Project Rethink » shawnwelch

Safari & Quicktime are Not Web Standards

shawnwelch — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:58:25 +0000

Jeroen Wijering and Zachary Ozer over at Longtail video posted a very interesting article this morning about Apple’s recent soapbox, HTML5. Let me preface by saying, I love my iPhone, iPod, iPad and iMac. I’ve been a registered iPhone developer for 2 years, I have developed a few apps distributed through the app store, and I plan on pre-ordering the iPhone 4. I think Apple has done great things for mobile and web innovation — but Jeroen and Zach make some great points.

Safari and Quicktime are not standards, not yet anyways, and it is dangerous to present them as such. Microsoft actually had a similar approach with IE around version 6.0 which resulted in multiple browser-specific CSS hacks and countless headaches for the web developing community after standards were finalized. I think these guys sum it up perfectly with the following:

What Apple seems to have forgotten, is that Flash solved a big problem when it started supporting video a couple of years ago. Suddenly it was possible to easily display videos on a page, regardless of browser or operating system. Only one chunk of code and only one video file were needed; plugin daisychains and forced installations were a thing of the past. Due to its ubiquity, Flash effectively enabled the online video surge of the last few years.

HTML5 and video are not buzz words to the developing community. Bringing standards to this space means allowing rich web experiences without the need for plugins or browser specific implementations. Apple’s recent HTML5 showcase is actually a Safari/Quicktime showcase and does not work in any other browser. Speaking as an iPhone developer, there is value in this showcase, but as a demonstration of creating rich web applications on the iPhone and iPad and not as a demonstration of HTML5 standards. Jeroen and Zach go into greater details about Apple’s lack of standards here and I encourage you to read what they’ve written.

HTML5 and the accompanying technologies are truly powerful and I believe the future of the modern web. But without standards, HTML5 will fail to go mainstream in the long tail (average Joe developer). Cross-browser compatibility will win out over multiple browser-specific implementations of the same solution. Apple is on the right track, but instead of pitching Safari and Quicktime as HTML5 solutions, I wish they would focus on cross-browser support and embrace emerging standards like WebM, Vorbis, and Ogg.

Source: link

Motivation

shawnwelch — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 01:12:23 +0000

Below is an animation adapted from a lecture given by Dan Pink. This presentation is compelling. The talk is 10 mins long, but I promise, if you have 10 mins to spare Dan will hold your attention to the end and leave you wanting more. This is a great example of how things should be done.

Easily Embed HTML5 Video

shawnwelch — Thu, 13 May 2010 15:29:59 +0000

If you’ve ever watched video on the Internet, chances are you’ve seen JW Flash Player, created by Jeroen Wijering at http://www.longtailvideo.com/. The JW Flash Player is the most popular open-source video player on the Internet today.

Yesterday, Jeroen and his team at LongTail Video announced a public beta for the next evolution of their most popular player, JW Player for HTML5.

With a few lines of code, the JW Player for HTML5 allows you to easily embed, configure, and skin video players using the HTML5 standard. If a user is using a browser that does not support HTML5, the embed code will automatically fallback to the original JW Flash Player. HTML5 is widely supported in many modern browsers, including Safari, Chrome, Firefox and IE9 — but most importantly, mobile devices including the iPhone, Android and the iPad.

The JW Player for HTML5 is a fully skinnable and configurable player based on the new tag found in HTML5. It is built using javascript (jQuery) and enables a seamless fallback to the popular JW Player for Flash. Currently, our HTML5 player is in Beta. Certain functionalities that we consider essential are missing in this Beta version, and will be included in the 1.0 release.

Source: http://www.longtailvideo.com

It’s that easy. Jeroen has posted multiple examples of the player and is actively looking for feedback. Just as a quick demo, the video below was embeded using the following lines of code and will play on your desktop, iPad, iPhone, or anything in between.

Thanks Jeroen!

HTML Code

Here is the code for this setup. Make sure to change all links to the scripts, player, image and video. They must refer to the correct files on your server.

First, place this code in the of your page:

Second, place this code where you want the video to appear:

Example

Relevant Real-Time

shawnwelch — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:33:43 +0000

Search is an interesting problem to explore. Fifteen years ago, Clifford Stoll wrote an article for Newsweek entitled, “The Internet? Bah! Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn’t, and will never be, nirvana”. Stoll’s article is often referenced as an example of getting it completely wrong. Today, even Stoll can look back and admit, “Wrong? Yep.“

It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback, but reading Stoll’s article, “Search” seems to be one of the central arguments.

What the Internet hucksters won’t tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading. Logged onto the World Wide Web, I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. Hundreds of files show up, and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them—one’s a biography written by an eighth grader, the second is a computer game that doesn’t work and the third is an image of a London monument. None answers my question…

About a year later two PhD students at Stanford, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, would change the world forever by solving Stoll’s problem with the idea of PageRank — an idea that later became the backbone of Google. Google describes PageRank as:

… [a] uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page’s value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves “important” weigh more heavily and help to make other pages “important”.

Stoll’s critical misstep was the assumption that the Internet would never be organized.

Real-Time Search

Flash forward 15 years and we find the Internet is still evolving. With this evolution, however, we have a new problem — PageRank is too slow. PageRank works really well on websites that are updated two or three times a week. It takes a long time for Google to index the entire Internet. On average, Google will only index a website once a week. Higher profile websites such as CNN, NY Times, and other major news outlets will be crawled more regularly and sometimes even in realtime, but most websites are much less frequent.

Twitter recently had breakout success as a real-time search engine. Unlike Google’s PageRank (which needs to seek out and find stories to index), Twitter is supplied with content by its users. Because Twitter users tell Twitter what is going on at that moment in time, Twitter is able to instantly calculate what is trending and provide real-time results.

Both Facebook and Google have recognized this potential and started creating competing products. Facebook’s new privacy settings and API allows users to discover content within Facebook’s real-time network. Similarily, Google recently announced Buzz, a product designed to allow Google users to share information within a network of friends.

What’s next?

So where are we going? We face a similar problem today as Stoll did in 1995. How do you separate out unwanted information provided through Twitter, Facebook and Google Buzz from information that is truly valuable. The most important thing to learn from Stoll is to avoid the assumption that we will never be able to filter this information — instead of abandoning real-time search, let’s figure out how to way to make it work.

There are many possible solutions. The first is to build upon the idea of PageRank and inverse the content flow. Google could build out a public API that allows content providers to easily submit content into Google’s system. Instead of forcing Google to seek out new pages, content providers can tell Google when their pages are updated.

Reversing the PageRank workflow, however, is not a silver bullet. Systems like Google need to rethink the idea of PageRank. Instead of ingesting “pages”, these systems need to ingest an idea or concept from those pages. Future systems of search need to be able to figure out what a story is talking about and assign that idea a ranking, not the webpage or article itself.

By assigning topics a ranking, instead of pages, search systems would be able to rank real-time information by observing similar topics, summaries, and stories from multiple sources. Essentially, when website A, B and C all start talking about the same story, that story becomes a trending topic. PageRank then becomes a method of weighting individual sources. If website A has a higher PageRank than website B, it would matter more when they start talking about a specific story.

Additionally, sources can be ranked within each topic or story. For example, as I mentioned in my previous post, I recently developed the Photoshop World iPhone app. My PageRank is likely not as high as some of the people who recently wrote about the app on their blogs, however, if I were to make an announcement about the app these new systems should recognize me as the highly ranked “source” on the subject — since I am the developer. Similarly, real-time sources should be ranked within their given area’s of expertise.

Fifteen Years Later

Who knows, fifteen years from now we might be laughing at articles that talked about how ridiculous tools like Twitter, Facebook and Google Buzz really are. Articles complaining about random tweets from someone’s cat and complaints about how loud a stranger’s dog barks. Articles that put too much emphasis on the noise of real-time search and did not place enough value in the information provided when that noise is filtered out. Looking forward, I believe when we find a way to cancel out the noise, real-time search will become vital to all forms of business.

As the Internet and its uses evolve, so will search. As search evolves, so will the Internet. It is an endless cycle, but one that continues to allow new innovation.

Photoshop World? There’s an app for that.

shawnwelch — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:14:32 +0000

I try to make every effort to stay on top of technology trends. I love learning new skills and strongly believe that it can be vital in understanding the breadth of a technology.

To that end I began learning how to develop applications for the iPhone. In a little “self cross-promotion”, I wanted to link you to my latest creation: Photoshop World for the iPhone/iPod Touch.

The app went live last Friday and has already received rave reviews from Tech/Design legends such as Scott Kelby, and Terry White. Terry had this to say:

If you have an iPhone or iPod touch and you’re going to Photoshop World there is simply NO reason not to have this App! This is a great example on how a conference App should be designed. It’s a must download.

Features

The Photoshop World iPhone app features 5 main sections: MyPSW, News, Schedule, Expo and Instructors. When the app launches it will automatically check with an online database to see if it has the most recent content. If there are changes to schedules, rooms, times, instructors, exhibitors, featured content, or NAPP simply needs to send a message to all users, the app will automatically download and update the resources on your iPhone or iPod Touch.

This process is completely seamless to the user (but can be easily canceled if necessary). Just by launching the application you can be sure you have the latest schedule and room information. This feature has already come in handy…

MyPSW

This is the best part. When the app first launches, “My Schedule” is pre-filled with all of the conference events (opening keynote, Art of Digital Photography, etc). Simply tap the plus button to add a class or an entire track to your schedule from the PSW or Expo class schedules. Classes can be removed with a simple swipe to delete. All classes can be filtered by Date and Time, Session Track, Instructor, and Class Name. Have an empty time slot in your schedule? Tapping on the empty slot will pull up all the events taking place at that time. Best of all, never worry about getting lost or missing a class again. The PSW iPhone app will highlight where each class is located within the conference center and it will launch Google Maps for any event located outside the conference center.

Your home screen will show the start time of each event in the green band leading up to the event. One hour prior to the start of the event, the green band will change red and the start time will change over to a countdown timer. Classes in session will be indicated by “Class in Session”

I will be posting a video walkthrough and more content relating to this application over at photoshopworld.com later this week. As always, feel free to follow me (and now the app) at twitter.com/shawnwelch for all the latest news.

Thanks!

-Shawn

Where does the iPad fit?

shawnwelch — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:38:29 +0000

A lot of people are talking about the “revolutionary new iPad” but even more people are talking about where this device fits in the world — why is it so revolutionary? Is the iPad attacking the netbook market or the eBook market? Where does this new device fit?

In my mind there are 4 major computer markets:

Computers that fit in your pocket
Computers that are held
Portable computers designed for desk work
Non-portable computers designed for desk work

The first category contains your iPhones, iPod Touches, Nexus One, Palm Pre, etc. Apple innovated this category by introducing a platform, something that allowed applications — something that took advantage of third-party developers.

Skipping category 2 (because that is where I believe our iPad lives), we’ll go to category 3. This is where we find laptops and netbooks. Yes, I believe both of these belong in the same category because I believe the netbook is a sustaining innovation in the laptop market. Both are designed to give you portability and both are designed for desk oriented workflows (physical keyboard, etc). The Macbook Air is a response to the netbook in this category — the only metric it missed was cost.

Category 4 is where we find our desktop computers. Traditional desktop computers have a separate tower and monitor. The iMac is another example of sustaining innovation in this market. By combining the tower and monitor into one device you are able to accomplish the same task more efficiently and effectively. In both devices, the target market does not change.

So what devices are in category 2 and why does the iPad innovate this category? Right now, category 2 includes the Kindle, the Nook, and now the iPad. Before the iPad, this category — computers designed to be held — was limited to manufacturer designed functionality. These devices were not platforms. The iPad, in addition to bringing touch and color capabilities, challenged this market by creating a platform.

Likely in anticipation of this “platform” innovation, a few weeks ago Amazon announced a public beta for an Amazon Kindle SDK. This will give third-party developers a chance to build on the Kindle, improving the Kindle’s effectiveness in this changing market.

What does this mean?

So is the iPad a crippled netbook with a touch screen, or is it just an oversized iPod Touch? Is the iPad a revolutionary device? I don’t think it is fair to compare the iPad to the iPhone/Nexus One market, and I don’t think it is fair to compare it to the netbook/laptop market. In its market, I believe the iPad has changed the rules. Compared to the Kindle and Nook, the iPad has emphasized the need for a platform in this market.

That being said, as a product the iPad has left us wanting more. Now that we have a handheld “platform” we expect things like multitasking and external peripherals. Because the iPad has changed the rules, our expectations of these devices have now changed.

The iPad is not the perfect product, but it is the foundation of disruptive innovation in the handheld computer market.

Your Dilemma

shawnwelch — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:07:27 +0000

Every couple of years I try to make a point to read “The Innovator’s Dilemma” by Clayton M. Christensen. Having just received a Kindle for Christmas, I thought what better way to break in an eBook device than with a book highlighting the problems with mismanagement of disruptive technology. As someone who works in publishing, I can tell you eBooks are disruptive technologies.

I love my Kindle. As a Boston commuter, it really is a remarkable device — but that is another post for another time. One of the reasons I frequent Christensen’s “The Innovators Dilemma” is to be reminded that:

“Good management is often the cause of failure when managing disruptive technologies” Clayton Christensen, The Innovators Dilemma

The central thesis of the book outlines the idea that the decisions and behaviors of management for sustaining technologies — technologies that are simply advancements within the same value network — are often the reasons for failure in emerging markets.

Take the eBook for example, but specifically the textbook market. Presently, the ease of use, convenience, and cost of these technologies do not meet customer standards. Additionally, the profit margins for producing these eBooks do not meet management standards. So, “Good Management” would say,

EBooks don’t make enough money to be profitable
Our customers don’t think eBooks are better than traditional books

These two conditions would lead traditional management to ignore eBook technologies. However, Christensen’s book suggests management should look outside of the traditional market for textbooks (educational institutions, learning centers, etc) and explore the need in emerging markets. Historically, this is best achieved when a smaller company is branched off or acquired to handle the emerging market. This prevents competition from resources with traditional product models with larger profits. It also keeps managers and developers of these new products excited with small gains. A $20 million market can hardly compete with a larger business’ $40 billion market.

The problem with emerging markets is that they are hard to find — they are emerging. A company should not invest all of its resources into what they “think” the next emerging market is for a disruptive technology. The initial goals surrounding the entrance into emerging markets should be to learn, not to succeed. If you enter a market with the preconceived idea that you know what it should be, you will likely fail. Emerging markets evolve as disruptive technologies mature.

So what are the emerging markets for eBooks? I’m not entirely sure, but I can tell you that eBook technologies for textbooks are a hot ticket in new startups focusing on open access technology and “free” learning. These startups are still developing, and their quality of education still falls behind that of traditional institutions. However, as technology progresses, these open access environments could either become absorbed by traditional institutions (to help facilitate distance education) or become a direct competitor of these traditional institutions. In either case, unless publishers continue to explore these technologies, they could eventually be replaced as the “primary” source for text and education.

The Circle of Google and User Experience

shawnwelch — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:59:57 +0000

Google has evolved beyond a single web application. Google has capitalized on establishing a consistent user experience across the web. One of the key factors to Google’s success, besides their dedication to innovative solutions, is found in their application workflows. Recently I clicked through the links in the top left corner of every major Google web app and was surprised to find “The Circle of Google”.

I don’t know if Google planned their application workflow this way, but the apps are cyclical. This circle is broken into two primary groups: Search and GTD. These two groups are the focus of the “Google Experience”.

[Search]

[Getting Things Done]

This is a key element of design that is often missed; design a user experience.

Apple learned this early on with the first iPod. They created a user experience which they then applied to iLife, and finally to their entire OS X workflow. Apple realized that they could not focus on an individual application or a piece of hardware. It became increasingly important to address the user experience and how the applications work together.

Too much emphasis is placed on individual aspects of a program, not enough time is spent on the transitions between them. To often we forget that:

User experience design is just as important as user interface design.

These services are cleverly designed to work with each other, giving the user [you] a unified experience. Lets look at the “Circle of Google”:

Taking this diagram one step further, I think there is something we can learn from how the “Google Experience” is structured. Consider this second diagram illustrating how the circle is cross connected.

Google Web Search and Gmail are the primary entry points for “The Circle of Google”. They are the bridge applications between Search and GTD.

Search

First, the things Google did well. You’ll notice that Google Web Search is strongly connected to the other search applications. Google Web Search is smart enough to return results from web sites, images, maps, news, or shopping–depending on your search criteria. This is a great lesson in usability, and one of the primary reasons why these applications are used. Google does the work for you. Google doesn’t make you retype your query or prompt you to “Click Here to check for shopping results”. If you search for “sony tv” in Google Web Search it will return both web sites and shopping results. To the users, these apps feel as one; they contribute to the “Google Experience”.

GTD

Now the things Google did not do well, or rather the areas in which Google can improve. Gmail is a great web app, I use it every day, but its integration with the other GTD apps is not as strong as Google Web Search. For example, if someone emails me an event, Gmail is smart enough to give me links to put that event in my Calendar. The same thing is true for Google Docs. If someone emails me an attachment I can choose to download it or open it in Google Docs. However, there is not a connection to PicasaWeb (Google Photos) or Google Reader.

To improve this workflow Google should do two things. First, if someone emails me a photo Gmail should give me the option to open it in PicasaWeb. Second, If someone sends me an email with a link, and that web page contains an RSS feed, Gmail should show me a preview of that feed and “Add to Google Reader” buttons.

They are simple workflow changes, but these changes would solidify Gmail as an entry point to the GTD side of Google.

So you should ask yourself,

Are you giving your users an experience?
Is it the experience you intended?
Are your users going to talk about the experience?

I often hear the question asked, “How can I make my product go viral?”

The answer is frustrating but simple. Social media works because people talk; it’s social. If you want your product to work in a social marketing environment your product must be remarkable. By remarkable I don’t mean the buzzword; I mean your product must be “worthy of being remarked or noticed”.

If your product is good, people will talk about it. Make it good by providing a user experience worthy of talking about.

Piece-of-Junk Innovation

shawnwelch — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:02:11 +0000

The trick with innovation is coming up with something “new”. We have a tendency to iterate what we know; iteration is not innovation.

There are a few companies who do this very well; Apple and Google typically come to mind. But I think there is an overlooked simplicity to the success of new products from these companies. Some people call it the “wow factor”, but it is a little more than that. These companies have a reputation of creating NEW categories of business.

When asked why, in these economic times, Apple has continued to focus on the “premium” computer market instead of creating the infamous netbook, they responded:

For us it’s about doing great products. When I’m looking at what’s sold in the Netbook market, I see cramped keyboards, junky hardware, very small screen, bad software. Not a consumer experience that we would put the Mac brand on. As it exists today, we’re not interested in nor would it be something customers would be interested in the long term. We are looking at the space. For those who want a small computer that does browsing/email, they might want an iPhone or iPod Touch. If we find a way to deliver an innovative product that really makes a contribution, we’ll do that. We have some interesting ideas.

So what does that mean?

Apple could easily iterate their product models to fit the market of netbooks. They could simply strip down their low-end laptops to make them cheaper and competitive in this market while still maintaining their profit margins. But they refuse to, as Steve Jobs said in a special appearance on an earnings report call back in October:

“We don’t know how to build a sub-$500 computer that is not a piece of junk.”

When Apple does enter the netbook market, you can bet they will redefine it. Instead of rushing into the market, Apple is spending a great deal of time and money researching a way to do the market right; figuring out how to avoid a piece of junk.

If history is any indication (iPod, iTunes, iPhone, App Store, etc) this investment of time and money in the beginning will greatly pay off the in the long run.

The Take-Away

There is a simple litmus-test you can use on new products and processes. I don’t mean to oversimplify the matter, but if you, your engineers, your competitors, or your customers utter these phrases during your product release chances are you are not “iterating” an old process:

How did they do that?
Why didn’t I think of that?

As innovators, we are in the business of “shock-and-awe”. We must never take for granted the consumer experience or return customers. Every product should be as amazing and inspiring as its predecessor.

Surround Yourself With Good People

shawnwelch — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:44:11 +0000

Groups have interesting dynamics. I don’t claim to be an expert on the psyche of a group but I can tell you one thing; good people bring good results.

Surround yourself with good people. It’s humbling, but try to avoid situations where you feel that you’re the smartest person in the room because if you do chances are you’re either,

A) Full of yourself and your ego needs a check, or
B) You really are the smartest person in the room and it’s time to move on

Good people are humbling. When you surround yourself with good people you are making a conscious effort to be open-minded. This mindset is key to inspiration and motivation.