Greg Hard

Somehow I missed (or heard about and failed to respond in a timely fashion) Richard Stallman's criticisms of Steve Jobs. Stallman had this to say in response to Jobs' death earlier this month:

Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.

As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.

Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective.

Stallman, if you don't know, is the founder of the Free Software Foundation. He is a unique individual with an, um, eclectic philosophy. He refuses to use a cell phone because they are, in his own words, "tracking and surveillance devices." He refuses to use supermarket loyalty cards for the same reason, "because they are a form of surveillance." 

Additionally, he argues that cell phones are computers that don't run free software, and in Stallman's worldview, all computers need to run free, open source software exclusively. Stallman believes that proprietary software has no place in modern computing and that all computers should run free, open source software.

While I fundamentally respect nonconformity, his philosophy of technology is entirely contrarian to the way nearly everyone wants to experience technology. Chris Rawson at TUAW has a great post on this very topic, where he equates Stallman's computing philosophy to the technological equivalent of rejecting laws and the constraints of society in favor of living in a remote cabin in the woods, foraging for food and living off the grid. This analogy is spot on. When prompted, most people will choose the convenience of electricity and modern life in exchange for compliance with laws and social norms (and those who do not are labeled as nuts, perhaps rightfully so).

The same is true with technology; while I may not be able to modify and recompile iOS or OS X, and perhaps I am "walled in" in a way to the platforms I adopt, this is a choice that Mac and iPhone users make. We trade freedom for convenience, modifiability for functionality, "free software" for "functional computing platforms."

And that's just the point: freedom is about choices, not about platforms or rigid philosophies of free computing. Harry McCracken at Technologizer makes this point well:

Raymond also resorts to using the always-handy line of attack against Apple fans by calling them cultists, which is a weird thing to do when you’re the one who’s so insistent that the other guy should adopt your beliefs.

Exactly, and herein lies the paradox: by prescribing this rigid model on the rest of us, so insistent that we reject closed software and walled garden platforms, the FSF folks (Raymond and Stallman) are prescribing a solution to a problem that is just as restrictive, if not more so, than the so-called "walled garden" Steve Jobs gave us.

At least the walled garden has Angry Birds.

Over the past few months I've started doing SEO work for local businesses (and one business, in particular, that I actually work for) and have noticed that, many times, local SEO is an uphill and seemingly futile battle. This is not because I wasn't able to get their site well ranked in the organic listings; on the contrary, for many keyword phrases, we're one or two spots from the front page, and for other, more specific long-tail searches, we're on the first page or even the first result. My issue is with the sites that are above us, preventing me from getting my client the well-deserved space on the first page. Sites like Superpages, Yellowpages, and various other local directories (including, in some cases, paid directories such as SearchBoston.com) are above us and most of our competitors. In fact, four of the five organic listings on Google are for directories providing the results that searchers came to Google to look for, forcing searchers to either muddle through a pile of crap searches to find actual businesses or click through to a secondary source. This made local SEO efforts less rewarding, since there is little chance of me besting well-established sites like Superpages or Yellowpages.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking: "But Greg, that's what Google has LOCAL listings from Places in search!" Yes, that's true, and those results ARE better for this purpose. But not as good as you'd imagine. In searching for Boston area health clubs (my client is a health club, by the way), I get results for hotels with health clubs included in the results, and long-tail searches such as "health club with pool" return results for health clubs without pools, health clubs that are national chains in which some may have pools, or pools that are operated without being attached to any health club. Obviously, approaching this from an SEO perspective, I would be less satisfied with the Places listings; they're less easy to "SEO-ify" than organic listings.

But the point remains that Google had to add Places listings for one simple reason: their organic search is terrible at giving semantically relevant local listings. Superpages, Yellowpages et al. shouldn't be higher ranking for local searches than the businesses people are looking for. And for those of us in a highly competitive industry, we rely on organic listings as well as Places results to bring in customers. The Places listings in search results are a band-aid; Google should try and fix the actual problem instead of relying on patches to make results appear more relevant.

It's also the case the Places listings do not show semantic content from the site's page; if I'm looking for "health clubs with swimming pools in Boston", my site may have content with those keywords in them, which are highlighted and displayed in Google organic results. In Places results, in shows a list of businesses, not even always the correct business, and usually doesn't pull information from the site itself to display to the searcher. 

In other words, it's a crippled user experience compared with organic search. So an SEO's bitterness aside, I stand by my claim: Google should fix local search and search in general.

It's no secret that I'm a fan of Quora, and I wrote a post some time ago describing why I like the service. To summarize, the lack of spam, the quality of the content, and the integrated social graph are all reasons why Quora has become my third social network, behind Facebook and Twitter (excluding location services, of course). I use it daily and still find it valuable, especially when trying to learn the ins and outs of the Silicon Valley culture that I am interested in, yet not currently a part of. Depending on the nature of my question, I often find myself typing it into Quora before I check the other usual sources, such as Google.

Robert Scoble, whom I like and follow around the internet, once agreed with that assessment. Seems as though he now disagrees. Today Robert said, contrary to his previous position, that Quora is a "horrid service for blogging." I agree with that, but Quora is not a blogging platform by design, it's a social network around asking and answering questions. So while I find it to be an effective tool for information sharing and curation, it still falls somewhere in between the shallow waters of Twitter and the depth and control of a personal blog, replacing neither.

The comparison he makes with Answers.com and Stack Exchange is a bit unfair. Answers.com, along with Yahoo! Answers, deserves an award for being the least useful services for Q&A in terms of content depth, partly owing to the anonymity of the service. Stack Exchange is extremely useful, but only for programming related topics. Quora provides more depth than Answers.com and Yahoo! Answers without the sort of niche specialization that you find on Stack Exchange (though there are exceptions). And I'm not even going to get into this silly Quora Review post about the issue, either, as I think it's petty and unhelpful. Let's stick with an analysis of the product, shall we?

Where I agree with Scoble is regarding Quora's problems with moderation and user accountability. I agree that, increasingly, we're seeing issues with the accountability of Quora's moderation system and this is an issue that could end up getting worse as Quora fights to starve off irrelevancy and keep quality high (remember how I mentioned Yahoo! Answers? That's a model for what they don't want to become). I've personally noticed an influx of new users over the last few months, which has also led to an increase in low quality contributions. Quora needs to address that problem without alienating their users. It's a delicate balance.

Another open question he mentions is whether or not Quora is worth $80 million. But that's a whole different topic for another day.

I'm tired of hearing everyone bashing Demand Media. Sure, they fill the Google search results with mind-numbingly useless drek and "how-to" articles on nonsensical topics. But the whole point of this type of content is to find out what people are searching for and write (seemingly terrible) content that is optimized to rank highly in search results. What this means, of course, is that someone, somewhere, is searching for how to express a dog's anal gland. The short of it is that people search for, and find, the "drek" that Demand Media soils the internet with.

So who are these people who seem to crave what Demand Media has to offer? 

One example is the scrunchie enthusiast, with such helpful gems as "Ideas for Organizing Scrunchies" and, for the scrunchie impaired amongst us, "How to Use a Scrunchy." Once you master the basics, you can move up to the higher-level "How to Make Beaded Scrunches." Thanks to eHow and Demand Media, I know what I'm doing this weekend!

They also seem to be serving those who live in some kind of Matrix-like (or Kafka-esque) reality, except instead of there being no spoon, there are no buttons. While this scenario could arguably be called theoretical, or perhaps just insane, Demand Media is thinking ahead with their illuminating piece on the various types of push buttons. Did you know that "push buttons allows us to key in phone numbers on our telephone pads ... [and] are connected to other processes that send signals to landline operating systems and, subsequently, allow us to make phone calls"? Of course you did, as you're neither a complete moron nor from a parallel dimension in which buttons don't exist. (Note: The button piece has been removed from eHow, so I'm linking to it via the Google cached page. Because it's still pretty amazing. Apparently they thought that buttons are just too much for us unsavy internet users to handle.)

And for the socially inept among us (you know who you are), there's help for you, too. Do you know how to flirt? You do now! And once you've flirted your way to your ideal mate, learn how you guys can conceive twins (because everyone should get advice about child rearing from the Internet. It's cheaper than hiring a fertility expert.) Perhaps you're also so used to email that you've lost the ability to send actual mail. Then jump back into the 19th century and learn how to address an envelope.

And just because I can, here it is again: How to Express a Dog's Anal Gland. You're welcome.

I just recently started using Quora, the social network based around asking and answering questions founded by several former Facebook staffers, including Adam D'Angelo, their former CTO and VP of Engineering. I can hear you saying already, "Have you been living under a rock? You JUST learned about Quora?" No. I've known about it for awhile, but I just started using it a couple days ago and already find it tremendously useful. I haven't actually asked any questions yet, but I'm already following several topics of interest (such as Silicon Valley and Startups, among other related topics) and a few key people I've identified as interesting or knowledgeable. Once I start asking and answering questions, however, the utility of it can only increase. I'm going to outline some of my first impressions as to why I find it useful:

Knowledgeable People

Quora has a huge population of people with vast knowledge on topics of interest to me, such as technology and related topics, including people those who run or work for startups, VCs and angels, programmers and engineering folks as well as product folks. This is in stark contrast to Facebook questions, which I do find useful but only minimally so and only if I'm searching for a specific question. Quora, on the other hand, I find useful just browsing my followed topics and people. I'm gaining real insights from these folks with real experience relevant to the topic and question. Those who ask the questions also tend to be knowledgeable, and ask detailed, interesting questions. This makes for a winning combination.

This is largely because the service is mostly popular in the Valley at this point and is saturated with those types of people. Think about the way Twitter was early on: it was used mostly by those in the tech sector and there was a lot less "noise" than there is today. The same could be said of Facebook to some degree. In using Quora, I've found very little of the type of noise the plagues Twitter and Facebook Questions, not to mention the utterly useless Yahoo! Answers. This may change with popularity, but I suspect not to the degree we've seen with other services.

Topics

The ability to find new topics based around topics you already follow is valuable in and of itself. The subtopics menu in any given topic is a veritable treasure trove of new things to learn about. It's an educational experience before you even go into a topic. For instance, within the "startups" category, I've found new topics, including: lean startups, pivoting, startups in bangalore and Y Combinator, to name a few.

When following these topics, I've found many questions and answers to be of interest. There is a job utility to Quora, as well; there are questions such as "Which startups in NY are hiring?" as well as "What startups in SF are hiring designers / programmers / etc.." This is particularly valuable given the number of people involved with these companies that are on the service.

Quora provides a richer, more user-centric experience than traditional searching and is a very different experience than traditional social networks. I've heard many questions about what new social service will be the next big thing, and some argue that Quora is it. Given the potential of the service, I tend to agree.

Yesterday Apple announced the imminent launch of the Mac App Store, an iOS-style App Store for Mac applications. Just like the iOS App Store, it will provide one-click downloading and updating of Mac apps, and the purchased apps are licensed on all of your Mac computers. Apple also announced other changes in the new version of OS X, dubbed "Lion", that further signals Apple's shift towards "modal computing", including the announcement of full screen app functionality. This emphasizes Apple's increased focus on simplified, task-based and app-based ("modal") computing, as seen on the iPhone and, more importantly, the iPad.

The App Store, in and of itself, seems to me to be a positive thing. It will simplify the process of finding, buying and updating Mac software, which is a chore even for power users, let alone novice computer users seeking simplicity. Personally, I'm sure I will end up using the store to find and try new software, and probably as my primary means of purchasing software. If it can do for my Mac apps what the iOS App Store did for mobile apps, such as keeping them updated and available across my Mac computers, I'm all for it.

So why am I concerned? After all, this store will only be one distribution system; you can still download apps from outside of Apple's closed ecosystem, and they made no mention of this changing. This is absolutely true. And there is no real problem with the App Store or modal computing so long as the platform itself remains open and Apple doesn't get obsessed with control the way they have with iOS devices. The iPad was really a paradigm shift in the way we, and Apple, think about computing; not as a mostly open, scalable system that is designed for flexibility, but as a simplified, modal, and highly controlled platform. This works fine for a specialized mobile device like the iPad, but not so much for a full-fledged computer.

What I don't want to see is the "iPad-ization" of the Mac platform, or computing generally. The day that I can't install an unapproved application on my primary computer is the day that I stop using that platform. Unfortunately, Apple has strong profit-driven motivations towards this model: it simplifies computing, so more people would adopt the Mac; they get a cut of the sale of apps; and they'd get full control over the entire platform, which makes Steve Jobs happy. The first point regarding simplification has its positive points, however in the process of simplifying computing, you run the risk of removing choice and making the computing experience less functional and more sterile. The last point, however, has potentially disastrous implications for computing as well as for consumers; problem is, the consumers have no idea what the implications are.

Over the last few weeks I've received several copyright violation notices that have been sent to my university by way of a company hired by Viacom to track illegal activity of their content. Actually, I've received eight of these notices, however each one was for downloading the exact same episode of The Daily Show, the episode from early August with Will Ferrell. These notices especially confused me given that I do not actually download The Daily Show via BitTorrent, since Comedy Central provides new episodes for free online the following day.

Here is part of the text of the complaint that was sent to my university and thus forwarded on to me, eight times. Note that the "Infringing File Name" is identical in each of these notices, of an episode that I've never actually seen.

*** COMPLAINT ***
Notice ID: 337-4621171
Notice Date: 9 Sep 2010 18:47:23 GMT

University of Pennsylvania

Dear Sir or Madam:

BayTSP, Inc. ("BayTSP") swears under penalty of perjury that it is authorized
to act on behalf of Viacom International Inc., Atom Entertainment, Inc., Black
Entertainment Television LLC, Comedy Partners, Country Music Television, Inc.,
Network Enterprises Inc., 51 Minds Entertainment, LLC, and Mindring
Productions, LLC (collectively, the Rights Owners), one of which is the owner
of exclusive rights alleged to be infringed herein. BayTSP's search of the
protocol listed below has detected infringements of exclusive copyright or
trademark interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the below report.

BayTSP has a reasonable good faith belief that use of the material in the
manner complained of in the below report is not authorized by the Rights
Owners, their agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate
to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official
notification to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the below
report. The below documentation specifies the exact location of the
infringement.

We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the infringing
material and ensure the user refrains from using or sharing with others the
Rights Owner's materials in the future.

Further, we believe that the entire Internet community benefits when these
matters are resolved cooperatively. We urge you to take immediate action to
stop this infringing activity and inform us of the results of your actions. We
appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.

Please respond indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter.
The provided link has been assigned to this matter.
http://webreply.baytsp.com/webreply/webreply.jsp?customerid=337&commhash=17010f174f6c1b85c763d5be2ab8ab93

For email correspondence, please reference the above Notice ID in the subject
line.
mail to:
mailto:mtvn_p2p@copyright-compliance.com?subject=RE%3A%20Notice%20ID%3A%20337%2D4621171%20Notice%20of%20Unauthorized%20Use%20of%20Intellectual%20Property

Nothing in this letter shall serve as a waiver of any rights or remedies of the
Rights Owners with respect to the alleged infringement, all of which are
expressly reserved. This notice is without prejudice to the positions that (1)
17 U.S.C. 512 does not apply and (2) you have an affirmative obligation to
prevent or limit infringement of the Rights Owner's exclusive rights without
regard to receiving a specific takedown notice.

In complying with this notice, University of Pennsylvania should not destroy or
spoliate any evidence which may be relevant in a lawsuit relating to the
infringement alleged herein, including the infringing files and all associated
electronic documents and data relating to their presence on University of
Pennsylvania's IP addresses, which shall be preserved while disabling public
access, irrespective of any document retention or corporate policy to the
contrary.

Should you need to contact me, I may be reached at the below address.

Regards,

Mark Ishikawa
Chief Executive Officer
BayTSP.com Inc. PO Box 1314 - Los Gatos, CA 95031
Phone: 408-341-2305 Fax: 408-341-2399
mtvn_p2p@copyright-compliance.com <mailto:mtvn_p2p@copyright-compliance.com>

*pgp public key is available on the key server at http://pgp.mit.edu

Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the
person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination or
other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
all computers.

This infringement notice contains an XML tag that can be used to automate the
processing of this data. If you would like more information on how to use this
tag please contact BayTSP.

Evidentiary Information:

Notice ID: 337-4621171

Initial Infringement Timestamp: 9 Sep 2010 17:23:48 GMT

Recent Infringement Timestamp: 9 Sep 2010 17:23:48 GMT

Infringers IP Address: REMOVED

Protocol: BitTorrent

Infringed Work: Comedy Central- The Daily Show

Infringing File Name:
The.Daily.Show.2010.08.03.Will.Ferrell.HDTV.XviD-FQM.[VTV].avi

Infringing File Size: 183435402

Bay ID: 13fe458a67a8faa36cf40f6c58fa374990ee8ac7|183435402

Port ID: 57814

Infringer's DNS Name: REMOVED

Infringer's User Name: REMOVED

 

I find it particularly ironic that MTV Networks engages in this type of track-and-seek copyright activity against individual downloaders on college campuses. I do not endorse or condone copyright infringement, and I do feel that MTV Networks and Viacom have a right to get paid for the content they produce. However, they receive no additional money from me or anyone else by sending these notices, and they alienate dedicated fans of their content.

The final point I'd like to make is this: content providers need to all make concerted efforts to get their content online, monetize it at no or minimal cost to consumers, and get it there quickly and in high quality formats that can be watched in HD on TVs or on a computer. Because, personally, before I do anything that could be considered illegal (disclaimer: I don't do anything illegal), I check Hulu, iTunes and other legal sources first. Ads? Fine, so long as it's free and available. Stop wasting your efforts on copyright notices and focus on monetizing Internet distribution of your content. And more importantly, stop alienating and harassing your viewers.

I've been searching for a service to use as a (buzzword alert!) "lifestream" or "social network aggregator" (note: I hate both of those terms) for some time now, and have played with Flavors.me before but never made the jump. I was using a cobbled together, hand made HTML splash page (still accessible via that link for nostalgia) for awhile now, which I liked for two reasons: first, it allowed me full control over the content and code, and second, it allowed me to practice my HTML as well as some PHP, which I used to get a makeshift lifestream on the side with my Twitter feed and Tumblr posts. Problem is, I'm terrible at designing sites, so it looked pretty basic, and the PHP was fairly rudimentary, as well. Out it goes, then.

After playing around with Flavors.me again, my search came to an end. It is a very mature, sleek and easily customizable product that takes my LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix and Posterous content and displays it with some web 2.0 magic in a unified page. It's fairly complete with the free version, though I spent the $20 on the premium version to get some extras, like custom domain (and to support the product, which I'd like to see stay around for a long time).

I love the way it displays my Netflix queue, as well. Very elegant with sleek images of movies in my queue, displayed in a grid fashion. which is the only reason I actually included it; if it looked ugly or average, I wouldn't see a need to let people peek into my Netflix account. I'm planning on further customizing it, maybe with a background image and fiddling with the colors a bit, but for now I'm fairly happy with my new Flavors.me.

It’s been over 24 hours since the “official” beginning of iPad mania has begun. Twitter was buzzing with nothing but iPad related tweets for the past 36 hours or so, and as tiring as that has been, what is even more tiring is the rather absurd claims being made by some regarding this device. I’ve heard that it is the most revolutionary device since the iPhone, which may very well be true. I’ve also heard people say that it will replace laptop computing, which is a claim that actually first made me laugh, and then made me cry. The most recent edition of TWiT was brimming with positive thoughts on the iPad, as were other shows on the TWiT network.

I think, then, it is time to sober up from our iPad intoxication and look at what the device is and what it is not, so I’m providing some of my favorite iPad comments and reviews from around the web.

Simplifies Computing and Content Consumption

Leo Laporte said it best throughout the weekend, most recently on TWiT: It is a “content consumption device.” He’s very correct that the iPad will be an amazing device to watch movies (for travel or in bed, perhaps), read books, play interactive games and consume much of the internet (so long as you don’t need flash). From the early hands-on demonstrations I’ve seen, it will do it all with a glamor and sense of ease that no computer can claim. I want one for some of the amazing apps that are available, and those that will come.

Steve Wozniak called it a “reboot”, going back to a time when computing was simple and fun, rather than a chore. In reality, I can see it doing just that for those who aren’t interested in doing anything more than consumption and simple web browsing. But for those of us who want to push our computers, who game for real, who create content AND consume it, who desire to be a part of the open and social web, it simply isn’t enough of a computer and is too limited and controlled. What it does well is augment our laptop for portable consumption of content.

Andy Ihnatko’s review touches on its utility as a real computer, and he covers many of the important points, such as lack of real multitasking and an open file system, that reduce this utility. I agree with many of his points, including the fact that it isn’t a replacement for a real, full featured computer.

iPad is a Closed System

Jeff Jarvis wrote a piece outlining his concerns about the return from creation to mere consumption, what I call a regression to the old web 1.0 where we were told what type of content we wanted, and how to consume it.

The iPad is retrograde. It tries to turn us back into an audience again. That is why media companies and advertisers are embracing it so fervently, because they think it returns us all to their good old days when we just consumed, we didn’t create, when they controlled our media experience and business models and we came to them.

This is a concern that didn’t occur to me, but it augments the other concern I have regarding the closed nature of the iPad. He argues, and I’m convinced by his arguments, that the iPad facilitates this transformation from content creators back into mere consumers. Web 2.0 brought us into a time when we are all able to create, promote, comment on, and determine the content in which we are fed, and the means by which we consume it. Not so much with the iPad.

Cory Doctorow wrote a rather scathing critique of the iPad, and I agree with many of his points, especially on the closed nature of the iPad. He argues that the iPad “infantalizes hardware”, that the iPad is designed for the stereotypical illiterate computer user, and he isn’t completely wrong: I feel it is a consumer electronics device more than a computer, and its closed nature reflects that fact. Not only is the device itself closed, the application development channel is completely closed and Apple controlled as well.

If you want to live in the creative universe where anyone with a cool idea can make it and give it to you to run on your hardware, the iPad isn’t for you.

Will I buy an iPad? Actually, I might - but not yet. As of right now, it fills no gaps in my life. I see no place where an iPad would fit, and that includes media consumption. I’m more interested in seeing innovative, effective and seamless IPTV solutions for my HDTV than I am to consume media on a tablet PC. That isn’t to say I won’t eventually get one to augment my travel computing needs, but it may be the next iteration of the device before I see the need. Despite all of these criticisms, they won’t prevent me from getting an iPad - but they will prevent the iPad from ever replacing a fully featured notebook or desktop computer, which as of this writing is a MacBook.