITLE: The Fourth Transformation: What's next in mixed reality (AR and AI) and the future of technology?
Here's an example of this talk at Leade.rs in Paris in April, 2017: https://youtu.be/52_0JshgjXI
Why "the Fourth Transformation?"
Soon we will have phones and glasses that do full on augmented reality. Everything you look at will potentially be augmented. This world is coming in late 2017 with a new iPhone from Apple, amongst other products. Microsoft is betting everything on its HoloLens glasses that do mixed reality and the industry is spending many billions of dollars in R&D and funding new companies like Magic Leap.
This future will be the user interface for IoT, Smart Cities, autonomous cars, robots, drones, and your TV.
This is a big deal and Robert will take you through what mixed reality is and how it will change every business.
Learn more about Robert's speaking style and contact his agent at http://odemanagement.com/robert-scoble/Robert-Scoble.html
++++++++
SPEECH ABSTRACT #2:
"The Next Two Clicks of Moore's Law."
Over the next four years, or two clicks of Moore's Law, a ton about our technology world will change. Scoble will bring you the best from his travels visiting R&D labs, startups, and innovators around the world.
He views the world through his rose-colored-mixed-reality glasses, which will be the new user interface for self driving cars, Smart Cities, IoT, and many other things in our world.
He'll send you off with some lessons for companies both large and small.
++++++++
SPEECH ABSTRACT #3:
"Personalized Meaning: What is Augmented Reality For?"
As we enter a far more technological world where even cars drive themselves, I predict we'll see a blowback toward the analog, more authentic world.
What role does augmented reality play in both worlds?
Get Scoble's insight into where augmented reality is going, see tons of real-world demos, and understand what he means by 'personalized meaning.'
CONTACT:
If you are looking to contact me, email is best: scobleizer@gmail.com.
++++++++
ENDORSEMENTS:
IZEA Top 25 Tech Influencers: https://izea.com/2017/07/07/25-top-tech-influencers/
Time: One of the top 140 Twitterers!
FT: One of the five most influential Twitterers!
Inc. Top 5 on list of Tech Power Players You Need to Know: http://www.inc.com/john-rampton/30-power-players-in-tech-you-need-to-know.html
Next Reality: #4 on top 50 AR influencer list: https://next.reality.news/news/nr50-next-realitys-50-people-watch-augmented-mixed-reality-0177454/
View all posts by Robert Scoble
Robert,
About your comment on why people aren’t using Microsoft stuff for their startups…I have some opinions on that.
I believe one of the contributing factors of this is cost. In order for a startup to get up and going with Microsoft, they need to spend a lot of up front money, and as you can see by the guy asking for 20 bucks for servers this is a cost that they can’t afford.
I’ll give you an example. Let’s say that I have 4 developers working on a web application based on Microsoft technologies. They should all have Visual Studio .NET since it’s probably the best way to program in ASP.NET and C# (or VB.NET). The full version Visual Studio .NET isn’t cheap last time I checked.
Of course, we’ll need servers; at least one web server and one database server. That incurs not only the hardware cost but the cost of a license for Windows Server 2003 Web Edition and SQL Server 2000 with Software Assurance if they want to upgrade for free to 2005. SQL Server, the full version, runs about 6,000 dollars per processor although there are alternatives (Windows Server 2003 SBS Enterprise comes to mind).
If you want to scale your web farm out using a load balancer and get more servers you would have to buy additional licenses for Windows Server 2003 Web Edition for each server that you get.
Boy…these costs are starting to add up.
Wouldn’t it be easier on a startup to just use the LAMP stack and focus on spending money on quality hardware and their bandwidth bill?
Of course there have been various studies on the true cost of Open Source tecnologies and it could be argued both ways but one thing is clear…Microsoft always loses this war in up front costs. In the long term…I’ll leave it up to the analysts to bicker about that.
Another detraction to using Microsoft technologies is the marriage to the Microsoft platform. I’ll give you an example. I’m sure you’ve heard of Meebo. I read on their blog that they switched from Apache to Lighttpd because the latter offered significant performance increases for their specific application.
If their code was all ASP.NET then they’d be stuck on IIS. There would be no other options for them.
I’m sure that there are other reasons that those guys (and gals) aren’t using Microsoft stuff, but those are the points that immediately came to mind for me.
LikeLike
Robert,
About your comment on why people aren’t using Microsoft stuff for their startups…I have some opinions on that.
I believe one of the contributing factors of this is cost. In order for a startup to get up and going with Microsoft, they need to spend a lot of up front money, and as you can see by the guy asking for 20 bucks for servers this is a cost that they can’t afford.
I’ll give you an example. Let’s say that I have 4 developers working on a web application based on Microsoft technologies. They should all have Visual Studio .NET since it’s probably the best way to program in ASP.NET and C# (or VB.NET). The full version Visual Studio .NET isn’t cheap last time I checked.
Of course, we’ll need servers; at least one web server and one database server. That incurs not only the hardware cost but the cost of a license for Windows Server 2003 Web Edition and SQL Server 2000 with Software Assurance if they want to upgrade for free to 2005. SQL Server, the full version, runs about 6,000 dollars per processor although there are alternatives (Windows Server 2003 SBS Enterprise comes to mind).
If you want to scale your web farm out using a load balancer and get more servers you would have to buy additional licenses for Windows Server 2003 Web Edition for each server that you get.
Boy…these costs are starting to add up.
Wouldn’t it be easier on a startup to just use the LAMP stack and focus on spending money on quality hardware and their bandwidth bill?
Of course there have been various studies on the true cost of Open Source tecnologies and it could be argued both ways but one thing is clear…Microsoft always loses this war in up front costs. In the long term…I’ll leave it up to the analysts to bicker about that.
Another detraction to using Microsoft technologies is the marriage to the Microsoft platform. I’ll give you an example. I’m sure you’ve heard of Meebo. I read on their blog that they switched from Apache to Lighttpd because the latter offered significant performance increases for their specific application.
If their code was all ASP.NET then they’d be stuck on IIS. There would be no other options for them.
I’m sure that there are other reasons that those guys (and gals) aren’t using Microsoft stuff, but those are the points that immediately came to mind for me.
LikeLike
The answer is even easier than that — of course, Microsoft only really makes sense on a large scale, TCO formulational basis (as much as Software Assurance is trying to thwart such). But most of these so-called “entrepreneurs” (that Scoble is pointing out) aren’t even real companies, most all just hyping and hawking up Web 2.0 meme’s, which at best are merely good feature sets. With shoestring budgets and no revenue sources, makes no economic sense to pander and market to. Pay attention WHEN they become a viable company. The only long-term biz plan for most is, “get acquired”.
As for all the anti-Web 2.0 stuff, more people aren’t fooled twice you know. The first round got all bought up by we-paid-way-too-much duped “Web 1.0” companies, and the second round is all derivative, aka Tim’s-bucket-of-fridge-meme-map-magnets.
LikeLike
The answer is even easier than that — of course, Microsoft only really makes sense on a large scale, TCO formulational basis (as much as Software Assurance is trying to thwart such). But most of these so-called “entrepreneurs” (that Scoble is pointing out) aren’t even real companies, most all just hyping and hawking up Web 2.0 meme’s, which at best are merely good feature sets. With shoestring budgets and no revenue sources, makes no economic sense to pander and market to. Pay attention WHEN they become a viable company. The only long-term biz plan for most is, “get acquired”.
As for all the anti-Web 2.0 stuff, more people aren’t fooled twice you know. The first round got all bought up by we-paid-way-too-much duped “Web 1.0” companies, and the second round is all derivative, aka Tim’s-bucket-of-fridge-meme-map-magnets.
LikeLike
Christopher, when you say “we paid way too much for duped Web 1.0 companies” are you talking about eBay, Google, Yahoo, and Amazon?
LikeLike
Christopher, when you say “we paid way too much for duped Web 1.0 companies” are you talking about eBay, Google, Yahoo, and Amazon?
LikeLike
Yap, as well as News Corp. (Re: Myspace) and any other buy-up or company that makes all the Esalen New Agey Sand Hillish tech-wonks gleefully joyous. Just a casual glance at the Sand Hill VC lists, shows so many stinkers, I can almost pick them like a baseball game, actually it’s easier, but the “get acquired” stratgey is always an unknown factor, and that kick can take a stinker to the bank easy, spray paint that rock gold. Web 2.0 begets Bubble 2.0
PS – And I said “we-paid-way-too-much duped Web 1.0 companies” not “we paid way too much for duped Web 1.0 companies”. Leave out the hyphens, it changes the whole sentence and no FOR. Quote me right, geesh.
LikeLike
Yap, as well as News Corp. (Re: Myspace) and any other buy-up or company that makes all the Esalen New Agey Sand Hillish tech-wonks gleefully joyous. Just a casual glance at the Sand Hill VC lists, shows so many stinkers, I can almost pick them like a baseball game, actually it’s easier, but the “get acquired” stratgey is always an unknown factor, and that kick can take a stinker to the bank easy, spray paint that rock gold. Web 2.0 begets Bubble 2.0
PS – And I said “we-paid-way-too-much duped Web 1.0 companies” not “we paid way too much for duped Web 1.0 companies”. Leave out the hyphens, it changes the whole sentence and no FOR. Quote me right, geesh.
LikeLike
> Quote me right, geesh.
Ironic that you’d ask this. I never did get an apology for that email that got its way into the hands of Orlowski and had my words changed on it.
Of course there’s lots of stinkers. How many products does Procter and Gamble put on the shelf every year? How many brands can you remember? Not many.
LikeLike
> Quote me right, geesh.
Ironic that you’d ask this. I never did get an apology for that email that got its way into the hands of Orlowski and had my words changed on it.
Of course there’s lots of stinkers. How many products does Procter and Gamble put on the shelf every year? How many brands can you remember? Not many.
LikeLike
“Pay attention WHEN they become a viable company. The only long-term biz plan for most is, “get acquired”.”
Yeah, once they get successful they will drop LAMP and switch over to Microsoft, just like Google, E-Bay, and Yahoo did. Oh, wait…
LikeLike
“Pay attention WHEN they become a viable company. The only long-term biz plan for most is, “get acquired”.”
Yeah, once they get successful they will drop LAMP and switch over to Microsoft, just like Google, E-Bay, and Yahoo did. Oh, wait…
LikeLike