the tindog coffeehouse

Previously:
Windows launch party video: the perfect ad for OS X
Microsoft: Internet Explorer 8 perfect for porn addicts

Former Microsoft vice president Dick Brass (insert your own jokes here) wrote a pretty indicting op-ed piece yesterday in the New York Times about how his previous employer’s corporate culture stifles any true innovation coming out of the Redmond monolith:

Microsoft has become a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator. Its products are lampooned, often unfairly but sometimes with good reason. Its image has never recovered from the antitrust prosecution of the 1990s. Its marketing has been inept for years; remember the 2008 ad in which Bill Gates was somehow persuaded to literally wiggle his behind at the camera? …

What happened? Unlike other companies, Microsoft never developed a true system for innovation. Some of my former colleagues argue that it actually developed a system to thwart innovation. Despite having one of the largest and best corporate laboratories in the world, and the luxury of not one but three chief technology officers, the company routinely manages to frustrate the efforts of its visionary thinkers.

He goes on to use as one example the story of how Microsoft’s ClearType technology was resisted by multiple groups within the company, thus apparently undermining any comparative advantages it would’ve provided.

Microsoft, naturally, doesn’t quite agree with Brass’s assertions. It replied that:

At the highest level, we think about innovation in relation to its ability to have a positive impact in the world. For Microsoft, it is not sufficient to simply have a good idea, or a great idea, or even a cool idea. We measure our work by its broad impact. …

[F]or a company whose products touch vast numbers of people, what matters is innovation at scale, not just innovation at speed.

OK, fair enough. Microsoft admits having “a good idea, or a great idea, or even a cool idea” isn’t their top priority, which is another way of saying, “Bite me, Steve Jobs.” No, Microsoft is more concerned with quality. And if quality takes time, then they’re totally fine with that.

The problem is, in the 21st-century world of enterprise and consumer technology, quality doesn’t mean Jack. It’s all about speed, who can get the newest, shiniest product to market the fastest. It doesn’t have to be perfect (the first-gen iPhone certainly wasn’t, and virtually every Google product carried the “Beta” label for years), it just has to exist. If your product isn’t generating headlines on TechCrunch or Mashable, then you’ve lost, simple as that.

But doesn’t “innovation at scale” account for anything? After all, Microsoft is quick to trumpet that Internet Explorer 8 is now the most-used web browser on the Internet. Of course what they fail to mention is that IE6 is still number two. And why is IE6 still so popular? Because thousands of enterprises are stuck with it because their legacy web-based apps simply don’t work with any modern, standards-based browser. In other words, it’s Microsoft’s lack of quality (combined with corporate laziness) that helps keep its numbers as high as they are.

And while Microsoft may be patting itself on the back for the success of Windows 7, it’s completely left in the dust when it comes to smartphones, social networking, cloud computing, and digital media. Even its venerable Internet Explorer continues to lose ground to Firefox and Chrome, a trend that will surely continue as more sites follow Google’s lead of blocking IE6 altogether.

So I guess I could buy the “innovation at scale” argument if the “scale” was more commanding. But it’s not, and the reason is because the quality just isn’t there in many cases.

Brass claims that the lack of innovation is directly due to Microsoft’s “dysfunctional” and inherently competitive corporate culture, which makes any chance of true innovation nearly impossible, and I’m inclined to agree, at least in part. As a former Microsoft employee myself (in enterprise support, not development), I experienced the direct impact of its muddled, ever-changing org chart and constantly-recalibrating corporate visions.

However, Microsoft isn’t really that much different than any other large corporation. Generally the larger (and older) a company gets, the more conservative it becomes; it’s just the way corporate America works. So to blame the company’s mediocrity on its organizational structure is a bit of a cop-out. The fact is, Microsoft just doesn’t fully understand the various industries it’s in, and no amount of org chart reshuffling is going to change that.

Previously:
The biggest mistake Microsoft made with Windows 7
Windows launch party video: the perfect ad for OS X
New Microsoft ‘I’m a PC’ ads: too little too late

When Mozilla released version 3.6 of its Firefox browser, I immediately installed it on my home computer. Overall, it’s a pretty nice update, but naturally a few of my add-ons didn’t work with it. (Par for the course.) One of those add-ons is IE Tab, which allows you to view a website using Internet Explorer while still in Firefox. Since I use that particular add-on pretty regularly, I decided to take another look at Google Chrome since the latest update of that browser, version 4.0, adds support for extensions such as AdBlock, Xmarks, and IE Tab.

Without question, Chrome has a lot of advantages. It’s fast, it’s more standards-compliant than Firefox, and each tab runs in its own process (thus allowing one to fail without taking down the whole browser). But even with the latest updates and extensions (Chrome’s versions of Firefox’s add-ons), it doesn’t really feel complete.

First, Chrome has always been a stripped-down browser, and this latest version is no exception. The simplicity is fine for basic browsing but becomes a severe annoyance if you plan on using it for any extended period of time. The lack of a native print button, the inability to add buttons or move them around, and the mandatory thumbnail page when creating a new tab are just a few of the nuisances. Some of the limitations, of course, can be remedied with third-party extensions, but not all them.

Second, while a lot of extensions are available, none of the ones I tried seemed as well-developed as their Firefox equivalents. IE Tab in Firefox, for example, allows you to configure which sites or domains will always open in an IE environment and allows easy switching back and forth with one click of a button. IE Tab in Chrome, however, has neither of those options. ForecastFox in Firefox displays the weather in the bottom status bar. In Chrome, you just get a button in the top toolbar that you have to click on for weather details. Xmarks, the popular bookmark syncing service, also didn’t quite deliver. Bookmarks would sync but would screw up the bookmarks on my home Firefox install, and even after multiple syncs, it never did work exactly right. And that seemed to be a common occurrence in my experience. While all of the extensions I tried worked to one degree or another, most felt clumsy and awkward.

The more I used Chrome, the more it reminded me of the contrast between Google’s Android platform and the iPhone. While Android has improved considerably since its initial release, it still lags pretty far behind the iPhone in terms of overall user experience, and the apps for the iPhone are far more numerous and generally better developed than those for Android. Such is the case with Chrome and its extensions versus Firefox and its add-ons; while Chrome continues to improve, it’s not nearly as polished as Firefox.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that it’s a matter of preference. I understand why Chrome is so popular, but in my opinion, Firefox is still the better browser.

Previously:
Giving in to Google
Internet Explorer 8: Faster but no Firefox

Apparently I’m on to something.

About a week and a half ago, I killed off my old Twitter account and moved to a brand new one, thus losing all my old tweets along with all my followers. It wasn’t originally my intention to do so, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea of starting over fresh.

Now comes a couple of reports that back up the idea that when it comes to social networking, smaller numbers are in fact better.

First, a professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford, Robin Dunbar, has concluded that regardless of how many Facebook friends we might have, we can only effectively manage about 150 friendships.

He found that people tended to self-organise in groups of around 150 because social cohesion begins to deteriorate as groups become larger. …

“The interesting thing is that you can have 1,500 friends but when you actually look at traffic on sites, you see people maintain the same inner circle of around 150 people that we observe in the real world,” said Dunbar.

This explains why I also don’t tend to follow more than 170-180 people on Twitter. Inevitably, when I add more people than that, I always tend to drop a few others as the “noise” increases.

Clive Thompson of Wired seems to agree. He points out that in social networks, once a group grows too large, conversation and interaction stop. What starts out as a small one-to-one or one-to-few circle of connections becomes a large one-to-many broadcast, thus losing any sense of intimacy or connectedness. Thus, rather than strive for bigger and bigger numbers, he argues, we should be working to maintain smaller, more connected social circles. He concludes, “There’s value in obscurity.”

Fortunately, obscurity is one thing I’ve mastered.

Previously:
How to instantly lose all your Twitter followers
How to play the game of ‘Blog-Facebook-Twitter’

What’s the easiest way to lose all your Twitter followers and throw out over 2,000 tweets? Start over with a new Twitter account.

For the record, I wouldn’t recommend it.

That wasn’t my intent, of course. But that’s what happened over the weekend. In “Internet-speak” it’s considered an epic fail on my part.

Here’s the deal. I created a Twitter account over a year ago on a whim. I didn’t know much about it and had doubts I would even use it. After all, most people who aren’t on Twitter — and even most who are — don’t get it. But I signed up anyway out of curiosity and chose a Twitter handle that complemented my blog. (“Tindog” was taken so I went with the alternate “tindogcoffee”.) At the time I didn’t intend on using my full name or even putting my picture on my profile.

Fast forward a year later, and I was considering changing my handle to my name, “jasonspooner”. But I couldn’t go through with it; I was too attached to “tindogcoffee”. Nevertheless, I didn’t want to lose my name to another Jason Spooner, so I created a second account with that username. (Yes, that’s technically squatting, and yes, that’s technically a violation of Twitter’s TOS. Tell that to the squatter using the “tindog” handle.)

Anyway, the more I thought about it, the more I decided I should use my “jasonspooner” account. But Twitter makes it impossible to transfer usernames from one account to another. So I couldn’t just rename my “tindogcoffee” account; I would have to start over from scratch.

In the Twitter world, that’s suicide. I knew that. I knew most of my followers wouldn’t make the transition. That’s nothing against them, it’s just human nature and the nature of the platform. But I made the decision anyway. And even though I still wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, I think it may ultimately be for the best.

It made me realize how much value I place in those little numbers on my profile page. The number of followers I have, the number of tweets I’ve posted, the number of lists I’m on. Even though I’ve said before that those things aren’t important, I still kept coming back to them for validation. And that’s not right.

So I’m starting over. It may the absolute worst thing to do in the social networking world, but I think it’s the best thing for me.

Previously:
Who are you following?
A little social network housecleaning

It was 40 years ago yesterday, on October 29, 1969, that the first message was sent across ARPANET (which would evolve into today’s modern Internet).  The message? “LO”.  Yeah, it was supposed to be “LOGIN”, but the thing crashed after the “O”.

And thus was the born the inspiration for AT&T’s wireless network.  The End.

Previously:
Vanity Fair’s history of the Internet

…was including Internet Explorer 8 with it.

Hear me out.

Windows 7 has gotten a lot of praise for its improvements over Vista, both under-the-hood changes to the core OS as well as more visible changes such as a revamped taskbar and the introduction of features like Jump Lists and Libraries.  It’s not a major upgrade of Vista and certainly not perfect, but most of my complaints are minor.  For example, why is there still so much fluff (desktop gadgets, Wordpad, Sticky Notes, etc.)?  Why all the boring and/or confusing “Microsoft-isms” (Home Groups, User Account Control, Windows Live Essentials, Windows Easy Transfer, BitLocker, Aero Peek, Aero Shake)?  And why is Steve Ballmer still around?

But again, with the possible exception of the Ballmer question, those are minor annoyances.  Where I think Microsoft really missed a huge opportunity was in not killing off Internet Explorer.  I mean, let’s face it, IE is a disaster.  Sure IE8 is better than previous versions, but it doesn’t even begin to compare to Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.  It’s slower, consumes a huge amount of memory when using multiple tabs, and miserably fails the industry-standard Acid3 test.

Microsoft needs to completely ditch IE and replace it with a brand new browser built to support web standards, not worry about backwards compatibility.  Maybe even build it with Webkit like Chrome and Safari.  It would go a long way in restoring the image of Microsoft and would show that they can effectively compete with Google and Apple.  They’ve made strides with Bing, now they need to follow it up with a modern, standards-compliant web browser.

To me, Windows 7 would’ve been the perfect showcase for such a browser.  Instead, Microsoft seems to be content with the status quo, and that’s a big disappointment.

Previously:
Internet Explorer 8: Faster but no Firefox
Microsoft: Internet Explorer 8 perfect for porn addicts
Windows 7 Beta 1: Initial thoughts
Windows 7 Beta 1: The other stuff

Robert Mueller may run the FBI, but evidently Mrs. Mueller runs the house.  After the FBI Director nearly fell for a phishing scam, his wife banned him from banking online.

“Just a few clicks away from falling into a classic Internet phishing scam,” Mueller “barely caught himself in time” and admitted he “definitely should have known better.”

He said he changed his passwords and tried to pass the incident off to his wife as a “teachable moment,” but she was having none of it and told him, “It is our money. No more Internet banking for you!”

Keep in mind this is the head of the friggin’ FBI we’re talking about here.  Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the Bureau, does it?

No word on whether Mr. Mueller got to keep his MySpace page.

Apple can now fire John Hodgman and Justin Long.  Thanks to Microsoft and their ridiculous (but apparently real) Windows 7 Launch Party video, they’ll never need to create another stupid “I’m a Mac” commercial again.

Why anyone at Microsoft actually thought this was a good idea, I’ll never know.  If they really have any aspirations of remaining even somewhat relevant compared to OS X or Google or even Linux, this video immediately negates any chance of that.  Long forgotten are the “I’m a PC” commercials, which I thought were really well done.  Windows 7, evidently, is for 50-something women who blow up balloons and invite people over to play with their computers.

Seriously, would anyone actually host one of these things?  And if so, does Microsoft actually want to admit that?

If you do host a Windows 7 launch party, though, you could walk away with a copy of Windows 7, Steve Ballmer Edition.  Instead of a Blue Screen of Death, it throws a chair at you and sweats a lot.

Uh, no thanks.

Of course, if the thought of a party to celebrate an operating system sounds boring, you could always throw one of these instead:

Previously:
New Microsoft ‘I’m a PC’ ads: too little too late
‘How Apple Plays Upon Our Insecurities’
Microsoft: Internet Explorer 8 perfect for porn addicts

After two Texas Tech football players recently posted negative comments on Twitter, coach and head pirate Mike Leach banned his team from tweeting altogether and also suspended offensive lineman Brandon Carter indefinitely.

Naturally, the story generated a lot of interest in the media and around the Internet at a time when the Red Raiders are still dealing with the aftermath of losing their second game of the season.  But was it the right move?

James Hodgins, social media director for the Price Group advertising agency in Lubbock, Texas, says no:

What right does Leach have to ban his players from Twitter just because they posted negative views? Can a company ban its employees from social media if they post negative comments? Or staying at the university, can a professor ban her students for the same thing?

Of course, for the team and a business, there needs to be a policy in place that outlines what can and cannot be said. But how can you claim transparency (the whole point of social media) if you ban all negative points?

In my view, Leach should have suspended players temporarily from Twitter until the time the athletic department could create a solid set of standards. This, people would have understood, and there would have been less controversy surrounding the program.

As it stands now, Leach either has to stand by his guns and be the bad guy, or backtrack and admit he overreacted. Neither are good options.

Of course the athletic department should’ve had a policy in place before this happened, but obviously it didn’t.  As a result, Leach had no choice but to implement a ban, at least until some kind of guidelines can be put into place.  Yes, that makes him the bad guy.  But sometimes that goes with the job.

That said, I disagree with Mr. Hodgins’ claim that the whole point of social media is transparency.  Transparency implies that everything about an organization is out in the open, available to be posted freely on the Internet without reservation, and quite frankly, that’s pretty irresponsible.  Some kind of reasonable limits need to be in place.

Does that mean that players aren’t free to express their frustrations online?  Yes and no.  The distinction is this: When you identify yourself as part of a particular organization, be it a football team or a company, you represent that organization, whether you’re on the clock or not.  And that means that any public behavior is a direct reflection on that organization.  As such, organizations have a responsibility to place restrictions on what their members say and do publicly in order to protect their image.  And that is in no way infringing on our rights to free speech.

Further, even though they didn’t violate any written rules since none existed, by venting their frustrations with the team publicly on Twitter, the Tech players displayed questionable judgment and a lack of maturity.  If they had a problem with Leach, they should’ve taken it up with him in private, not simply posted their opinions online.  And if players can’t be trusted to use proper discretion, then an outright ban is the only option.

Previously:
Sorry, Leach is not ‘the best college football coach in the country’

The tech blogs are up in arms over AT&T’s new MicroCell service, femtocell base stations that wireless customers can use to boost cell phone service in places where service is spotty.  The blogs essentially have two complaints: first, that AT&T should just fix their network instead of applying a band-aid to it; and second, that AT&T should provide the service for free.  (They’ll charge $20 a month for the MicroCell service, or $10 if you have AT&T phone or Internet service.  Customers who have both can get it for free.)

Both complaints are valid, but at least give AT&T credit for offering something.  Yes, it’s a band-aid, but it’s better than what we have now.  Personally, since I would qualify for free service, I’m thrilled; my house is one giant dead spot.

Still, knowing AT&T, I can’t help but to imagine a roomful of executives laughing maniacally over their latest offering.  First, they attract hoards of data-hungry customers with the iPhone, who willingly fork over $30 a month for a data plan in addition to voice and texting fees.  When the service is less than ideal, they then offer them MicroCell service, which routes cellular traffic through your Internet service.  Then when they decide you’re using too much Internet bandwidth, they either throttle your service or institute bandwidth caps.

OK, so that last part may be speculation on my part, but it’s not that unrealistic.  AT&T already throttles Internet traffic of its U-verse customers in order to provide HD video.  And they’ve already experimented with bandwidth caps.  So it’s not unreasonable to expect that heavy MicroCell usage would help push those endeavors further along.  It also gives the telco additional ammunition to fight against new net neutrality regulations coming from the FCC.

Previously:
Bandwidth experiment, day 2: throttled?
Bandwidth experiment: the final results
Media finally reporting on broadband caps
Metered broadband vs. cloud computing

Over the weekend, I closed my Facebook account.  Technically, it’s “deactivated”, meaning I can log back in and reactivate it later if I choose.  I’m not sure I want to, though.

It wasn’t a rash decision; it was something I had considered numerous times before.  And honestly, even as I clicked the button to deactivate it, I had mixed feelings about doing so.  But I did it anyway.

Why?  I think I finally just ran out of patience with it.  Every single thing I did on the site, whether I changed my profile picture, posted a photo, or updated my status, resulted in some kind of response from someone, and the responses weren’t always welcome.  Just this weekend my “friends” told me I looked like a serial killer, offered me unwanted (and not very accurate) medical advice, and tried to coax me into a political fight.  Between that and the never-ending barrage of Facebook quizzes and other nonsense, I had simply had enough.  (And I’m not the only one.)

I want to like Facebook, I really do.  I believe there’s a lot of value in it as a tool to be able to keep up with friends and family members.  But there has to be a boundary, some kind of line at which sharing becomes over-sharing, some point when it becomes best just to keep your opinions to yourself.  And within the “safe” and “trusted” walls of Facebook, it seems like people don’t care about such boundaries.  You’re their “friend”, aren’t you?  Therefore, they’re free to let you know you remind them of John Wayne Gacy.  Because that’s what friends are for.

I’m not saying, of course, that people shouldn’t speak their mind online; please do, even if I don’t agree with you.  But even online, if you can’t say something nice (or even interesting), it’s often wise to not say anything at all.

I’m sure at some point I’ll probably reactivate my account, but if I do, changes will be made to how I use the site.  But at least for now, silence is golden.

Previously:
Why I joined Facebook and LinkedIn
How to play the game of ‘Blog-Facebook-Twitter’
A little social network housecleaning