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.