One of the benefits of watching the technology world since I was a kid is I’ve gotten to see a few cycles play themselves out over time.  I was reminded of that while reading this post entitled “Bye Bye Web, Hello Apps” in which the author says…

The web is dead. OK, it isn’t but it might be dying a slow painful death when it comes to how users access online tools and the platforms they use to carry out certain tasks.

This is a consequence of the media saturated world that we live in, a world where on demand is taking charge as audiences control what they watch, when they watch it and how they watch it.

…

There are huge advantages to iPhone, iPod Touch’s and the mobile web but it does mean that designers and developers now have new parameters in which to be creative, a world where attention to detail prevails, or at least it should. Will it be that the traditional web will be secondary to mobile/iPhone/iPad sites?”

Again, this is a cycle.  The truth is any web site that has an app SHOULD be able to make a web app that can do the same things.

The only reason they can’t is because of artificial inhibitors that are placed on them by hardware vendors.  Namely Apple who, realizing they can make more money on apps, has chosen to limit what developers can access via a web interface.  Even going so far as to hide their own internal (and very high quality) web app framework.

This is natural behavior and has happened before in the past (think Microsoft resisting the web on the desktop until it couldn’t anymore).  Whenever a vendor has control of the dominant platform that vendor will try to keep open platforms down.  Then competitors jump in and try to do business like the dominant player in the hopes that they will become the dominant player.  The end result is a world that looks like it's becoming a place for closed environments. 

But what inevitably happens is the competitors realize they can’t become the dominant player and they instead start backing open solutions in order to dethrone the dominant player (even if a competitor becomes the dominant player that will lead the previous dominant player to embrace open solutions to keep themselves from being driven out of business)

That’s what will happen here.  Right now we’re in the time of the app.  Apple is the dominant player and Google, Microsoft, RIM and Palm are all trying to create their own App stores to compete.  But they won’t win and eventually they’ll start to push open standards for Web apps.  In fact, in many ways they already have. Google’s already inclined that way, Microsoft has based their Smartphone on a web technology (Silverlight) and Palm’s “platform” uses web technology like Javascript and CSS.

So the bottom line is don’t mistake a fad for an overall trend.  One last point I wanted to address from the linked to post…

More and more of our tasks are now being offered in an alternative way. We can bank through the mobile web and we can use it to blog too. This is naturally going to force designers and developers into thinking of their products in new ways.

Not all sites can be carbon copied for the mobile web, they have to be re-imagined. However rather than see this as a hassle let’s see it is a chance for designers to embrace this constraint in a very positive way. It’s an opportunity for designers to distill their apps down to the very basics and focus on only the most essential features.

This is the wrong way of thinking.  Developers should certainly kick out a quick mobile experience for the Smartphone and try to use the basic UI framework laid down by the phone itself.  But developers shouldn’t get into the mindset of Desktop/Smartphone.

As we can already see from the tablets, set top boxes and other various form factors coming out the computing experience is moving beyond the desktop and it’s not stopping at the Smartphone.  Developers need to start thinking in terms of variable screen size and start building interfaces that can scale but are recognizable at any size. 

That’s difficult (I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t completely wrapped my head around the concept yet).  But it’s the way of the future and if you're going to change your mindset (not a simple task) you should reach for that and not just a smartphone mentality.

A real quick post because I saw this post on Techmeme and it just drove me up the wall.  A lot of the iPad coverage has focused around the fact that it doesn’t support Flash where as upcoming tablets/slates like the one from HP do.  This has led many pundits to conclusions that aren’t well thought out.  See below (bolding is mine)…

As much as Adobe might appreciate being the center of attention in the battle for tablet supremacy, the fact is that Flash is largely irrelevant. As a platform for multimedia content on the Web, Flash has definitely served a purpose and it's hard to argue with how ubiquitous Flash is on the Web. Just try to browse the Web without installing a Flash plugin and you will see just how much Web sites rely on the Adobe technology.

However, that is not necessarily a good thing. HTML5 is establishing itself as a vendor-agnostic standard capable of delivering much the same experience users have come to expect from Flash. Web content based on a free Web standard makes much more sense than multimedia content requiring proprietary software to create it, and requiring users to install a proprietary plugin to be able to interact with it.

I’ve never been the biggest fan of Flash but let’s be honest here: Everyone has Flash.  By the author's own admission.  Even if someone didn't have Flash it’s much easier to install a plug-in than it is a whole new browser.

(Unless of course you’re on an iPhone, iPod or iPad)

At the same time most people don’t run HTML5 compatible browsers yet.  21% of people TO THIS DAY still use Internet Explorer 6. A browser released almost a decade ago.  Beyond that, those who update their browsers don’t have HTML5 support since the standard isn’t even finalized. 

So even if you’re a web developer starting a project today it makes sense to use Flash over HTML5 (if you need features you can’t get through normal Javascript).  Because that's the only way to reach the whole market.

So to say Flash is “largely irrelevant” is just ridiculous.  It’s still the best way to deliver multimedia content to users and probably will be for some time to come (if the IE6 numbers are any indication of future adoption rates)

Today Google announced their “App Marketplace” which is a clearing house for Third Party Cloud apps.  Apps in the marketplace integrate with Google’s own apps (Docs, Sheets, etc…) and use Google’s single sign-on technology.  They already seem to have a lot of partners….

Honestly I’m hesitant to post on this because it’s a really big deal and I don’t want to sound like a fool later on.  But since I think it is that important I decided to throw caution to the wind. 

Here’s the thing: Google is making it’s move to reinvent computing with this

The process that started with Gmail and is clearly headed towards the ChromeOS takes shape with tonight’s announcement.  Not because of what’s being said publicly but because of what we can infer is being said behind closed doors. 

These companies aren’t going to jump in with both feet without certain guarantees from Google.  Guarantees regarding the amount of resources Google is putting behind this platform.  To get this many partners Google had to commit to taking the corporate market seriously and that is what makes this important.

At the same time it means Google has proven itself enough to be a viable competitor.  With a few big wins like the City of Los Angeles under their belt Google can go to corporations and say “you can trust us” and have a chance of being believed. 

Which brings my logic full circle.  Tonight is when Google stops using Cloud Apps as a distraction to hammer Microsoft with and actually starts making a business out of it.  Which means tonight could very well mean the beginning of the end for Windows.   

I’m not saying that will happen.  It could still go either way.  But I’d be far more willing to bet on Google tonight than I would have been this morning.

Addendum: I see a lot of bloggers comparing this to Apple’s app store but I think that’s unfounded.  What makes this different is that each of these companies is having to put resources into hosting their apps.  Meaning they are putting more into this than just writing the app itself (which in turn means they’ll expect Google to reciprocate)

Techcrunch published an article today in which author Erick Schonfeld details a lunch he had with Netscape founder Marc Andreessen.  In the conversation Mr. Andreessen details what he thinks print media operations should do to save their business.

Yesterday, Andreessen was in New York City and we met up. We got to talking about how media companies are handling the digital disruption of the Internet when he brought up the Cortes analogy. In particular, he was talking about print media such as newspapers and magazines, and his longstanding recommendation that they should shut down their print editions and embrace the Web wholeheartedly.

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Andreessen because he’s made a lot of technological innovations and when it comes to building companies that get acquired for their technology I don’t think there’s anyone whose advice is more valuable.  But that doesn’t make him an expert in running businesses that are in it for the long run. 

In that regard his advice should be vetted like anyone else’s and looking at the advice he’s giving I have to conclude he’s dead wrong. Let me quote…

Andreessen once famously put the New York Times on deathwatch for its stubborn insistence on trying to save and prolong its legacy print business.

So Mr. Andreessen “put the NY Times on the Deathwatch” for not abandoning their print business and now, over two years later, the NY Times is still alive and still making most of their money off print. 

And this is why we should listen to him?  Moving on…

Despite trying time and again, Andreessen’s observation is that media companies have no aptitude for technology, nor do they really understand what technology companies do. The one thing technology companies do really well is deal with constant disruption. “Microsoft is going through this right now,” he points out, “Ballmer is not complaining about it.” He’s tackling it head on. So did Intel when Andy Grove gutted it to shift from memory chips to microprocessors.

Yes.  That Intel part is true.  But that was in 1983 and their business has been making microprocessors ever since.  What Intel does is make products not “deal with disruption”.  When Microsoft beat Netscape in the early 90s it was because Netscape’s management was constantly trying to “disrupt” while Microsoft was living and dying by reviews in the Wall Street Journal (Senior VP Brad Silverberg famously considered Walt Mossberg’s approval as the gold standard).

Dealing with disruption as a business goal is a great way to sell a start-up but not necessarily a great way to run a business. 

Beyond the iPad, he believes that all the talk once again from big media companies about erecting paywalls or somehow charging for news, articles and video online is shortsighted at best. He comes back to the simple fact that the open Web is where the users are. Talking about paywalls and paid apps is like saying, “We know where the market is and we are not going to go there.”

This doesn’t say anything.  “Free” has always been where the market is and that has nothing to do with the Internet.  If McDonalds decides to give away free Hamburgers I can guarantee you they’ll have tons of business but that won’t matter because they’ll be losing money.  Free’s great but it “doesn’t pay the bills”.  Last quote…

Print newspapers and magazines will never get there, he argues, until they burn the boats and shut down their print operations. Yes, there are still a lot of people and money in those boats—billions of dollars in revenue in some cases. “At risk is 80% of revenues and headcount,” Andreessen acknowledges, “but shift happens.” You’d have to be crazy to burn the boats. Crazy like Cortes.

Anyone who looks at the world realizes that business is business no matter where you go.  The Mosaic browser disrupting the technology industry by giving birth to the modern web is not all that different from Fox News disrupting the news industry by tailoring their product to an underserved political bent.  Every market has disruptions that force all other companies in that market to readjust their approach. 

But in the end business is still about products and not disruption.  Marc Andreessen should know better than anyone that disruptive companies don’t always win the market. 

Succeeding in business is about using the market to best achieve your goals and that is why it would be disastrous for media companies to “burn the boats".  Media companies are not going to reinvent the newspaper for the digital age because they are not technology companies. Their product is not software or hardware it’s content.  They need to focus on improving their content and dealing with disruptions in the content business.

I agree that content companies, like any other, need to go where the customers are.  But as the iPad, Kindle, et al. have proven there will be technology companies out there to take them to the customers.  They don’t have to flush their print business down the drain to get there they just need to embrace new things when they come about.  Print companies shouldn’t care who wins between print, the iPad, Amazon’s Kindle or some unknown disruptor in the future.  They should embrace them all and tailor their businesses to match the market as a clear leader becomes evident.

(And Just FYI, Cortés probably didn’t burn the ships and even if he did it would have been part of a political battle with the Governor of Cuba not a motivational move)

A few hours ago the Internet was abuzz on the possibility of U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts resigning.  For those not familiar with U.S. politics you need to understand that the court has, for as long as I’ve been keeping track, maintained a balance of 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and one swing vote.

It’s well known that justices wait for Presidents who share their politics before resigning.  That’s why the same ratio has been maintained for so long.  Meaning a resignation by Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush) would allow President Barack Obama to appoint  his replacement and change the court’s ratio indefinitely. 

But, as my title suggests, this was all a hoax.  A hoax that spread across the internet as fact.  That’s what makes this whole story interesting (and tech related for that matter). 

The site Above the Law, a self-described Legal Tabloid, found the story behind this hoax in an article entitled “Anatomy of a Rumor: The Story Behind Chief Justice John Roberts’s ‘Retirement’”

Here’s an account of what went down in Professor Peter Tague’s criminal law class this morning, from a 1L at Georgetown Law:

Today’s class was partially on the validity of informants not explaining their sources. [Professor Tague] started off class at around 9 am EST by telling us not to tell anyone, but that we might find it interesting that tomorrow, Roberts would be announcing his retirement for health concerns. He refused to tell anyone how he knew. Then, at around 9:30, he let everyone in on the joke.

Note the timestamps on the Radar posts. The first one came out at 6:10 a.m., i.e., the Pacific Time equivalent of 9:10 a.m. Eastern time. The retraction came out at 6:36 a.m., i.e., the
Pacific Time equivalent of 9:36 a.m. Eastern — shortly after Professor Tague let his class in on the joke.

A second Georgetown Law student confirms this account:

Our criminal justice professor started our 9 am lecture with the news that roberts will be resigning tomorow for health reasons — that he could not handle the administrative burdens of the job. He would not say how he knows — but halfway through our lecture on the credibility and reliability of informants he revealed that the Roberts rumor was made up to show how someone you ordinarily think is credible and reliable (ie a law professor) can disseminate inaccurate information.

By then the horse was out of the barn — and running at a gallop:

[B]etween the hour when the class began and when he revealed that he made it up, plenty of students txted and IM’ed their friends and family…. [So] there’s a very good chance that the Roberts rumor that spread like wildfire on the internet was sparked by an eccentric law professor trying to make a point.

We’ve reached out to the aforementioned eccentric law professor, by telephone and by email, but we haven’t heard back from him yet. If we do, we will update this post.

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I attack Twitter as a news source.  Put this in perspective for a minute.  This is one law class and this rumor only existed as a possible truth for about 30 minutes yet it was enough to get to the top of Memeorandum.com and was quoted by innumerable sources.

Now imagine all the rumors that are out there and not immediately corrected.  Imagine a situation like a terrorist attack where rumors are running rampant and everyone is trying to get and disseminate any information they can.  In that situation it’s inevitable that you’ll get as much if not more falsehood than truth.

So again I point out that trusting social media for real-time news just doesn’t work.  The medium’s very nature lends itself to producing false accounts because of the speed by which information travels. 

Now one final question.  With all the unscrupulous internet sites out there desperate for people to click on their ads is it any wonder this happens a lot?  Wouldn’t you expect it to happen more often in the future?  I’ll eat my words if the site that originally reported this (radaronline.com) goes out of business in the next few months but the far more likely result is they’ll get a boost in traffic.  Making hoaxes like this even more likely to spread in the future.