Techspose.com (beta™)

First there was Netscape. What would we have done without it?
Then Explorer. What would we have done without it?
Then all kind of strange birds.
Then FireFox came. Truthfully - we did fine without it. But for some of us, we did even better with it

Firefox is great… for most things. It doesn’t support ActiveX (so not good for my bank account’s access. It keeps crashing on me from time to time for no apparent reason. But then again, it supports tabs which I couldn’t do without now. And very nifty plugin system which some are my best buddies now.

As an internet user, you don’t really mind that there are so many browsers. Explorer, Firefox, Netscape, Opera, Safari… there are more… Not to mention the many versions of each of those.
But as a web developer, it’s annoying. Very annoying. At least if you care about your web application working on all browsers. Each browser you use shows the web pages a bit differently. And if those pages are content-rich and full of dynamic and Javascript content… most of the time you will be happy if they work at all

Let me clarify one issue. There is the application which you call the browser, and the rendering engine, which you should call that, or ‘browser engine’.

We don’t need more browser engines. We need browser engines consolidation. Or better yet, more standardization. If only developers adhere to W3C. But they don’t. Mainly because W3C responds a bit too slowly to “real” world needs/demands. If only browser applications would be on a separate level than the browser engines, you could write a browser application using whatever engine you want (which is almost true now), but still there are too many (more than two) engines.

I was reminded about it when I met Netanel Jacobsson from Maxthon.
My first reaction when hearing of the existence of Maxthon browser was “Oh no! not another one”. I was wrong though. Well, starting from the fact that I was technically wrong to classify Maxathon as a browser engine. It’s not. It’s a browser application.

So what exactly is Maxthon? Maxthon is a browser application. You can use it to surf the web. Like you do with Explorer of Firefox (or Safari or whatever)
However, it doesn’t have its own browser engine. It uses Microsoft’s Internet Explorer engine.
Why is that good? Why do we need another web application?
Some of us don’t. I personally don’t. I am happy with Firefox (most of the time). But I am installing patches, plugins and extentions to it all the time. If you know what the heck I just said now, you might be able to do with Firefox. Why not Explorer? Cause it sucks. It doesn’t have tabs, so no need to list more of it’s disadvantages..

Most people on the web don’t want to install anything. To some, even installing Maxthon will be one operation too much. That is why Explorer is popular. It’s there. You don’t need to install it. That is why it’s surprising to hear about new browser applications making it to the public awareness.
Firefox, with its entire geekbase, reaches at most 15% of the web audience. It IS impressive. But also shows the problem. You need to be tech savvy to really enjoy Firefox.

So what if you are not? Maxthon might be just for you. Why? Cause it comes with all the bells and whistles that most people can think of. Tabs, RSS reader.. you name it – it has it. Sometimes too much, but it follows the philosophy of “don’t need it? Don’t touch it”. Which is good enough for most people. It even allows you to use Firefox browser engine instead of Explorer if you really insist (although why would you?)

Problems Maxthon facing? Some may be simply classified as challenges though.

1. Maxthon is based in China. This is where it was originally developed. It is trying to make it out to the US and EU. Why? I am not entirely sure, since China is such a lucrative market now and everyone is trying to get into it. But Maxthon doesn’t want to get out, only expand out. Fair enough. But that’s not easy. Time will tell how much they are successful in that.

2. Maxthon is undergoing a complete rewrite. If you ask me, that is a brilliant idea. Every product in the world is better off being rewritten every 2 years. Reason is – developers suck at predicting how things should be done 3 years ahead go figure. Now.. that IS a challenge. But as far as I know, version 2 is almost ready. To my understanding, some of the features that I didn’t like the way in which they were done, are new and improved. I am waiting for the beta.

3. Maxthon is facing the release of the new version of Explorer. This one has tabs. I personally think tabs, once you get to be friends with them, are a killer application. However, Microsoft can not do everything. And they don’t. They do the most needed. But it’s not ALL that is needed. More clearly, Explorer doesn’t support plugins like Firefox does. So if you don’t have it built in, forget about it. That is where Maxthon lives.

4. Challenges I didn’t think of. (I always like to state that the last thing I have to say is that maybe I didn’t say it all)
In the area between what Microsoft does, and what people need. And it’s apparent, there is a big gap there.

BoardTracker Tags: browser, maxthon, firefox, explorer

Technorati Tags: browser, maxthon, firefox, explorer

.. and search engines do a pretty bad job at organizing it.

Google’s mission – to organize the world’s information? – Destined to fail.
They make parts of it searchable? – maybe. Organized? No way.

Not to mention the amount of spam/garbage that, through smart SEO, gets “organized” into the wrong place.
(Breaking news: Just before I finished this story what do I find? A spammer gets 7B+ pages indexed in Google)

There is a difference between organization and search. Take my desk for example. I always find what I am searching for (can’t say that about Google, Yahoo and other SEs?). Is my desk organized? HELL NO. It’s a mess. Given the fact that the net is a place you wouldn’t be able to find your own web pages in search engines if you forgot the URL, I would say it is as far from being organized as it ever was.

Do we want the web to be organized? Of course.
So how? Hard to say. Because it’s hard to agree on what is organized web in the first place.
But maybe we can agree on this…
IF the web was organized, we would KNOW it by being able to say what a point on the web is about, how it relates to other points on the web, and how to get from one point to the other.
Point on the web by the way can be any instance. Web page, file… even gopher (remember gophers?)

To Organize: (source: Mirriam Webster Dictionary [http://www.m-w.com])
transitive senses
1 : to cause to develop an organic structure
2 : to form into a coherent unity or functioning whole
3 : a : to set up an administrative structure for b : to persuade to associate in an organization
4 : to arrange by systematic planning and united effort
intransitive senses
1 : to undergo physical or organic organization
2 : to arrange elements into a whole of interdependent parts
3 : to form an organization; specifically : to form or persuade workers to join a union
synonym see ORDER

Interesting synonym by the way.

But anyway…
Organic structure: of, relating to, forming an integral element of a whole, having systematic coordination of parts.

You are reading this blog entry on this blog (or maybe you are reading it in your RSS reader? How does that relate to the original entity?). Do you know where it fits in the entire organism that is called the web? Most likely you will have to do quite a lot of research to know what I write about (finish reading first), who I am (start looking for hints, google me?), Where I am in real life, how to get in touch with me, what else am I doing on the web, what articles relate to what I am writing…

IF the web was organized, you would know how to get back to this page, after reading it, and writing down enough details about it or me, without using a web search (which in many cases will not lead you here). You would be able to do it in an organic manner; with logic; by following a semantic methodology.

Can you? No.

There are no organic, systematic and semantic browsing tools for the Internet (I am not even saying web at this point).
The only effective tools we know of are text search engines. Web directories are known to be extremely limited and untrustworthy.

Why don’t we have such tools? Cause the web was created before people realized that organization will be needed. No one cared to be honest. People liked to create content, and sometimes if they felt good, hyperlink. Most if not all web pages don’t even implement proper meta-tags. When was the last time you saw a page that contained meta-tags with the author name or the creation date? We don’t even look for it. Not surprising.

Taxonomy is one way to try to organize the web. A centralized mechanism to organize things. On large volumes it fails. Helps a bit, but fails in general. Reason is, there is no central entity that owns/controls/creates/has access to all the data on the Internet.

So people came up with Folksonomy. What if we gave people the ability to help in organizing the web? Nice concept. Destined to fail.
The reason is this – there is only so much people can organize after things are already messed up. It is exactly like my desk. The only way I can organize it is by going through the monthly routine of clearing the desk entirely, putting everything on it (except the monitor, keyboard and mouse) into bags and going through it all, placing things all in their place again. Can we do that with the web? Not technically - pages are there to stay. And even if we could, who would bother?

In the long run, Folksonomy will be effective only for the little amount of information that is either created with it, or the very little that interests enough aware people to organize it after the fact. Most of the data will remain unorganized. Especially the vast amount of data that is already there.
You will often be able to detect hints of criticism on my part for Yahoo’s efforts to harness Folksonomy for a better search. The reason is not that Yahoo is not trying something good. It’s just that they are not trying something good enough. Being able to search a bit more effectively is a good cause. But in the long run, when today’s amount of data will only be a small drop in the sea, Folksonomy will stop being effective. It will be good way to navigate through a subset of the data. Not through the entire set.

Unless we start a change… What if we started to be responsible? What if we started putting up content that is organized or organize-ready? What if everything we put up on the web is accompanied by enough descriptive data/information, to point out the “location” and relations of each the point to other potential (known to be) related points of data, even future ones?

Maybe a reason to be a bit encouraged… for many of the ‘points’ on the web today, we have hidden data that could be utilized to create that layer of information. In many cases, dynamically created content contains additional information in databases and other “hidden” storages, which could potentially be used to semantically identify those points on the web.

If we only agreed on how this layer of semantic information should look like, maybe it would be possible to organically arrange the web?
If only we created a semantic layer for the web, how much would we gain by having easy access to the right related information?
…and unfortunately, how many new ways will spammers find to abuse such an order for their benefits?

“Clean up your room” my mother used to say. Maybe we should listen to her?

BoardTracker Tags: semantic web, folksonomy, taxonomy

Technorati Tags: semantic web, folksonomy, taxonomy

To clarify,
“Eyeballs” was the last bubble’s mecca. Start a site that will attract as many surfers (Eyeballs), and you will be sold for millions (or even go IPO god forbid). And it even worked for quite a few companies. (Some even made some $ with advertising back then)

“Sell-to” (or Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/Rupert Murdoch/… will buy us) is the new Web2.0 “perfect” scheme where ‘I will develop something that google/yahoo/microsoft/…. will buy. Why? Cause why would they bother taking the time (usually 6 weeks work) and effort (maybe enough to justify NOT building that “feature”)?’.

It is true, a big company has to go through a lot of annoying things to make small changes, such as setting up a “task force”, a project manager, going through all the bureaucratic hassle that exists in a big company, developing/implementing, testing, approving, changing, approving again, releasing as a sub-feature on a corner of the site… - ALL of which those companies have to do with purchased companies/products.

It is true, it worked for some lucky girls/guys. de.lici.ous for example and other site I still wonder about their value.. but for most of those “entrepreneurs” who have no real business plan behind them.. don’t count on such a plan unless someone at those big companies owes you something or you have naked pictures of them in compromising positions.

You could argue that deli.cio.us might have some value to yahoo (why else would they buy them?) - maybe, but how many of us were NOT surprised when Yahoo made that move and how many of us really see clearly what Yahoo is planning? More than AOL buying ICQ back in the days? Not that ICQ wasn’t a great idea, and not that del.icio.us (did I dot it correctly this time?!) isn’t a handy system. But both AOL back then, and Yahoo now, still seem to have no idea (at least not yet apparent to us mortals) how to benefit from it. And.. yes, I did hear that Yahoo wants to use the power of Folksonomy to gain momentum in the world of search. How clear is this plan? We will see in the far future.

Eyeballs once, now Sell-to - these are NOT business plans. These are ‘wishful thinking’.
Nobody NEEDS an online, community-driven, ajax-powered, mashup-enabled, folksonomy powered, rss enabled, OPML based wine-list, wish-list, wink-list or whee-list…

Sometimes (rarely) such sites are nice to have. Mostly their sheer existance is an annoyance.
But I am willing to risk it by saying that NEVER do they have a ‘real’ business plan. (ok. what is real you ask? about that, in some other time)

Why is a real bizplan important? It’s not… if you do it as a hobby. But what if you start dreaming about an ‘exit’ (they call it ‘flip before you flop’ now and are not even embarrassed to do that!) or about raising money for it? OR god forbid, suceed in raising??

True, with simple technology tools, it is quite easy to setup such a site in a week.
Maybe it’s a good plan to build 100’s of such pointless sites and then calling it a “Network”?
Maybe someone will be silly enough to buy you? Maybe for the eyeballs?
Maybe you will put AdSense or YPN on it and get enough advertising dollars to live in style until advertisers sober up?

If you can, do that. But admit it.. you are part of a bubble that will burst sooner or later with great majesty.

BoardTracker Tags: bizplan, bubble, flip, web2.0

Technorati Tags: bizplan, bubble, flip, web2.0

I was reading today a nice article debunking the Business2.0 series of articles about how to build successful startups. I found it both ammusing and true and found the business2.0 articles to be deprived of inspiration at certain points.

No denying, there were some very important ponits in the articles (such as the need to find critics for your idea rather then falling in love with it), but the overall “plan” is flawed in many ways and seems to give room for wasteful and hesitant entrepreneurs, ones that need constant validations from others, that can’t go about without a few executives to guide them from day one, that need a lot of money to do even the simplest tasks.. and more. On 37Signals they raise other valid points about the articles shortsightedness, such as the claim you need $4M to raise a prototype, etc..

One last thing I found extremely annoying in the Business2.0 article is all the advice on which software/companies/products to use on your road to become successful. This kind of upselling is making the article look unprofessional in my opinion. They advise you which accountancy software to use, drawing software, hosting company, collaboration software…. Be serious.

Let me contribute my advice to Entrepreneurs:
There are NO sure ways.
There are NO patterns and designs for bulletproof startups.
There is NO absolute good advice.
Except mine of course , which is: Be smart. And if you are not? Be lucky (which certainly helps even if you are smart )
By smart I also mean - DO read what others are saying about “how-to” and “that-way”. It is very important. Some of what they say is true.
BUT - Listen and learn. Filter it. Analyze it. Decide if you agree or not. Don’t take advice for granted.

None of the people who advise you about these things knows of a sure way to make things work. No investor, strategists, angel or whatever, has a fool proof plan for success. And the proof for that is - no investor ever went beyond 25% success rate or so (or even 10%) in their company portfolio. Some might have good insight though. So, remember, listen and learn.

It reminds me of a video I saw, by Guy Kawasaki, talking about his book “art of the start”
To clarify my position, it is essential that you listen to and learn whatever you can from that video. Buy the book and read it if you thought the pitch is good (and it is).
But don’t take it for granted.

For example: in the video, Guy starts with what he probably thinks is the most important aspect of innovation and startup: Make meaning - Change the world.

That’s where I would say… “Ok. Come on.. BE SERIOUS”

So… you are sitting somwhere (in front of your computer, on the sofa, beach, business meeting..) and thinking you have a brilliant idea: A system that will help companies recruit the best secretaries and receptionists suitable for the specific job at their company.

You think it’s a great idea - noone has done that before. And you think it has a great market - Every company out there needs a secretary or a receptionist. Your idea works - You just feel it (and it’s even patentable). You found the secret..
But then you hear Guy’s speech and realize:
“Hey! I am not changing the world! All I do is come up with a perfect way to locate great secretaries. Damn… and I though I had it . I thought I had something good. But Guy says I need to change the world, and I am pretty sure the world will be the same after I finished. So why bother?

I do think that you need to set your goals high. Very high. You probably wont reach it, but without setting the goals higher, you wont get even half way. So do that.
But don’t overdo it. It will discourage you. And you will end up looking unprofessional.

Changing the world? Now that IS a noble cause. If you can do it - GO FOR IT (assuming you are changing it for the better).
But it is most likely not the case with most of the good ideas out there. Not true for most of the successful ones even.
So while Guy probably means that - in order to be successful you need a drive and conviction, and that those should be stemming from a desire to do good, not only to make money (and he is right in my opinion), he is overdoing it a bit.

But if you can build a system that makes sure (for the first time in human history) a company can recruit only good secretaries and receptionists, even if it’s not changing the world (and it wont).. Do it! You will probably become rich and successful (even if you heard Guy saying you probably wont)

Point is (and I am quoting Guy Kawasaki now )..
Don’t let the bozos drag you down
Business2.0 article might have that effect. In some senses it is a bozo article. You can probably do without $13M before you break even. You don’t need a board of advisors from day one. In fact I believe you have more chance of being successful if you don’t have such (assuming you are smart and have a good common sense of your own), and you can do with a different hosting company, drawing software, accounting software or whatever they suggest there.

Simply.. just DO.

BoardTracker Tags: startup, business2.0, guy kawasaki

Technorati Tags: startup, business2.0, guy kawasaki

A lot can be said about the (un)usefulness of Alexa. But it’s a nice thing to watch when your site grows
I personally will never use such a graph to prove a point since it’s inaccuracy is (how should I say it politely?) wildly debated.
But one thing can be said about Alexa’s site and graphs - they are lame.

Along came Alexaholic and it does look ‘cool’. Graphs can be manipulated much more easily, smoothing effect can be applied to the graph lines (to make trends look clearer), date ranges are more flexible, size of graph is just right, fast response, permalink to graphs… just about everything you would really need from Alexa itself (which for unexplained reason doesn’t do).

The impending question is - why did the creators of Alexaholic bother?
The best answer I could come up with is - they had some free time on their hands, they wanted nicer graphs to look at for some of their sites (which alexa didn’t provide) and once they finished it for internal use they said “Why not allow the public to use that cool tool? Let’s be altruistic”.

I do hope for them that it’s for that reason they did that and not for a business-related one (unless it’s for the sponsor ad that maybe brings in some change or maybe they know someone at amazon/alexa, which will be willing to buy it for a token fee - say $10M? )

Maybe I am off mark, but… what stops amazon from killing that site tomorrow?
They can do it either by making their graphs a bit (or actually much) better, basically supply the same as alexaholic does. Or they can simply block Alexaholic from accessing the data.
I hope that neither happens. If Amazon/Alexa is smart, it will though (but then again, who said they are smart).
And then what will I do? What detox pains will I have to go through?

BoardTracker Tags: alexaholic

Technorati Tags: alexaholic

Just read an interesting post by Dave Winer about Web2.0 and found myself agreeing with his points..

Web2.0 is or should be about open networks and connecting people (sorry nokia) and communities of all kinds in whatever ways they choose and giving everyone a platform because everyone has something to say which is valuable or interesting to someone - its a two way street and any people or companies wishing to ride the current wave need to make sure they are opening doors not building walls.

Web2.0 must be inclusive, not exclusive yet it often seems that its pretty much more of the same… a whole new old boys network. There are many who think web2.0 is nothing but a hyped up buzzword with no substance and unfortunately there are many that give reason for that belief, but in reality it is more than just hype and there is substance there fighting to get out.. lets hope it doesn’t get buried.

*UPDATE* - before I even got around to posting this entry comes the bizarre news that CMP (the company working with O’Reilly & Battelle on the ‘web 2.0 conference’) sent a C&D to Tom Raftery, the guy behind an irish non profit web2.0 event for “flagrant trademark violation” - perhaps because its more “web2.0″ than theirs? I wonder did they or their lawyers also trademark “Hypocrites 2.0″.

So much for the brave new world.. absolutely fscking ridiculous.. is it April 1st again already??

BoardTracker Tags: web2.0, trademark, wtf

Technorati Tags: web2.0, trademark, wtf

Web2.0 closed beta.. top secret.. for your eyes only.. licensed to thrill.. need to know basis.. and you DO need to know!

BoardTracker Tags: web2.0, ajax, cool

Technorati Tags: web2.0, ajax, cool