Google Wave

Six tiny words that adequately defines my opinion of Google Wave: "too many features with no direction".

When I was first invited to play with Google Wave, I was all excited about it but immediately became overwhelmed with the sheer amount of features it had. It had features like my instant messenger. It had features like my email. It had features like a PowerPoint presentation. The problem? I needed to relearn everything. Again.

Then came the question of who the software was built for. Who were the target demographics? Who benefits from using this software? These things are relevent because the majority of people aren't creative enough to figure out how their lives can be enhanced by these tools.

To this day, I've yet to figure out the full benefits of Google Wave. Perhaps I will play with it again some time, but by then, it probably won't be around.

Taxonomy

Since I come from a background of several different cultures, it shouldn't be any surprise that the music I listen to and the films I see aren't necessarily isolated to North American media. My iTunes has an array of music spanning North America, Europe and Asia. From my experience with iTunes, there doesn't seem to be any simply way of organizing my media based on my chosen preferences.

I have jazz music performed by Taiwanese artists. I have pop music from Hong Kong, Hiphop in Korean, and even triphop where the lyrics are a mixture of Japanese and French. iTunes will only allow the music to be categorized into one "genre". How silly is that? Is it possible to organize the film "The Dark Knight" into just one category? Science fiction? Suspense? Crime? Drama?

At the moment, there are independent taxonomy projects on the web where groups of developers are forming standards that can allow developers to create software which will easily talk to each other. iTunes hasn't changed much in terms of features but I'm hoping Apple will consider giving users the ability to organize their collected media.

Scaling strategies

One of the things that upset me when reading articles written by "social media experts" is how they look to established platforms, like Facebook, and derive strategic conclusions that only work for powerhouses like Facebook. Rarely will I find authors who take into account the size of a company.

A small web development studio creating simple scripts can be seen as an independent startup trying to provide frontend tools to the public. A large web development company, like Facebook, developing the Javascript behind the "Like" feature? They're not creating tools; they're creating a search engine.

With the successful proliferation of Facebook's "Like" feature on tens of thousands of websites, I'd say they now have a very rudimentary search engine which is driven by user promotion rather than (Google's) keyword ranking. Regardless, Google has some insanely smart people on their team. I'm waiting to see whether Google retaliates.

One for the other

Of all the things I’ve noticed about software development, it’s that branding and experience don’t always mix well together. Properly designed, well-written software is supposed to be seamless and non-intrusive. When I enter an equation into my calculator, I expect it to provide me with an answer; I don’t expect the calculator to constantly remind me that it is made by “Casio”.

This poses a serious problem because if the brand isn’t in the forefront of the users’ thoughts, how will they recognize it? On my brother’s computer, the antivirus software makes every attempt at reminding me that it is “Norton” and it is tirelessly working in the background. By being so blatantly intrusive, it acts to reinforce the brand and to reassure those who fear viruses.

Ironically, this over-branding is what makes the experience so counterproductive. Norton does a fantastic job at reminding users that the internet is a dangerous place, but this has a negative effect in that it helps reinforce the fallibility of Windows to its users. As a Windows user, I fear it. How is Microsoft supposed to provide a positive experience when its users don’t trust the product?

Second Life

I never understood the fascination with 3D as a means to provide users with an “immersive” experience; especially with a costly taxation on CPU resources. “Second Life” didn’t have any logical incentives to lure users. Yes, it’s a 3D world and yes, you can chat with people in this world, but what else? The 3D world was only available to PC users with specific hardware requirements and operating systems. Without it, this immersive world was a closed eco-system.

As bad as this may sound, I’m actually quite happy Second Life never popularized. If they did, could you imagine the software and hardware engineers trying port this world so that portable devices could access this virtual world? Shortened battery life, lack of processor strength, overheating, and an operating system overhead absorbing valued memory resources. I’m sure the engineer geniuses could make it happen, but should it be done?

This is the same stance I have with Adobe Flash on handheld devices. Several of my coworkers have openly stated that Flash works extremely well with cellular devices *provided* these devices have the “right” hardware. Ignoring the fact that our desktop Macs have been known to crash due to Flash, what exactly is being asked? Have a mouse-less handheld device attempt to provide a user a similar experience knowing that they’re looking at a 4” screen?

That sounds rather painful.

64-bit Woes

Nothing surprises me more than the fact that my tiny netbook (an 11.6" Acer) came with a 64-bit version of Windows 7. Yet even though the OS is 64-bit, there needs to be 64-bit apps to properly utilize it. Currently, the most popular browsers only offer a 32-bit flavour, but it's okay because both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer have been packaged with Windows 7.

Unfortunately, there's no 64-bit Flash player. When will Adobe come out with a 64-bit player? It doesn't seem like it's any time soon.

Adobe or Apple?

It's inevitable that our production team has divided opinions on the Adobe and Apple issue over Flash and its legitimacy in mobile browsing. The Flash developers are sided with Adobe -- mainly because Flash is their livelihood -- while Javascript developers are sided with Apple since we don't rely on Flash. Both Adobe and Apple are claiming their platforms are "more open" than the other but I will try to make my argument based on personal experience.

After working with the Nintendo Wii and experiencing first hand the difficulties in developing for such a platform, I was utterly frustrated by the lack of support provided by both Nintendo and Adobe; there is NO support. Does Flash work on the Nintendo Wii? Yes. Does it work well? No. Were there a lot of problems? YES. Did Adobe fix those problems? Some, but only YEARS after Flash was available for the Wii. Are there still problems? Yes, absolutely.

Both parties are claiming how their platforms "should be considered" as open; which really isn't "open" at all. The goals of open standards are not the same as those for profit-generating businesses. It is currently not in Adobe's best profit-generating interests to fix their issues on the Nintendo Wii so the platform has been left broken. As a result, the developers are left to find web solutions for clients who have been assured by Nintendo and Apple that "Flash works on the Wii"; which it doesn't.

Do I want a similar fate for other mobile devices? Absolutely not.

Creating social networking sites

Several names come into mind when I think of online services offering developers the tools to "create" their own social networking sites from piggybacking off their framework(s). One which has been in the media lately is Ning. From my experience with them, their services and frameworks do seem to give developers the ability to do interesting things; but the question I have is why?

As of yet, I haven't heard of any recognizable brands (Nike, Reebok, Walmart, Coca-cola, etc) who have successfully created a site that has gone critical mass. Yet even with this fact, social networking sites are still in demand by clients who genuinely feel that owning a social networking site is a viable business opportunity which they should invest in; they want to be the next Facebook.

Far be it for me to say that social networking sites are a poor investment decision, but an interesting fact about the web: Ashton Kutcher has almost 5 million subscribers. He doesn't own a website, let alone a social networking site. And as far as I know, I don't recall any recognizable brands like Walmart having even 1 million subscribers (website, RSS feeds, Twitter feed or otherwise); let alone 5 Million.

The grapevine

This morning, the media outlets were all blasting how Apple had been secretly creating their own "Flash alternative" as a means to circumvent their reliance on Adobe products on their platform. I only started reading up on it when someone mentioned "Gianduia".

Apple's Gianduia project is not new. It has been around for about a year and was never a "Flash alternative". It's a framework meant as a tool to assist web developers in building AJAX-driven, rich internet applications. Had these reporters investigated further, they would have uncovered the inaccuracies of the headlines. This isn't journalism; this is gossip. Facts were not checked before publishing.

This is a frightening approach at how media outlets are reporting information; essentially just writing about other writers' articles. There has been a longstanding debate on whether bloggers should be classified as journalists and thus protected by the legislation meant for journalists. This is a prime example against it.

Online Tutorials

I'm always weary of online tutorial websites that teach you how to effectively write HTML/CSS. Although the bios of the authors often refer to the amount of time they've spent working in the web industry, neither does it refer to the type of exposure they've had to different projects, nor does it mention their intentions.

If I were to develop CSS with a strong focus on browser compatibility, it would be far different from developing it with a focus on browser performance (read: Steve Souders). The same goes for CSS intended for longterm use and CSS written to support accessibility. These things are all different.

Websites like Smashing Magazine offer great tips on how to approach the technical issues inherent with web development, but the tutorials should be seen as just that; references. There's no such thing as a one-solution-fits-all. If there was, it would probably be one that far exceeds any clients' budget.

Techno dance!

My programmer buddy who works at Electronic Arts was telling me how he doesn't feel creative directors provide projects with much value and, in fact, are a detriment because they drain the project's overall budget. I completely disagree. Did you ever see that Jet Li movie where he was in jail and during some of the fight scenes, they made a CGI "x-ray" view of the opponent's bones breaking? This is where a CD comes in.

When a movie --having nothing to do with computers, technology or electronic gadgets-- decides that they want fight-scenes to contain high-tech CGI animation and techno-rave styled music in the background, it rarely ever adds to the story. In fact, these things often feel so out-of-place, it makes the overall experience of the movie unpleasant. I can understand if these things were in a high-tech action flick, but not a drama!

Creative directors are the guys that meld these aspects together and ensures that the film has the appropriate eyecandy that coincides with the story. Now, if you're a creative director and are under the impression that rave music can work with *any* film, it's probably a good time to re-examine whether the audience will accept that vision.

Btw, might I add, Donnie Yen is the new Jet Li of North American-approved Asian martial arts films.

Font substitution, services & branding

I'm well aware of the different methods in replacing fonts on webpages because designers are always looking to add more tools to their design arsenal. sIFR has had limitations, but the recent methods such as cufón, typeface and Typekit have been gaining attention and I thought I'd mention some issues that are uniquely inherent about technical solutions involving 3rd party services such as Typekit.

Some immediate issues -- if their services go down:

1. How will this affect the client's site?
2. How will this affect the client's brand?

Relying upon any third party's services means your client's brand is susceptible to those services. I was on the Bank of Canada website when this error appeared. The service that provided BOC's date/exchange rates failed and produced an empty page with a horrible error message. Aside from a confusing message which a normal user would never understand, what should a user be thinking?

Not only does this error concern me, it doesn't make me want to trust BoC's online services nor does it give me faith in the BoC brand. There will always be a risk when dealing with external services, Javascript libraries or font-replacement services; the question is whether the gains offset the risks? After seeing this error, how much are you more willing to trust this online bank with your money?

Practical applications to reverse-engineering

I find myself spending a lot of time reverse-engineering other people’s work. That is, it’s rather typical that clients have existing systems and frameworks where the amount of documentation is tragically inadequate. The trick is to learn as much as you can about the author(s) and then emulate what they’ve done. And although it’s rather cliché to say this, you really can learn a lot about a person by sifting through their code.

I was working on a project last year which involved developing work specifically targeted for the Nintendo Wii browser. Even though it is powered by Opera, it doesn’t behave the same way as its desktop cousin. The issues are compounded by the fact that there is no official documentation from either Nintendo of America, Europe or Japan; thus it was necessary to break down the issues myself. The full list is a lot more explicit so I’ll simply fire off some of the most glaring facts:

1. There lacks metrical data to gauge the user's environment. The following issues remain unresolved:
   • There are different Nintendo Wii browser versions and they’re linked to firmware patches.
   • There are different versions of Adobe Flash for the Wii browsers. While one version of Flash can handle video well, the other doesn't.
2. During the initial launch of the console, the Wii browser costed $5. Someone found a hack to enable one of the apps –which then allowed for a modified version of the onboard browser to run: The legitimate $5 browser had a different resolution than the hacked. In 2009, the decision was made to offer the Wii browser at no charge, but the divide was already set.
3. What are the dimensions one can work with on the Wii browser? 800x600? No. An obscure width to the likes of 813px. What’s even more strange is that when the <BODY> has a CSS width of 100%, any <DIV> set to “100%” will be locked at 813px.
4. The Wii has a feature that allows users to zoom in and out of the page. This feature – coupled with the onscreen menu — throws Javascript haywire because the viewable screen height constantly changes.
5. Anchor tags <A> as well as tags which can be clicked (ie. adding the Javascript function "location" to a div) will always have a visible border around it. I've yet to find a CSS or Javascript solution to this unsightly issue.

From this experience, I can only conclude that web development experts weren’t initially consulted by Nintendo before the browser was integrated onto their console. Since I don’t personally own a Wii, the likelihood that I'd develop personal work for such a platform is very slim. In any case, good luck to all those who have an interest in it!

A question of usability

Vancouver’s public transportation, Translink, has low-rider buses with confusing doors. That is, those who ride the bus are already familiar with the idea of pressing a button to open the exit doors. Bombardier (the makers of these buses) has broken convention and nicely camouflaged pressure-sensitive strips at the edge of the doors. When pressed, these strips will cause the doors to open. Some immediate problems about this new method of interaction:

1. The trigger to open the doors is both unconventional and hidden.
2. Those who cannot read English will not understand how to proceed.
3. As an accessibility issue: the elderly and mentally challenged riders with visual impairments are directly affected.
4. After pressing the trigger, no indication is provided to a user that their command was accepted by the system.
5. Activing the trigger produces different results because in order for the door to open, the bus driver needs to "enable" the doors first.

I will be blunt in stating the most immediate and obvious flaw of this design: There is no reason for a door to be so complex that instructions need to be made. If this were a website, it would be unacceptable. Websites built with usability in mind would never have a “how to use this website” page because the site should be intuitive enough for it to be unnecessary.

Although I tend to be quite critical with my coworkers and colleagues about maintaining a certain level of usability, I will admit that the technology sector is one of the industries putting a lot of effort in pushing for better usability standards. For companies like Bombardier, their work needs to be scrutinized to an even higher degree because their footprint in society often exceeds that of any website.

Metrical data and Vancouver’s housing market

Just recently, a staff reporter from The Vancouver Province wrote an article detailing his opinions on why the Vancouver housing market is inflated. In it, he cited Asians from China as being the primary reason. Now, aside from the reporter blatantly writing a speculative piece and trying to push it out as “fact”, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a lack of professionalism from a newspaper reporter. This was the first time I’ve ever written a formal complaint and I’ve yet to hear word back from TVP.

To recap the article:

1. The reporter cold-called different ReMax realestate locations and asked for imprecise and approximate statistical data about ReMax sales.
2. The reporter did not get any “official” ReMax sales statistics regarding the percentage of homes being sold in Vancouver in relation to the number being sold specifically to Asians from China. (I know for a fact that ReMax does not in any way keep track of this information in any official manner.)
3. This reporter did not state the credentials he has to make an assessment or conclusion of the housing market or what is the determining factor causing such inflation.

A reporter with an unknown realestate background, gathered his information from conversations, tallied data from just one segment of realtors, did not check the accuracy of what was said, postulated and then blamed a group of visible minorities for the pricing increase –- a group who most probably would not have the capacity to defend themselves from such accusations.

For the housing market to increase, there needs to be a number of different factors; not just that homes were sold. What was the percentage of buyers who were Chinese and the percentage of those who weren't? Those who purchased homes, did they pay above or below market value? How did the reporter derive that the purchasing of homes from Asians equated to an overall price increase in the market?

What I found upsetting about this article was that it was written in a way to put Asians in a negative light. The title of the article could just have easily stated "Homes in Vancouver a prime asset for Mainland Chinese" or "Mainland Chinese are investing in Vancouver homes". Such titles state FACT. Forming an opinionated hypothesis is anyone's prerogative but to do so on print and without any concrete evidence? Disappointing.

Analytics prediction

It’s easy to recognize the importance of user data and the role analytics plays when trying to improve upon a product or service. The analytics package that I use quite often on projects is Omniture – recently purchased by Adobe – but if I were to guess, Facebook is aligning to become a direct competitor towards online analytics software.

Facebook is a goldmine when it comes to data-mining. Users are actively encouraged to synch their profiles with all valid and truthful data about themselves. Their personal, financial, entertainment and consumer relationships are all mapped out. FB's new tools, allowing other sites to access Facebook's "like" feature, is just another foot-in-the-door.

When you have hundreds of thousands of websites who have already integrated portions of Facebook’s code, bundling additional functionality (such as a Facebook analytics package) will be simple and ubiquitous. Just as much as the comic industry being fearful of the iPad, Omniture should be concerned about Facebook's future because it could directly compete with them.

Real-life gaming

In reference to my previous post about FourSquare and gaming, the presentation by Carnegie Mellon University Professor, Jesse Schell, is an amazing explanation of what he sees in store for our future. It’s scary. It’s plausible. It’s eminent.

When advertisers watched the Spielberg movie “Minority Report”, everyone seemed to agree that the future is about over-advertising. I don’t agree. In the future, people will become so immune to ads that there is no value in producing passive advertisements which people will ultimately ignore.

The future is interactive ads where people are encouraged to "play"; Schell has got it scarily right.

Crowd sourcing

The NYT’s article on “human flesh search engines” scares me in ways I don’t know how to describe. The idea of utilizing crowd sourcing (the act of getting individuals to perform tasks for an overall effect) mixed in with communist society and endorsing vigilantism is absolutely frightening. Only recently did I sign up for an account with FourSquare and the most immediate thing I could think of was the possibilities that crowd sourcing can produce.

Rather than pay or even coax individuals to rate/review/map a city’s business venues and locations, FourSquare makes it into a game with a rewarding system based on satisfying one’s ego: achievement “badges”. People don’t even realize they’re doing work because the “work” has been made into a game. If there is any type of predictions about the future, it is that all aspects of our lives will be made into games; it’s only a matter of time.

Comic books

Mauricio, a person whom I've worked with over the past three years, illustrates his own comic books. There are only a handful of people in the office who have an appreciation for this medium but it has been quite unanimous how we look at Marvel's decision on producing comic books for the Apple iPad. Some insights:

1. Comics will not require paper; thus the sale of a comic will not require such a drastic overhead.
2. Marvel is cutting out the middle-men. When you buy comics, you are buying directly from Marvel/Apple.
3. Digital copies hold no value.
4. Comic book stores who hold tonnes of back-issues will cease to exist. Why would they be around when Marvel can sell you a digital print?
5. Comic books will cost more. Yes, more. Graphic novels were the comic industry's way of creating books with their comics. With the iPad, there is no need. You won't have the ability to purchase a graphic novel, you'll simply need to purchase each and every individual comic.
6. Those who "collect" comics will cease. As stated above, digital copies will rule and if so, what value is there for comics if a digital copy is always available?

The first issue of Batman or Superman will always retain some sort of monetary value, but this is only true for this generation. The next generation of kids will become exposed to a world where consumable media is disposable. There is no value in collecting digital copies. How we value and commoditize comics will change in the next few years and I will state the obvious: local comic stores will start shutting down because of it.

This is a perfect example of business disruption; those who don't maintain an understanding of where technology is headed will be in for a shocking realization when their business strategy suddenly becomes obsolete.

Market buzzwords

In every generation, there will be buzzwords that catapult sales. Back in the 90s, it was "i" in lieu of the "iMacs". In Vancouver, we have a restaurant called "iCafe". What does it have to do with internet or web? It doesn't; not even in the slightest. Then came "virtual reality" where even tanning salons decided to get in on it with their "virtual reality" tanning booths. Then came the end of the millennia where everyone jumped onto the "y2k" bandwagon and a rash of businesses started up with "y2k" being part of their company name. Compu20000. iTravel2000.

Just recently, the "dot-two-point-oh" grabbed the attention of everyone and a string of marketing and advertising campaigns focused on "Web 2.0". The pessemist in me is waiting to see what new marketing buzzwords will come and captivate the general public but suffice to say: you can't escape it.

Gateway drug

The Apple iPod. I keep telling my PC-loving friends that Apple is penetrating the PC market because they have tiny "gateway drug" types of technology that encourages a user to try using Apple products. Those who don't own MP3 players will more likely try out the iPod. Those who own an iPod will more likely try out the iPhone. Those who try out the iPhone will more likely try out a Mac Mini.

PC users who mock Apple's resilience needs to wake up: They have a product out there that is perfect for you and after the first hit, you'll probably come back for more.

Changing landscapes

Years ago, I helped my friends start up a small, local PC hardware business – they’re still around and doing well – and recently spoke with the initial team about the direction of the business. Over the past decade, computers have gotten so fast that it’s no longer a question of processing power. We don't need to use desktops to run software adequately.

Instead, the real question is how we use computers. We're no longer tethered to a desktop anymore so why is the assumption that we will continue to purchase desktops for home use?

Internet memes

Over the years, I’ve seen quite a number of memes with ridiculous claims:

1. Hotmail plans to charge for their services unless you send this email out to all your contacts!
2. MSN/ICQ/AOL will start charging for their services unless you send this IM to all your contacts!
3. A child abductor was spotted in a white van cruising around local schools, email this to ALL your contacts!

Whenever I see these things being passed around, several things concern me:

1. The lack of fact-checking involved when accepting information from peers.
2. The lack of business understand from the general public.
3. People’s perception that they can incite drastic, monumental change by pressing a button, passing an email or joining a Facebook group.

Advertising and charity

There has been a number of different marketing and advertising agencies using charity as a means to gather impressions. Make no mistake; this is an extremely dangerous method of marketing. The most recent campaign I’ve seen consisted of a company offering to give families in Africa clean drinking water provided you join their Facebook group.

The question to ask is:

1.) Is your audience smart enough to differentiate advertising from charity?
2.) If they *are* smart enough, how will this affect the brand? Will such a campaign help tarnish it?

Screen resolutions

I’ve been having discussions with my coworkers about screen resolutions and I think it's quite unanimous that screen resolutions will get bigger as time goes on. That is, it will increase for desktop computers. Yet, upon further analysis, there is also another argument that is progressively clear: we have no idea *how* a user will browse web pages as time passes. We recognize screen resolutions on desktop computers will increase, but will desktops be the predominant method of accessing the internet? Apple’s iPad, HP Slate and even cheap netbooks are in high demand. In five years time, how certain are you that you’ll be viewing websites from a desktop computer?

The website that took over my computer

Practically every creative director I’ve come across seems to have this fixation on full-screen, Flash-based marketing websites. I don’t disagree with how immersive a full-screen site can be, but there is one rule that I feel needs to be addressed: don’t alienate the user.

I visited a website recently and upon landing on the homepage, the site’s full-screen video immediately initialized, encompassing the entire screen, disorienting me and ensuring that I no longer have control of my own computer. Not only was this upsetting, I immediately had no intention of ever going back to the site again. This is how you alienate your user: take away their control.

Would it be so hard for the homepage to offer a selection? Give me the option to view the site in a window? Perhaps even prepare me for the fact that the website will commandeer my desktop? What purpose does it serve to force a user to see the site in a specific manner? Does it help the client’s brand or does it help the creative team’s vision? Which is more important?

iPad

There has been talk about Apple’s new iPad where a lot of the grief comes from the fact that the device doesn’t support Adobe Flash. If I’m not mistaken, I believe everyone already recognizes that this device is meant only for consumption. It is a media consumption device that is not meant to produce media. This is why so many people are upset at Apple’s stance against Flash; it is an integral part of surfing the internet. That said, Flash is a plugin (read: “app”) whose features cannot be approved or disapproved by Apple. As it stands, Flash can do too many things and in a negative way for Apple.

• Users could play free Flash-based games rather than pay for them.
• Developers could build apps in Flash rather than on the iPhone platform.
• Apple cannot regulate the type of apps you use if these apps are Flash and located on a web page.
• Apple cannot regulate what new features Adobe decides to add into Flash.
• Flash can theoretically circumvent some iPhone/iPod/iPad security features.
• Flash developers could create interfaces that mimic and/or confuse –even trick—users.
• Flash is processor-intensive and might affect a user’s experience on the device.

Apple’s decision to ban Adobe Flash is definitely controversial. However, as a business and technical decision, it’s one that has been thought out very thoroughly. There are a lot of intelligent people at Apple and these decisions weren't made on a whim. Adobe, as with the rest of Apple users, can argue this out, the fact still remains: Flash can do too many things that can negative affect the iPhone experience.

(BTW, I still love my Blackberry)

Hacks

A coworker of mine recently sent me a link to a website that showcased what CSS is capable of doing in terms of mimicking Javascript rollovers and basic behaviours. Although the site did appear to work as stated, I opened up the source code to discover extraneous hidden HTML markup that littered the page. With this new information, I’d have to say that the CSS didn’t work as stated.

CSS is supposed to contain the presentation markup. Javascript holds the behavioural scripting. HTML holds the content. When CSS is used to replace Javascript by means of littering on the page content, this becomes a hack. Using HTML and CSS to create behavioural hacks to do what Javascript can easily do. It’s a cool concept to execute, a poor architecture for implementation.

Streaming media

Nintendo recently announced that they've partnered with NetFlix in order to stream on-demand movies from their Wii platform. I'm sure this deal with a lucrative one for Nintendo, but I can't help but think of it as an unsafe business move. With both Microsoft and Sony prepping to release their own motion-sensing peripherals, how will Nintendo stay competitive?

First and foremost, I would think that consoles need to be able to play games and play a large selection of games. I don't need my console to stream movies or produce a slideshow of my vacation photos or connect to the weather channel. I bought it because I want to play games. That said, what has Nintendo done to attract developers to their platform?

Both Sony and Microsoft have put a lot of time, effort and money into creating development tools and packages that give developers the ability to produce games. This is vital for a healthy development community. If there is a limited number of developers creating games for the Wii, there is a limited number of games.

And what is the value in buying a console when there aren't any good games for it?