Seems the blogoland is officially in a tizzy over the next iPhone.  Per protocol, the Apple Store is closed for “restocking,” and a flurry of fuzzy and poached screen shots have appeared in the last week.

Quite honestly, as an iPhone owner, I can say that this thing makes other phones just look like toys.  Not that toys are a bad thing.  But as more phones live and work like iPhones, social life will have to be impacted in unexpected ways.

A brief paper written by WIll Page (of MCPS-PRS Alliance, in the UK) and myself has been made publicly available.  The piece was meant to stir a larger discussion around alternative licensing structures rights societies might put to use, particularly in the context of new, music-related startups.  These startups usually (1) cannot afford the rates societies have set based upon the financials of more mature businesses, and (2) are trying to use music in novel ways, for which a collective license may not already exist.

The paper can be downloaded from the MCPS-PRS Alliance site for independent research. 

That’s the question that directs my research.  We have made a great many of assumptions, and produced a number of theories over the years regarding the relationship between technology, work and organizations.  Most of these assumptions and theories have run into a few bumps when information technologies are concerned.

So where are we headed, as our capacity to automate work increases?  Are we running out of things to do?  Or do increasingly capable, and (gasp) intelligent  technologies simply take our work and organizations in direction we never anticipated?

So, as journos pondered how horrible things were in the job market these days… seems to me something funky may finally be occurring

An article from the Associate Press tried to spin the fall in unemployment, amidst employers cutting jobs, as “hundreds of thousands of people — perhaps discouraged by their prospects — left the civilian labor force.”

But could it be that the older generation is starting to retire, and therefore officially pulling itself out of the civilian labor pool? As such, the US labor pool could begin contracting in total size (after controlling for population growth) at a rate faster than employer layoffs. Fewer workers to fill fewer jobs.

As someone who has been exposed to a fair amount of research in the management realm, I am often shocked/awed/dismayed by the use of psychological testing in the hiring process. These tests play a statistical game that really should only be played by those understanding the rules.

When I see these new products in the world of genetic data, like 23andME, I get a little concerned. We might as well accept at this point in time that someday, you will exchange these kind of data either before or after an employment agreement. Many people would consider the privacy factor too overwhelming to expect genetic information to be part of the employment process, but the facts of the reality suggest that private employers are not bound by the same rules for private data as many assume. We are often and quite legally monitored at work, depending upon the state in which we are employed, we can be fired for our political beliefs (even if those beliefs are expressed outside of the workplace).

Anyhoo. Arrington, over at TechCrunch, released some screen shots and thoughts on his test data courtesy 23andME. As the tests that underlie these kind of services grow in size and focus, the data will only get more “reliable.” Firms can and will hire on the basis of the odds expressed in these results.

A good test of a new pharmaceutical would rest upon whether or not the team who developed the drug would use it on themselves, or their children. Unfortunately, what’s good for the gander is not good for the goose, when it comes to being free.Long Tail Anderson (the editor in chief of WIRED) has been able to make use of Wired magazine to promote his upcoming book. Note: the particular WIRED magazine (in paper form) is only available for free to the first 10,000 people to sign away their right to a spam-free mailing address here (”You may at times receive e-mail offers or information from Wired or carefully selected third parties.”).Unfortunately, judging from the article in WIRED, and the article in The Economist, Mr. Anderson strings together a great many buzzwords, sufficient to distract anyone from paying attention to the strings being pulled behind the curtain.Right from the start, the whole things sounds a little wonky:(excerpt) “The new model is based not on cross-subsidies — the shifting of costs from one product to another — but on the fact that the cost of products themselves is falling fast. It’s as if the price of steel had dropped so close to zero that King Gillette could give away both razor and blade, and make his money on something else entirely.”(excerpt)Never mind that cross subsidies are later listed as one of the business models for free, described as “any product that entices you to pay for something else.” SO  the new business model is based upon cross-subsidies for those who keep their attention.Regardless. The real bummer here is the ease with which this whole article repackages the past as the future of business.  Nothing in particular is the future of business.  However, this future will always involve someone opening their wallet and paying for something.

One of the most frustrating challenges when working, researching or teaching around the subject of entrepreneurship is the “what” of entrepreneurship.  What the hell is it?  More important, how do those assumptions people hold about this thing that is entrepreneurship stack up to reality?

Scott Shane, at Case Western Reserve’s Weatherhead School of Management, has written a book, The Illusions of Entrepreneurship, that is (imho) an absolute must read.

I have this feeling that Davos is like Vegas.  And now Scoble posts a story about a conversation he has walking to a breakfast with Zuckerberg, both heading to meet Musharref.  There is something both interesting and alarming about this combination of people at a breakfast table.  Is Musharraf going to start a Facebook group?