Nels Wadycki » The New Web

Weekend Reading: Is HTML5 Hot or Not?

Nels — Sat, 08 May 2010 14:53:28 +0000

Scribd is ditching Flash for HTML5, but Tim Bray says HTML5 ain’t all that big a deal.

Other Stuff Like This

HTML Is The Future

Nels — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:02:50 +0000

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.

Other Stuff Like This

Blogging is Easy

Nels — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:30:28 +0000

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.

I’m fairly certain that with a little practice, just about anyone could use a Wordpress.com blog without knowing any HTML.

I think what’s really going on here is: People have gotten used to posting status updates and they’re cool with that, but what happens when they want to post something a little bit longer and ~~actually well thought out~~ more introspective? They secretly want to write a blog post, but are convinced that a) they need to know HTML, b) that no one will read it, c) they’ll have to keep doing it (or look like a failure), and d) it’s hard (for many reasons that probably just depend on who you’re talking to at the time).

Tumblr is building it’s popularity off of these popular misconceptions, and, well, good for them, I guess. I just wish that instead of throwing out Tumblr as the next step up from Tweeting, we could enlighten people as to how easy blogging really is.

For example (again, not to disparage what Tumblr is doing – just as a comparison): One can post text, quotes, links, and embed video in Wordpress as easily as in Tumblr (plus you have Categories in addition to Tags). Posting a photo or audio file is more complicated, I can admit that, because Wordpress’ media uploader requires some a little trial and error to figure out (even in its current super-simple form). That said, it’s still pretty easy, and when you want to post multiple pictures, it’s significantly easier. You can select them all from a single dialog, and then insert them individually (and select from multiple size options), or just make a gallery. Like I said, it’s not bash-your-head-in easy, but it’s got value-added at a pretty high ROI. So, the only thing that Tumblr can do much more easily than a Wordpress blog is post a chat transcript. I don’t follow all that many people’s tumblr blogs, but I’ve never seen any of my friends post a chat transcript.

So, d) it’s not that hard, a) you don’t need to know HTML.

b) No one will read it?

You can have a Top 100 blog on Technorati just by picking a URL and posting photos that correspond in a somewhat ironic manner (or not at all) to that URL.

Finally… c) you’ll have to keep doing it. This is the One True Thing.

That said, you have to keep posting to your Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, Anything Else or it will wither and attract tumbleweeds just like a regular old (brand new, awesome) blog.

And of course, this is also the rub. If you want people to read your blog, you have to post stuff. You have to post stuff even when it’s just your parents and the person you live with reading it. Even if your parents and the person you live with aren’t actually reading it. If you want people to look at and comment on your Tumblog or Twitter or Facebook or Anything Else, you have to put something there for them to comment on. I’ve already shown that using Tumblr doesn’t make it any easier to post content (although, it can provide the illusion that it does). But it doesn’t make you more creative or funny or insightful or emotional or powerful. That would be akin to saying “Oh, now that I can get the newspaper on my computer, I’ll actually read it.” Just because you can read it more easily on you computer without getting your fingers all dirty with ink doesn’t mean that you actually will.

Finally, if you use Tumblr, I’m pretty sure you don’t get analytics. While this is another somewhat in depth tool, you know you like checking how many people have visited your blog, and with Google Analytics it’s easy to see what people are searching for to get to your blog. I mean, how much more awesome is it when you can not just post something about vajazzling, but then also see that someone got to your post about vajazzling by looking for “how to vajazzle at home with swarovski”? Boom. Blogging FTW.

Other Stuff Like This

Who needs a newspaper?

Nels — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:34:09 +0000

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.

Other Stuff Like This

Lala Bought by Apple: Please Let This Be Good

Nels — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:46:37 +0000

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.

Other Stuff Like This

Zong+ … PayPal Killer? More like credit card killer

Nels — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:34:57 +0000

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!

Other Stuff Like This

Mobile + Cloud = Magic … Right Now!

Nels — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:40:53 +0000

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.

Other Stuff Like This

I have an MBA, but it’s not in Marketing

Nels — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:46:42 +0000

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.

Other Stuff Like This

Hulu tries to survey me about advertising

Nels — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:01:35 +0000

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.

Other Stuff Like This

Ong Bak 2: Available Now on VOD

Nels — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:32:51 +0000

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.