Linking to Niall Kennedy's blog reminded me that I owed him an email response to a question he asked about a month ago. The question asked what I thought about the diversity of speakers at the Widgets Live conference given my comments on the topic in my blog post entitled Who Attends 'Web 2.0' Conferences. 

After thinking about it off and on for a month, I realize that I liked the conference primarily because of its content and focus. The speakers weren't the usual suspects you see at Web conferences nor were they homogenous in gender and ethnic background. I assume the latter is a consequence of the fact that the conference was about concrete technical topics as opposed to a gathering to gab with the hip Web 2.0 crowd which meant that the people who actually build stuff were there...and guess what they aren't all caucasian males in their 20s to 30s, regardless of how much conferences like The Future of Web Apps and Office 2.0 pretend otherwise.

This is one of the reasons I decided to pass on the Web 2.0 conference this year. It seems I may have made the right choice given John Battelle's comments on the fact that a bunch of the corporate VP types that spoke at the conference ended up losing their jobs the next week. ;)

 

Niall Kennedy has been on a roll in the past couple of weeks. He has a blog post entitled Brands will be widgetized, but who is the author? which tackles the interesting problem of widgets, branding and customer confusion. He writes

Sites with personal user data placed behind a username and password may be subject to new types of phishing attacks from the widget web. A user will likely locate your service's widget through the widget provider's directory, searching for terms such as "Gmail" and "eBay" to access their latest mail messages or watched auction items. These widgets will prompt the user for their login information before delivering personalized information from each service, leaving the trust of a brand in the hands of a third-party developer who may or may not act in the best interest of the data provider.

If Google Mail and eBay worked directly with the large widget producers to establish certified or trusted widget status they could reduce opportunities available for third party widgets offering enticing functionality to send messages to a remote server with collected user data. The trusted, certified, or verified seals provided by each widget platform is one way to ensure users receive the official product and not a knock-off.

This issue has been rattling around in my head ever since I wrote a Flickr gadget and a Blufr gadget for Windows Live Spaces. After all, I don't work for either company yet here I am writing gadgets that are being used by hundreds of users in their name. Who ends up getting the taint if my gadget is buggy or causes some problems for the user? Me or Flickr? What happens if legitimate looking gadgets like mine are actually fronts for phishing attacks? How can Flickr protect their users and their brand from malicious or just plain sloppy developers? I like the idea of the major widget galleries like Windows Live Gallery, Yahoo! Widget Gallery and Spring Widgets coming up with a notion of trusted or certified gadgets but it seems like an unfortunate hoop that web sites now need to jump through to police their brands on the various widgets sites on the Web.  Reminds me of trademark holders having to rush to register their brand name as a domain whenever new TLDs are opened up.

PS: This is one of the reasons you don't see a bunch of Windows Live gadgets out there today. The brand dilution and phishing problem is a real one that worries lots of folks over here.

 

If you are a reggular reader of Slashdot you probably stumbled on a link to the Groklaw article Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org by Pamela Jones. In the article, she berates Novell for daring to provide support for the Office Open XML formats in their version of OpenOffice.

Miguel De Icaza, a Novell employee, has posted a response entitled OpenOffice Forks? where he writes

Facts barely matter when they get in the way of a good smear. The comments over at Groklaw are interesting, in that they explore new levels of ignorance.

Let me explain.

We have been working on OpenOffice.Org for longer than anyone else has. We were some of the earliest contributors to OpenOffice, and we are the largest external contributor to actual code to OpenOffice than anyone else.
...
Today we ship modified versions of OpenOffice to integrate GStreamer, 64-bit fixes, integrate with the GNOME and KDE file choosers, add SVG importing support, add OpenDMA support, add VBA support, integrate Mono, integrate fontconfig, fix bugs, improve performance and a myriad of others. The above url contains some of the patches that are pending, but like every other open source project, we have published all of those patches as part of the src.rpm files that we shipped, and those patches have eventually ended up in every distribution under the sun.

But the problem of course is not improving OpenOffice, the problem is improving OpenOffice in ways that PJ disapproves of. Improving OpenOffice to support an XML format created by Microsoft is tantamount to treason.

And of course, the code that we write to interop with Office XML is covered by the Microsoft Open Specification Promise (Update: this is a public patent agreement, this has nothing to do with the Microsoft/Novell agreement, and is available to anyone; If you still want to email me, read the previous link, and read it twice before hitting the send button).

I would reply to each individual point from PJ, but she either has not grasped how open source is actually delivered to people or she is using this as a rallying cry to advance her own ideological position on ODF vs OfficeXML.

Debating the technical merits of one of those might be interesting, but they are both standards that are here to stay, so from an adoption and support standpoint they are a no-brainer to me. The ideological argument on the other hand is a discussion as interesting as watching water boil. Am myself surprised at the spasms and epileptic seizures that folks are having over this.

I've been a fan of Miguel ever since I was a good lil' Slashbot in college. I've always admired his belief in "Free" [as in speech] Software and the impact it has on people's lives as well as the fact that he doesn't let geeky religious battles get in the way of shipping code. When Miguel saw good ideas in Microsoft's technologies, he incorporated the ideas into Bonobo and Mono as a way to improve the Linux software landscape instead of resorting to Not Invented Here syndrome.

Unfortunately, we don't have enough of that in the software industry today.

 

I'm a big fan of alcopops but it seems like everytime I settle on one I like, it stops being carried in my local grocery stores. Here's my list so far

1. Mike's Hard Iced Tea [relegated to urban legend]
2. Brutal Fruit [discontinued]
3. Bacardi Silver O³ [tasty and hard to find]
4. Hornsby's Amber Hard Cider [so far so good]

This is just my way of warning you folks out there that if you like Hornsbys Amber Hard Cider you better stock up because given my luck it's going to be discontinued in the next couple of months. :)
 

Any Zune owners got any good stories about using the music sharing feature yet? The Zune ads make it looks so cool but I wonder how it actually works out socially. Do people ask each other for songs or is it more like the comic strip above?
 

By now, hard core RSS Bandit fans have found out that the installer for the Jubilee release of RSS Bandit is available. A bunch of people have tried it out and given us a lot of good feedback on how some of our new features can be tweaked to make them even better. One of the places we got good feedback [and bug reports] has been our behavior when automatically downloading podcasts from a feed. One signficant bug is that in the beta, RSS Bandit doesn't keep track of what enclosures it has previously downloaded so it may download the same enclosures several times. However, even with this bug fixed we realized there is a problem when one first subscribes to a podcast feed especially if the feed has videos such as Microsoft's Channel 9. On the first time subscribing to that feed, RSS Bandit would automatically start downloading 2-3 gigabytes of videos from the site since that's how many are exposed in the feed. This seems like a bad thing, so we added two new options which are shown in the screenshot below

My main question is what default values we should use. I was thinking 'Only download the last 2 podcasts' and 'Only download files smaller than 500MB' as the defaults. What do you guys think?

 

From the blog post on the Windows Live Search team's blog entitled Search on the Go with Live Search for Mobile Beta we learn

we’re proud to announce three new ways to search on the go:

Mobile Software – Download an application to your phone for local search, maps, driving directions, and live traffic information in a faster, richer and more interactive user interface. It's the best way to search from your phone.

 

Mobile Browsing - Access maps and directions directly on your phone’s browser. Simply enter mobile.live.com/search into your phone’s address bar and select Map. Choose from the scopes of Local, Web, Map, News and Spaces and get Live Search from your mobile device.

Text Messages (SMS) - If you don’t have a data plan, you can simply send a text message to 95483 (WLIVE) with a query like “Toys Chicago, IL” or “Coffee 90210” and you’ll immediately receive a text message reply with the nearest business listings with address and phone numbers.

This is a pretty sweet release and I can't wait to get it on my AudioVox SMT 5600. So far, the release has been favorably reviewed by those that have tried it including Gizmodo which has an article entitled Windows Live Search For Mobile vs. Google Maps Mobile which ends on the following note

If you're using a Windows Mobile phone, we'd definitely recommend you try out Windows Live Search. The Java-based Google Maps is just too buggy and slow, not to mention clunky, to be useful to us.

Not bad, eh? I thought Google was the king of innovative search products. :) Speaking of innovation and Microsoft, there is a debate between Robert Scoble and Dave Winer in a recent Wall Street Journal article Is Microsoft Driving Innovation Or Playing Catch-Up With Rivals? which has both bloggers going head to head on whether Microsoft is innovative or not. Interesting read.

 

First it was Yahoo! Mail that swallowed the AJAX pill only to become unusably slow and now it looks like Yahoo! TV is another casualty of this annoying trend.

Dave Winer writes

Yahoo says they improved Yahoo TV, but imho, they broke it. The listings page, which until today was the only page I knew or cared about (they just added a bunch of community features) took a few seconds to load, now it's an Ajax thing, and it loads as you scroll. Great. There's a delay every time I hit Page Down. Now instead of finding out if there's anything on in seconds it takes minutes. That's an improvement? 

In his post entitled Yahoo TV Goes 2.0. Argh.Paul Kedrosky writes

Well, Yahoo in its wisdom has launched a 2.0-ified version of its TV listings tonight, complete with an Ajax-y interface, cool blue colors, social rating of programs, etc. That's all swell, and frankly I wouldn't care one way or the other (other than they broke my URL for full listings), but the darn thing is sooooo much slower than the old listings. Tables have to get populated, drop-downs have to ... drop, and sliders have to slide while data creakily loads.

It's really irritating -- so irritating, in fact, that rather then wade back in to find out what time tonight the new Frontline episode is out about credit cards, I think I'll just watch it on the Frontline site.

Seriously, who's making these decisions at Yahoo? Don't they realize that slower websites cost them money regardless of how buzzword compliant it now makes them?

 

Erik Selberg, a developer on the Windows Live Search team, has a blog post entitled General disarray at The Big 3 where he writes

given the recent trends in query share. I’ll summarize for those who don’t want to read to the bottom of Danny’s post:

Greg’s take:

Ouchie. As Danny says, “[Not] a pretty picture for Microsoft … They haven’t held share. It’s drop, drop, drop.”

It really is remarkable how badly Microsoft is doing against Google. I never would have thought that, nearly four years after they started their “Underdog” project to build a Google-killer, Microsoft would not only be badly behind in search, but also actually losing market share.

Well, what did anyone really expect?

Let’s put some things into context. First, all of the above is brutally, painfully true. Google hired smart, self-starters who are into big risk / big reward.
...
Yahoo is just in a rough place. They’ve got Google dominating, and they’ve got us coming up from behind.
...
And then there’s us at Microsoft bringing up the rear with declining query share. Well… yeah. While our management set the goal of having relevance that beat Google after 2 years (then 3, and I believe 4 now…) it’s not realistic to think that it can be done quickly. If you ask Google, Yahoo, or the fine SEOs at WebMasterWorld or other such places, they’ll all say that Live Search has increased in quality over the years so that it’s much closer to Yahoo and Google. Not yet better, but no longer laughable. And yeah, we’ve done our own share of copying feature parity, and we’re starting to do a few things that cause Google and Yahoo to do the same (ok, noODP is a small feature, but it’s a start!).

Here’s the honest truth… Microsoft will continue to lose share until it can make Live.com something people chose versus just the IE default. That will happen when the average person starts to see Live.com as a bit better than Google. Right now, Google wins on brand (people like them a lot) and quality, so it’s to be expected that existing Yahoo / Live customers will migrate to Google than vice-versa and new customers will pick Google more than Live or Yahoo. Google is making people focus on features, which should tell people that they’re worried about how we’re catching up, and are going to put more people on their core products to keep and extend their lead. So it’s going to be a tough, tough battle for Microsoft to get there…

As I read Erik's post, one phrase kept repeating itself in my head over and over again; "Stay the Course...Stay the Course...Stay the Course". I find it amazing that people like Erik still think that competing with Google is about being a bit better than their search engine or having relevance that beats theirs in a few years. Competing with Google's search engine is no longer about search results quality, it is about brand and distribution. This is why even though the search engine that powers MSN Search or Windows Live Search has gotten better and better Microsoft's share of search engine market has dropped almost 50% since it announced that it would launch its own search engine to compete with Google's. Competition with Google really should focus on addressing both of these points.

Brand

The verb 'google' is now in the Mirriam Webster dictionary. That is the power of brand. Anyone who regularly uses the Internet be they young or old thinks Google is synonymous with search.

Anecdote: My girlfriend once told her kids we were takin them to the zoo and her seven year old jumped on computer and went straight to http://www.google.com to fiind out what animals she'd see that day. 

Distribution

The combination of the proliferation of search toolbars and a new generation of Web browsers with built-in search boxes (e.g. IE 7 and Firefox) have reduced the need for users to actually go to websites to perform a search. This means that it is now very important to be the search engine that is used when a user enters a search directly from their browser. Guess which search engine is the one used by your browser if you

1. Are you a user of the Firefox browser?
2. Are you a user of the Opera browser?
3. Are you a user of IE 7 and have installed Adobe Acrobat?
4. Are you a user of IE 7 and have installed the Java runtime?
5. Are you a user of IE 7 and have installed the WinZip archive utility?
6. Are you using a newly purchased Dell computer?
7. Are you a user of the Google Toolbar?

Yes, the answer is Google in every case. So even if you are an Internet n00b who hasn't made up their mind about which search engine to choose, there is a large chance that the default search engine you end up using thanks to recent innovations in IE 7 and Firefox will be Google.
 

Steve Jones has a blog post entitled Want to be cool? Learn REST. Want a career? Learn WS where he writes

Out in the big wide world of the great employed of IT there are four dominant software players, these people represent probably the majority of IT spend in themselves and influence probably a good 95% of the total IT strategy out there on planet earth. Those four companies are SAP, Oracle, IBM and Microsoft.

These are the companies who your CIO goes to visit and sits through dinners and presentations on their product strategy, and what they are pushing is WS-* in all its ugly glory. This means that in 3 years time you 100% will have WS-* in your company, in a company you work with, or in a company you want to work with. Sure you can argue that its harder and more difficult than REST, in the same way as you can argue that Eiffel, PHP or Ruby are more productive languages. Some people will get to use these language commercially, some people will get to use REST commercially.

Everyone will have to use WS-* commercially if they want to interact with systems from the major software vendors.

I'm not saying its right, just that its reality. The best technology isn't the technical purest, the most productive or the easiest, its the one that the most people use and which has the widest acceptance and adoption. For shifting data across the internet this means its what SAP, Oracle, IBM & Microsoft say, its also what the various vertical standards (who the big boys aim to implement "out of the box") who have also all gone for WS-*.

The technical discussion is pointless, the commercial discussion is mute. But hey lets continue having the discussion on REST v WS because it makes us feel cool and trendy. Its about time that IT people realised that we need to have discussions based on commercial realities not on technical fantasies.

There's a lot to disagree with in that short block of text. I'll go by the numbers

1. Contrary to what Steve Jones claims, folks at Microsoft are very interested in REST. On the one hand, you have people like Yaron Goland who is driving the Web Services story for the Windows Live platform who has shown a lot of interest in RESTful Web services and even JSON as a data format in posts such as Thoughts On Creating An Infoset For Windows Live Services Platform. You also have folks like Omri Gazitt who runs the group that is responsible for the Windows Communications Foundation (aka Indigo) looking at RESTful APIs like GData in his post XML --> JSON Conversion in Google Data API and Doug Purdy who's also in the WCF team who's spending his downtime after shipping WCF v1.0 implementing the Atom Publishing Protocol which is a RESTful API. Why would all these people at Microsoft be spending time looking at REST if they didn't think it was a worth investigating and adopting?

2. Steve Jones's post gives the impression that developers will need to "learn" WS-* because it may be deployed in their enterprise. That seems quite unnecessary to me. The WS-* family of technologies are intentionally so complex that developers are best served by knowing how their Web Services toolkit works instead of the gory details of how that particular Web services stack selectively or just plain incorrectly implements SOAP, WSDL, XML Schema, and the rest of the WS-* stack. If you are a .NET developer then you just need to know how ASP.NET Web Services and now WCF works. If you are one of those poor souls who'll have to get disparate Web Services toolkits to interoperate with each other then stick to whatever the WS-I compliant mode is in your toolkit of choice when exposing services and pray that whoever exposes the services you have to consume has done the same.

3. I also disagree with the implication that the technologies with the widest acceptance and adoption for moving data across the Internet will be WS-* based. Come on, the most popular Web service on the Web today is RSS/Atom feeds and that is as RESTful as it gets. In fact, perusing a list of Web APIs exposed by companies I seem to see a lot more RESTful or Plain Old XML over HTTP APIs than I see APIs based on WS-*. Perhaps Steve Jones meant to write intranet instead of internet?

Finally, even if your company has drank the WS-* kool aid it doesn't mean that RESTful APIs are anathema. I'm pretty sure that no one has drank the WS-* kool aid more than Microsoft but I still see a lot of AJAX [client side Javascript calling back to RESTful or POX APIs] and RSS feeds coming out of the company. A lot more than I see SOAP APIs now that I think about it. :)