Last week I write The Absence of Presence, and I think the point eluded many of my friends and colleagues. And while pal Andy Abramson did jump in as the spin doctor, I think he really presented another view with the same fundamental problem - we're preaching to the choir here. Alec jumped back in for another round with Mobility and the “New Presence”, but I still think we're talking to the converts. Alec points to me, Phoneboy, Andy, Brough, David, Luca, and Marc. These are all people who are already thinking two steps down the road in presence technologies.

That's where I think we go wrong. Dead wrong. Here's a comment I've taken the liberty of reposting, from a reader here:

Presence is interesting to me, as a concept it is well worth the research. But, from personal experience the main value of seeing someone is 'present' is that it reminds me that I was meaning to discuss something with them.

The main value of presence to me as a user then is as a reminder. I really don't care awfully if someone is 'present', I can email them after all. I do find that anything that reminds me to do something is more useful - perhaps what I'm really missing is workflow for the information worker.

For those building a business and creating solutions in unified communications, what really is the market for an interesting concept that's worth researching? This is a real user's reaction. Real user's really don't care. Presence may be nothing more than a workflow reminder.

And yes, we saw a couple new plays on words for New Presence - Presence++ and Interpresence. My reaction is that if I want to sell the interesting concept to Luca or David, those are nice words. But they don't mean squat to consumers or business users.

The danger I see, and I think this is a real danger to the entreprenuerial souls who are creating the presence market, is an echo chamber effect. We're talking internally among ourselves about the idea of presence. We shove identitiy into the mix. We talk about how rich meaning will add value. We're off in the corner talking about neat nuances and facets of a presence model we envision.

For those old enough to remember Lost in Space, I say "Danger Will Robinson!" While we're off talking about nuance, Cisco will sweep in with Telepresence language and Microsoft will parley the idea of "Live Communications."  Before you know what hit you, the 800 pound gorillas will be positioning themselves as the visionaries who created the whole concept of presence. Mark my words. One of them will even file a patent.

My fear, because it's what I see happening is that presence will be a present...a gift. Those who understand it best...those who gave birth to the vision, can too easily lose control. Yes, right now there is an element of control in the direction of presence. Right now, the innovators are the barbarians at the gate with innovation and creativity and a solution that's not well understood or embraced by the business world.

I've been listening and asking a lot of questions about presence outside the echo chamber we so easily share. And out there...it doesn't exist. It isn't an echo. It isn't even a whisper in most quarters. In fact. to get a good discussion about why it might be useful and important, I find I almost always have to give a ten-minute talk on what I think presence is. The problem is, then the audience too often thinks I've had a great idea that someone should work on. But it isn't my idea. Not at all. I just have reactions and my own thoughts about the core idea.

My fear is that presence is being wrapped up in a nice tidy package. Don't stick a bow on it and give it to Microsoft and Cisco as a present. Please. They won't do it soon. They won't do it right. But they will take the present if you make it easy for them.


Technorati Tags: Presence