Love it or hate it, or anything in between, one can't ignore the fact that Google Buzz has generated a pretty sizable amount of buzz.
People have attacked it from all sides: some people feel that the way they introduced it, built on top of Gmail, was an invasion of their privacy; others say it's a poor imitation of Twitter; others still say that there's nothing innovative about it, as it looks a lot like FriendFeed, a service that has become part of FaceBook.
But what stands out to me is what people are not comparing it to. They are not comparing it to Second Life. They are not comparing it to MySpace. Or Friendster or any number of other social networks which were supposed to be the next great revolution in social networks at the time they came out.
Once upon a time, Second LIfe was an industry darling, with regular stories in the Times of people making thousands of dollars selling virtual dresses, performers like Jewel doing live virtual concerts, and enterprises like IBM setting up virtual customer support and intra-company conferencing in Linden Labs' fabricated world. It may not be a ghost town today, but at least the media coverage has moved on. IBM apparently still has their resource center there (http://www.ibm.com/3dworlds/businesscenter/us/en/), so there may still be some value to having property in Second Life, but it does not appear to be a growing concern.
Similarly, there was a time when if you wanted to reach the cool kids, you had to use MySpace. New movies, rock bands and more didn't have their own web pages, instead hosting all of their information on MySpace. They took social networking to new heights, and grew so fast that media conglomerate Fox News Corp bought them up, riddled the experience with advertisements, and then watched as their user base grew up and left, or just left for the new darling, FaceBook.
It's evolution, to some degree, but at the same time, it's just history repeating itself over and ove and over. The issue is really that these social networks are built around growth, but they don't have an end goal. And unfortunately, the features and behaviors that help grow a great social network do not necessarily make for a sustainable and useful social network. Eventually, with constant growth, the network becomes clogged and noisy, invasive and indistinguishable from the outside world. In its quest to become the ultimate way to stay in contact with your family, friends and colleagues, social networks tend to ignore their own initial value proposition, which is--at least implicitly--that using that network is a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. And in their rush to include every single grain of wheat, they inevitably start letting in a lot of chaff.
I wish I had a constructive solution, but at the moment all I see is the problem. Each network has its own strengths and weaknesses, and I anticipate that we'll see a few more before one surfaces with the right tools to allow people the access they desire with the controls they need. In the mean time, you can find me on Facebook, slowly culling friends from my list.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
iPad 3 - Niche Platform
It should come as no surprise that I think that the iPad is going to be a reasonable success. I am not going to be first in line to buy one, and probably won't even spring for the first revision or two. But I'm sure that I will own one, and I believe strongly that there will be a pretty good rush on the devices from a surprisingly wide range of people.
There are lots of great justifications as to why the product will either fail miserably or succeed beyond anyone's imagination. And there are as many declarations that it's a true revolution as there are that it's just a big iPhone or iPod Touch. But strangely enough, most of those rationales do not appeal to me; the one that jumps out is that last one, which is usually used to dismiss the iPad as a product.
I don't have an iPhone, but I do have an iPod Touch. But I don't use it to listen to music very often. It's not safe to do while driving or biking, it would get in the way of my work during the day, and it wouldn't be very good for my marriage if I listened to it while I was spending time with the family. My primary exercise is swimming, and while I considered looking into a waterproof set-up, the idea of strapping that thing to my trunks seems a little high maintenance. I sometimes listen to it while I'm walking my dog, but these days, time's so limited that instead I typically use that time to catch up with friends by phone.
So instead, the iPod mostly sits on my desk during the day, on the coffee table evenings and weekends, and on my bedside at night. It's my alarm clock, for one thing, but it's also just a really convenient way to check my personal email, twitter, calendar, train schedule, etc... during the day, and to do casual browsing and the like when I'm not at work. Pulling out my laptop for anything shy of a blog entry or actual coding seems like a waste of effort. If I'm going to use the laptop, it's a commitment. I can check my email on my iPod in about 10 seconds from the moment I pick the device up to the time I put it down.
Right from the start, I thought to myself that if only the iPod Touch were a few inches bigger, it'd make a great ebook reader, and it would be a much better browsing experience. I thought also that if I had such a device, I might not use my laptop except for work.
And now such a device exists, or will exist in a couple of months. I had been hoping for something a little smaller, more like 7" diagonal, with a smaller bezel, and something that would jack into a dock in order to be able to drive an external monitor and act like a normal Mac, reverting to a tablet when it was out of the dock. But while it's not my dream device, it is indeed something that I will use, because effectively, it is a big iPod Touch. If only my Touch didn't work so wonderfully, I'd consider buying and iPad right away, but unfortunately, it remains useful enough that I can't justify plunking down $629 in late March. Yes, I know it comes cheaper, but 3G would mean no worrying about hot spots...
And that brings me to the biggest effect that I think the iPad will have on the rest of the industry. Just like the iMac pushed USB into ubiquity, the iPad is going to be the thing that makes everyone expect 3G/WiMax radios on all mobile devices. Phones, laptops, netbooks and yes, tablets. Companies that make dongles should start thinking about their next business today.
There are lots of great justifications as to why the product will either fail miserably or succeed beyond anyone's imagination. And there are as many declarations that it's a true revolution as there are that it's just a big iPhone or iPod Touch. But strangely enough, most of those rationales do not appeal to me; the one that jumps out is that last one, which is usually used to dismiss the iPad as a product.
I don't have an iPhone, but I do have an iPod Touch. But I don't use it to listen to music very often. It's not safe to do while driving or biking, it would get in the way of my work during the day, and it wouldn't be very good for my marriage if I listened to it while I was spending time with the family. My primary exercise is swimming, and while I considered looking into a waterproof set-up, the idea of strapping that thing to my trunks seems a little high maintenance. I sometimes listen to it while I'm walking my dog, but these days, time's so limited that instead I typically use that time to catch up with friends by phone.
So instead, the iPod mostly sits on my desk during the day, on the coffee table evenings and weekends, and on my bedside at night. It's my alarm clock, for one thing, but it's also just a really convenient way to check my personal email, twitter, calendar, train schedule, etc... during the day, and to do casual browsing and the like when I'm not at work. Pulling out my laptop for anything shy of a blog entry or actual coding seems like a waste of effort. If I'm going to use the laptop, it's a commitment. I can check my email on my iPod in about 10 seconds from the moment I pick the device up to the time I put it down.
Right from the start, I thought to myself that if only the iPod Touch were a few inches bigger, it'd make a great ebook reader, and it would be a much better browsing experience. I thought also that if I had such a device, I might not use my laptop except for work.
And now such a device exists, or will exist in a couple of months. I had been hoping for something a little smaller, more like 7" diagonal, with a smaller bezel, and something that would jack into a dock in order to be able to drive an external monitor and act like a normal Mac, reverting to a tablet when it was out of the dock. But while it's not my dream device, it is indeed something that I will use, because effectively, it is a big iPod Touch. If only my Touch didn't work so wonderfully, I'd consider buying and iPad right away, but unfortunately, it remains useful enough that I can't justify plunking down $629 in late March. Yes, I know it comes cheaper, but 3G would mean no worrying about hot spots...
And that brings me to the biggest effect that I think the iPad will have on the rest of the industry. Just like the iMac pushed USB into ubiquity, the iPad is going to be the thing that makes everyone expect 3G/WiMax radios on all mobile devices. Phones, laptops, netbooks and yes, tablets. Companies that make dongles should start thinking about their next business today.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
iPad 2 - Flash
With the release of the original iPhone, then the iPod Touch, each subsequent hardware and software revision of each, and now with the iPad, there has come a growing chorus of complainants who bemoan the lack of Flash support on Apple's multi-touch platform. And as this groups cries grow louder, the erstwhile defendants of Apple's platform decisions dig in deeper and deeper, entrenching themselves for the battle to end all battles. If the blogosphere is any indication, this is a huge and polarizing issue, and if modern-day politics are any issue, we all have to take sides, and for whatever side one takes, one can not give an inch.
As such, I am now going public with my stance: the iP{hone,od,ad} never has, does not and never will need Flash support. Further, anyone who feels that Apple will fail without it is clearly a Communist Nazi terrorist who doesn't return library books on time.
Joking aside, I am casting my hat in with Gruber et al, and suggesting that the absence of Flash is really not a huge deal for any of these platforms.
Flash has a great legacy: at the very least, we can thank it for getting the great majority of Java applets that were all the craze in the mid-to-late '90s off of our web pages. While those applets still have a place, they mostly felt tacked on, stuck into the web pages in which they were embedded, they took too much processing power, and they were often buggy. So long, dancing Star Trek Federation Insignia, we hardly new ye.
And for all the great points regarding Flash support made on both sides of the argument, I think that the key for me is that the bar has been raised with regards to seamless web experiences, and many Flash apps are what embedded Java applets were just a few years ago. They feel tacked on. They interrupt the flow of the page. Unless the app itself is the reason you're going to a page, finding Flash running--i.e. in an advertisement or a movie that auto-starts without the viewer requesting that it do so--is an annoyance and it has an adverse effect on the overall experience.
And just like Java applets went the way of the dinosaurs when Flash became the prevalent plug-in technology, the bell is tolling for Flash because HTML5 is on the way, and there's very little you can't do using HTML5 and Javascript with modern CSS transforms and animations, and built-in support for video. Sites all over the web are demonstrating the possibilities, with YouTube leading the way with their HTML5 version of the site that doesn't make my laptop's fan kick in.
There are lots of solutions to the problem. Maybe Adobe should open-source the technology and hope that the Mozilla, WebKit (Safari and Chrome) and Gecko (IE8+) frameworks adopt it, thus allowing them to leverage their position as a premier provider of content creation tools. I'm not sure if this is the best idea in the world, but it's a darn sight better than digging in and trying to hold onto a market position that is clearly slipping away.
As such, I am now going public with my stance: the iP{hone,od,ad} never has, does not and never will need Flash support. Further, anyone who feels that Apple will fail without it is clearly a Communist Nazi terrorist who doesn't return library books on time.
Joking aside, I am casting my hat in with Gruber et al, and suggesting that the absence of Flash is really not a huge deal for any of these platforms.
Flash has a great legacy: at the very least, we can thank it for getting the great majority of Java applets that were all the craze in the mid-to-late '90s off of our web pages. While those applets still have a place, they mostly felt tacked on, stuck into the web pages in which they were embedded, they took too much processing power, and they were often buggy. So long, dancing Star Trek Federation Insignia, we hardly new ye.
And for all the great points regarding Flash support made on both sides of the argument, I think that the key for me is that the bar has been raised with regards to seamless web experiences, and many Flash apps are what embedded Java applets were just a few years ago. They feel tacked on. They interrupt the flow of the page. Unless the app itself is the reason you're going to a page, finding Flash running--i.e. in an advertisement or a movie that auto-starts without the viewer requesting that it do so--is an annoyance and it has an adverse effect on the overall experience.
And just like Java applets went the way of the dinosaurs when Flash became the prevalent plug-in technology, the bell is tolling for Flash because HTML5 is on the way, and there's very little you can't do using HTML5 and Javascript with modern CSS transforms and animations, and built-in support for video. Sites all over the web are demonstrating the possibilities, with YouTube leading the way with their HTML5 version of the site that doesn't make my laptop's fan kick in.
There are lots of solutions to the problem. Maybe Adobe should open-source the technology and hope that the Mozilla, WebKit (Safari and Chrome) and Gecko (IE8+) frameworks adopt it, thus allowing them to leverage their position as a premier provider of content creation tools. I'm not sure if this is the best idea in the world, but it's a darn sight better than digging in and trying to hold onto a market position that is clearly slipping away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)