Nels Wadycki

I declare that emphatically because I want it to be so. I’m sure I’m not the only code monkey out there praying that “write once, run anywhere” doesn’t leave us like ###… Even now web developers have to test across at least 3 different browsers,* but at least things are trending towards standardization and it’s becoming easier to create a web app that will behave the same independent of a user’s choice of browser.

Smartphones pose a serious threat to that ubiquity in the same way that the differences between Windows, Mac OS, and Linux made developing desktop apps an elephant-sized pain in the ass. Web developers have long wished and advocated for browsers that run everything the same way. While that is probably never going to happen, the difference between developing for IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera is much (much much) smaller than the difference between developing for Windows, Mac, and Linux.

if (Portability > Usability) then ?

There is a reason that desktop-style web apps are popular. Yes, people still use Outlook, Thunderbird, and many other fat desktop clients for email, but there’s a reason that there’s 300 million people using Yahoo Webmail, Gmail, Hotmail, and AOL Webmail (I extrapolated that number from these percentages of market share), and that given the choice, 49% of people choose Gmail as the best email client. There’s also a reason that Google has basically given a big fat middle finger to native iPhone apps with their Gmail client in HTML5 (and now Google Voice web app, also in HTML5). There a reason that there’s a lot more “mobile touch” web sites than there are iPhone and Android apps. There’s a reason that I get practically all of my links from Read/Write Web and not Read/Write Native Smartphone App.

That reason is Portability. That is: I can run a web app from anywhere on anyone’s computer (or phone) as long as I’ve got internet access. So, while a client like Outlook or Thunderbird offers a slightly faster response time and some extra features, if you use one of those and don’t use a web-app version in addition to the desktop client, you suddenly sound like someone who doesn’t really know how the internet even works (do you really want to be the person who says: “I have to check my email on my home computer”?)

And for the second part of the equation: Usability – the gap between web app and desktop app is getting smaller every day. Web developers continue to push the limits of what web-based applications can do with respect to speed and user interfaces. Sure, web apps (even the good ones) are slow compared to native apps when they’re running on a (relatively) slow phone with a (relatively) slow 3G internet connection. But the speed of the phones and the connections is improving even faster than the speed of the apps themselves.

So, now take the difference in Portability (we’ll say this difference is a fairly large positive in favor of web apps) and add the difference in Usability (we’ll say this is slightly negative with respect to web apps) and then add in the fact that you can write a web app in one language and have it run on every single phone and computer with internet access and see if you don’t come out with a conclusion that says: HTML is the Future.

And, if you want some awesome tips for developing in HTML5, check out Alex Bosworth’s post.

* Yes, all you Opera and Safari heads, I said at least.

Nels Diatribes, Misc Tech, The New Web, Web Development Alex Bosworth, HTML5, ReadWriteWeb, TechCrunch, Web Apps, Web Development

From a (sort of) recent Facebook status update:

While I agree for the most part with the “Tumblr > Twitter” sentiment, well, that’s kind of obvious. Twitter is definitely good for some things (mostly sharing short fleeting thoughts, but also sometimes for sharing links, and conversing with people who use Twitter as their main form of communication). I did not see “being a blog” in that list, though. And as Commenter #1 points out, you can view Twitter updates on your Tumblr dashboard while posting slightly longer commentaries on Tumblr. Of course, Commenter #1 also makes the fatal mistake of saying that he (or she) wishes they knew HTML.
Read more…

Nels Blogging, Diatribes, RSS, Social web, The New Web, Twitter Blogging, Diatribes, RSS, Social web, Tumblr, Twitter

or: The True Power of RSS

On the same day when TechCrunch delivered this piece on the Internet as Robin Hood, I also realized how irrelevant “old media” and/or “the establishment” has become to me personally. What brought me to this realization before I even looked at the TechCrunch article?

Vajazzle

I am going to say with all honesty, that nearly all of the blogs I read via RSS (which is nearly all of the blogs I read) are focused on tech (e.g., TechCrunch) and basketball (e.g., Ball Don’t Lie). And yet, I still found out about Vajazzling only a day after Jennifer Love Hewitt was on George Lopez’s late night show. Thank you, Basketbawful.

You can almost see the sparkling Swarovski crystals.

As someone who has received some of the riches that Robin Interhood has stolen from the big news outlets, I can’t help but champion the power of the Internet. But honestly, I was kind of amazed that I can be plugged into pop culture even when I limit myself to two particular subject areas. And I’m not the only one who’s interested in this kind of thing. Tracking new media, I mean, of course. Not the vajazzling itself.

Nels Misc Tech, RSS, The New Web Basketbawful, Jennifer Love Hewitt, New Media, Newspaper, RSS, Vajazzle

According to MacDailyNews:

“Apple Inc. acquired online music company Lala Media Inc., possibly signaling an expansion of the computer giant’s music strategy,” Ethan Smith and Yukari Iwatani Kane report for The Wall Street Journal.

Terms of the deal were not available, but there’s this:

“One person with knowledge of the deal, but who was not authorized to discuss it, said that the negotiations originated when Lala executives concluded that their prospects for turning a profit in the short term were dim and initiated discussions with Eddy Cue, Apple’s vice president in charge of iTunes,” Brad Stone reports for the New York Times. “This person said Apple would primarily be buying Lala’s engineers, including its energetic co-founder Bill Nguyen, and their experience with cloud-based music services.“

(Emphasis mine)

Great.

This Could Be Good If

1) Apple uses it to start their own cloud-based music streaming service complete with iPhone app and allows Lala.com users (like me) to transfer all their purchases to the new service. This scenario seems most likely if Apple is indeed basically just buying Lala’s engineers. Of course, the “be good” part of this hinges on Apple letting people move their purchases to the new service. Of course, people who don’t already use Lala won’t give a shit, and Apply might not care enough about the current users of Lala (who are probably a tiny minority of music listeners) to make this sort of transfer available.

2) Apple starts adding their branding muscle to Lala.com, and adds integration with Lala to iTunes. I mean, the service is already set up and seems to be working pretty well. The music syncing app could use some work, but that seems like something that Apply could do pretty well. Then they could add their Genius power to Lala to make it even awesomer (and get people to buy even more music, since the web songs are only 10 cents).

3) Apple does anything as good as Lala without Effing it up. I’m sure there are other possible roadmaps that my feeble mind has yet to conjure into being. As long as Apple doesn’t rip the still beating heart from Lala and stomp on it (as Google has done with Oh So Many Startups), then, it should be okay.

Nels Misc Tech, Music, The New Web Apple, Lala.com, Mortal Kombat, Music

While this post from TechCrunch on Zong and the new Zong+ is long, and covers a lot of ground on Zong, it leaves out what David Allen might call the Crazy Maker viewpoint.

Leena Rao (the author) pits Zong as a potential PayPal killer, which it certainly could be, but my Crazy Maker idea is that Zong could take on credit cards as we know them.

I’ve already mentioned this concept to my wife so many times I’ve learned to stop even saying anything remotely related to it, but: Why can’t I pay for stuff using my phone instead of my credit card? Sure, I’d still probably have to carry around my library card (until they start accepting phone numbers instead of library card numbers), cash, and my driver’s license. But, I wouldn’t have to worry about losing my wallet or having someone steal my card or spy on my card number. Why? Well, if you’re asking, you clearly didn’t read the TechCrunch article (and I can forgive you for that), so here’s the short version:

1. You give Zong your phone number and – with Zong+ – your credit card number.
2. You buy something and put in your phone number instead of any other number or email or whatever.
3. Zong sends you a PIN number via text message.
4. Put in the PIN number and you’re done. Paid!

Now imagine… You’re at the grocery store… instead of sliding your card in the credit/debit card machine, you punch your phone number into a PIN pad. A text is sent to your phone. You put the PIN from the text into the PIN pad. Done!

Yes, I realize it’s not all that much easier than the process for using a credit card, but it means that someone can’t take your card (if you drop it or leave it somewhere) and go on a shopping spree. More importantly, identity thieves won’t be able to sell credit cards they steal in shady internet chat rooms because they’d have to have your phone to get the PIN number text message in order to complete the transaction! Bam, said the lady!

Nels Misc Tech, The New Web Money, PayPal, Personal Finance, TechCrunch, Zong

It’s funny that the these two posts both appeared on TechCrunch just yesterday…

First: Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt on the Magical Potential of Mobile Cloud. I will re-blockquote:

The mobile platforms, Android and the others, are so powerful now that you can build client apps that do magical things that are connected with the cloud. This is I think the most visually obvious example of that…don’t limit your imagination to this set of problems. Anything where you can produce this phenomenal customer benefit when you have a mobile device broadly defined connected to the cloud….Obviously we like the price of free because the consumers like that as well and we can figure out ways to use advertising to pay for it.

The way he says it, he makes it sound like this is still a few years in coming… but then there’s this post about Lala.com’s iPhone app which was just submitted a few days ago, and basically does exactly what Schmidt was talking about: Use the mobile cloud to make magic happen.

I’ve already expounded on my love of Lala, and how I may never buy another mp3 again, and now that I’ll soon be able to (hopefully) listen to all my music on my iPhone from the cloud, why would I???? I can store a lot more music on Lala than I can on my iPhone, and at significantly lower cost!

It’s like I told my wife last night (talking about why I didn’t want anything more than watching a Bulls game for my birthday): I can get any DVD I want from Netflix, I can get any music I want on Lala, and I can get any book I want from the library. When you couple with that, the fact that I don’t really need any new clothes since I don’t even wear everything I own now, and the only thing that I really need for my birthday is more time.

Nels Google, Misc Tech, The New Web Google, iPhone, Lala.com, Mobile Web

I specialized in Management so forgive me if I don’t understand how TV can be profitable when you broadcast it over the airwaves, but not profitable when you show it on someone’s computer.

Apparently, Hulu is going to start charging for content at exactly the time when I stop using it. It’s a stunning coincidence that neither of those dates have been nailed down, and yet, they’re exactly the same!

“I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value,” News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey said. “Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.”

I’m sorry, Mr. Carey, but what is the current broadcast model referred to as if it’s not a “free model”? As far as I know, I haven’t paid for TV since I moved out of my parents house nearly 12 years ago. And the only reason my parents paid for TV was because they moved to a place where you can’t really get reception. Yet, somehow, TV shows have continued to air free of charge to me for those 12 years.

Here’s what I see as the impending trade off: Charge people for content vs. Show more commercials. I know from experience that during a broadcast TV show, there are several ads per commercial break, as opposed to the single ad that is shown during a break on Hulu. Is the problem that there aren’t enough advertisers who are willing to buy ads during a show on Hulu to be able to show three ads per commercial break? If that’s the case then Hulu is just doing a suck ass job of marketing to those advertisers.

Consider that the networks have absolutely ZERO knowledge of what I watch on broadcast TV. Now consider that the networks know that I am subscribed to: 30 Rock, Castle, Chuck, Dollhouse, FlashForward, Fringe, Glee, The Office, and V (which hasn’t even started yet). If I were the one running Hulu, I’d be telling advertisers that if you have a tech gadget, or some other super-geeky thing to advertiser, guess what? I can show your ad to someone who is subscribed to Chuck, Dollhouse, FlashForward, Fringe, and V. Is that not compelling? Seems pretty G-damn compelling to me. But then, my MBA is in Management.

Nels Diatribes, The New Web Advertising, Hulu, Marketing

And I was more than willing to take part…

Too bad when I hit the second question their survey broke. From looking at the source code, apparently they were trying to show a video on a page that asked for my country, and either they didn’t like the version of Flash I have installed, or they just accidentally inserted a bunch of Flash and Javascript into a page that wasn’t supposed to have it and broke the whole “show continue button when the question has been answered” part of the page.

At this point, were I someone with a smaller vocabulary or less desire to type words (the blog equivalent of hearing myself speak), I could say FAIL!, or post a picture of the Hulu logo with a big red FAIL in Impact (which would be well within my Photoshop abilities). Instead I’ll just say, I was really looking forward to seeing what the 7 choices were for the charity ads that would have been displayed 250 times honor of my completion of the survey.

Nels TV, The New Web Hulu, Surveys

But the interesting part is that it’s not out in theaters until October 23rd (that’s 23 days from the time of this writing).

The whole “available now on VOD, Xbox Live, and Amazon” part seems a stark contrast to the “in theaters October 23rd” part, and while I applaud the effort/ingenuity, I have to wonder what research led to the decision. I’m sure there is a market for people who are going to buy a movie, but aren’t going to go see it in theaters.

Ah… now I see: Ong Bak 2 (Pre-Theatrical Rental)

The key is obviously “Pre-Theatrical Rental” because the cost of that rental (at least on Amazon) is $9.99. That’s fairly comparable to seeing the movie in the theater (though if you have VOD or Xbox Live, or a computer hooked up to a TV through which you can play the Amazon rental) then you can get several admissions for the price of entry. So I still have to wonder, are they going to make more money off of people renting this from home than they are from people going to the theater (or going to the theater and subsequently buying the movie)? In this case I’m less skeptical simply because of the movie. It seems like a fanboy kind of movie that people will actually want to see as soon as they can. And I can imagine people watching this in a dorm room on someone’s oversize computer screen, versus, say Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs or Fame.

Nels The New Web Marketing, Movies, Ong Bak 2, The New Web, VOD

It’s like The Internet is a disease and it’s slowly damaging the organs of the album. One by one it goes through the body of the album, taking a chunk here and there. The album isn’t on life support yet, but it will be soon enough.

From Read/WriteWeb:

Radiohead’s frontman Thom Yorke announced that the band will no longer release full-length studio albums and instead focus on downloadable singles.

Billy Corgan and The Smashing Pumpkins aren’t quite ready to go all the way there, but instead they’re breaking the album into 11 EP’s of 4 songs each. That way Billy can still fulfill his artwork and concept fetish by including pictures, paintings, etc. with the EPs while making the music available to people who don’t share his proclivity for the visual aspect of the theme.

While The Smashing Pumpkins method is already familiar to them (see also: The Aeroplane Flies High), Radiohead’s declaration shows an awareness of changing methods of distribution as compared with the “old world” ways. The reason we have albums in the first place is because records (and tapes, and CDs) only held a finite amount of material before their storage space was exhausted. Today, even fairly low end computers come with 80-90GB of storage, which is enough for several albums even for loss-less quality distribution. We no longer have the limitations that made the album a necessity in the first place, so why continue on with the tradition?

If you say “because of the recording industry” then it really only further serves to show how far the industry’s head is under the sand. Here’s a great example: Jay-Z’s Blueprint 3 (which I like) is $10.99 on iTunes. But each of the individual tracks is $1.29. So, to buy the album as singles (with the Radiohead model) you’d pay $19.35. Yes, I realize that by releasing singles, labels run the risk of not having people buy all of the singles, but since The Blueprint 3 has 15 songs on it, each person would only have to buy 57% of the songs (8-9 of the 15 songs) to get the same amount of money.

If you’re a ruthless music company exec, why are you basically giving people 6-7 songs for free?

Do you really think that people who might otherwise download the entire thing for free are going to instead pay $10.99 because it’s a better deal than buying each song individually? No. They’re still going to download the whole thing and pay nothing. But the people who would pay $10.99 for the album, I’m guessing they’d also pay $10.32 to buy 8 of the songs individually. Especially if you release one single a month for 15 months, I bet you get a pretty high conversion rate. Then it’s only $1.29 a month. That’s not a big deal. Seems like a much easier sell than trying to convert an entire $10.99 (or $19.35) all at once.

The album is dead. Long live the single.

Nels Diatribes, The New Web Billy Corgan, Music, Radiohead, ReadWriteWeb, The Smashing Pumpkins