Micro-hoo rises from the dead

It seems that the "We're done" remark from Steve Ballmer WAS a ploy to get Yahoo! back at the table at a lower price after all. I reserve the right to use the phrase "I told you so" with all unbelievers. It walks!

This Wall Street Journal story was one of the most entertaining and informative I've read all week, and you'd do well to just invest 5 minutes into reading this article.

My favourite line was:

During the meeting, Mr. Ballmer, who prides himself on his math skills, wielded a long spreadsheet and questioned Mr. Yang and other Yahoo executives about their analysis of Yahoo's value and future prospects.

Mr. Karnitschnig does have a sense of humor.

I never thought I'd miss Windows this much

There, I said it. I never thought I'd miss Windows this much. The XP variety, that is.

About a month ago, I was really all fired up about Ubuntu - and rightly so. From the horror stories of how complicated Linux is, Ubuntu's real-world experience (and looks) were amazingly great. Of course, then I realised that despite how great the open-source community was, it still had its limits. And the cruncher for me was that the email application, Evolution, didn't quite agree with the wierd resolution on my Eee PC.

So I ventured into loading an old copy of Windows I had lying around onto the Eee. It wasn't as simple a process as I had thought. Simply borrowing Kelvin's USB external CDROM drive wasn't enough as somehow, my Eee PC refused to boot from the CD. Resignedly, I had to search up instructions to install XP via a USB stick. Follow the instructions step by step and you shouldn't get into trouble.

After the install, I realised just how capable a machine the Eee 900 is for Windows XP. Boot up time is a respectable 18 seconds, even if it's not the 13 seconds promised by nLite (I ended up not using nLite). I've done manual cleaning and disabled stuff I don't believe I'll ever use.

I gave it a test run with Mozilla Firefox and Microsoft Office 2007 and it works great. Documents open pretty fast (about 2 seconds) and the browser didn't stutter none. It might be because I have 2GB of RAM.

Shifting back from Ubuntu to XP, I realised just how under appreciated Windows is in general. Sure, a lot of times, we think it's the most boring operating system out there - wowed by the Mac OS and fancy Linux builds. But in its own way, XP is elegant and simple too. For one, I found the launch bar at the bottom (a la Mac, which I insisted on having in Ubuntu) was more pretty than useful. The Windows Start Bar method still appeals to me.

Also, maybe I'm just a noob, but I understand how applications ,files and folders work on XP a lot better than I did on Ubuntu. There's a certain logic to how Windows works and, maybe its because we were mostly brought up on Windows but, it DOES make computing simpler.

The one thing I loved best about the whole process? The untouched, unsullied desktop. I'd like to see how long it lasts :)

Going back to Windows XP

After a month of living with Linux on my yet un-named Eee PC, I've decided to switch back to Windows XP and give it a go.



There's really only one reason for this and its that some applications on Ubuntu - particularly the Evolution email client - don't work well with the customised 1024 X 600 screen resolution on the Eee 900.

I'm hoping to see if Outlook or Thunderbird work any better on XP.

One thing that I did like about Linux was the fast boot times and faster shut down times. However, I've discovered nlite and a guide on how to install Windows XP without all the fat. The guy even claims a boot up time of just 17 seconds on his Eee PC. That, I'd like to see!

More reporting when I've done this - hopefully this weekend.

Internet Explorer 8 and thoughts on web browsers

The browser wars are here again. With Firefox 3 just around the corner, Flock rolling out version 1.2 just weeks ago, Opera letting the world know 9.5 is "coming soon" and Safari...well, let's just say they are "in the running"; Microsoft's announcement earlier this week that Internet Explorer 8 beta 2 will come in August seems to indicate that the time has come yet again for the browser wars to ignite again. This time though, the audience has changed and the focus along with it.



In the last round, security issues took centre-stage and underdog Firefox scored big against Microsoft's Internet Explorer thanks to this.

This round, we're looking at kids who've grown up on the internet, are immersed in the new-fangled web 2.0 world and want, above anything, a powerful browser that puts all their favourite social networking tools at their fingertips.

Witness Flock, social web browser extraodinaire, whose key selling point is the built-in interfaces it has for social networks like Facebook, Flickr, Blogger, Twitter, MySpace etc. Undoubtedly, Flock should be the winner, right? Err... no, not in my opinion. My brief test of Flock quickly showed me how having too many features and too much integration can be problematic in itself - the direct result being a cluttered interface.

So when I heard of the Microsoft announcement, I thought to myself "it's probably time to check out what the folks at MS have up their collective sleeves." And off I went to download my copy of Internet Explorer 8 beta 1.

Thoughts on IE8

Internet Explorer 8 beta 1 comes with two shiny new toys that more tightly integrate Web 2.0 activities into the browser. The first of these, which I happen to like very much is Web Slices. Essentially, a Web Slice is like a graphically enhanced RSS feed, or a frequently updated portion of a page, cleverly coded, so you can preview that portion of that page without actually surfing to said page.



So, for example, the above picture shows a small 'slice' of the StumbleUpon homepage (the 'internet buzz' section) without having you to surf over to StumbleUpon to check out what has recently been 'stumbled'. Quite intuitive. You could also cut a 'slice' of your Facebook homepage and have it update you on your friends' latest updates.

The second key feature is what Microsoft calls Activities. What it really means is "stuff you can do from the right click menu." Okay, so actually this feature isn't really new and you can already do many things off a right-click with the appropriate plugins in FireFox and / or Flock. And to be honest, most of the couple of Activites in Microsoft's current line-up are just boring stuff tied to their services which no one uses (Blog on Spaces anyone?) There are useful ones, like "Share link via Facebook", which lets you instantly share the page you're on by posting it up on your Facebook page.



But still, I applaud the inclusion of functionality like Activities into Internet Explorer 8 simply because it validates the shifting of the web towards iteration 2.0. It validates what all of Microsoft's competitors have been doing. Who are we kidding? Internet Explorer will probably still be the web browser the majority of people will use because it's the one they find installed on their PCs. And by integrating Web 2.0 functionality into IE8, soon web-behaviour will shift towards the Web 2.0 dream the geeks and geekettes have been having.

Future of the browser

It's clear that the new frontier for war on the browser front will be waged on how well web-browsers can integrate Web 2.0 functionality. Each combatant manages this differently. Firefox gives you very base functionality, but has a fantastic plug-in system that let's you customise almost indefiitely. IE8's slices and activities show's some innovative thinking from the software giant. Flock tells me too much of a good thing can be bad.

What people will soon have to consider though is how much more heavy these browsers will be thanks to this new functionalities. I've heard horror stories of FireFox 3, and even the latest release candidate 2 is considered bloatware by many. To the uninitiated, this simply means that your computer slows down every time you open up an internet browser. The more it slows down, the "heavier" your browser is.

Secondly, most of these "social" browsers will collect private and personal information about you and insist that it's stored on your computer. Of course, you have the option of keying in all the passwords to your GMail, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Blogger, Del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, MSNLive, and Yahoo! accounts again if you like. But I suspect not very many people would. The danger in this is obvious, as we pander for the convenience having a socially-integrated web browser brings, we put ourselves at the risk of having much of our security information stolen. Sure, it's already happening now with saved passwords and cookies, but imagine a single browser piecing together your multiple identities on the web and then having all that data stolen? Even more dangerous, how about passing your laptop to a colleague to use and when he / she pops open the browser, he / she gets greeted by some very private Facebook messages?

Thirdly, with the rise of mobile devices, more and more emphasis will be placed on the "content" of the site and not the webpage itself. Sure, the browser will be relevant for a long time coming, but what about those mobile devices that basically let you browse what you want on the web without having to actually browse? For example, my client Nokia, has been developing some pretty cool S60 apps like Share Online which allows you to check out and comment on your own or your contacts Flickr photos without actually logging onto Flickr through a browser. Or Twibble, which I use as my main means of staying connected to Twitter without actually browsing over to Twitter. In fact, a lot of the integration of Web 2.0 functionality straight into the browser actually helps you get around actually "browsing" the page.

Just some thoughts to think about as we move into the next wave of Internetting. :)

Operating System evolution: next up, Windows 7?

Recently, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer used the D conference to preview Windows 7 (the next OS after Vista). Have a look:



I feel like I'm a little bit more qualified to talk about operating systems now that I have an Eee that runs Ubuntu. After living thru six iterations of Windows (3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP and now Vista), Ubuntu was pretty much a schooling in terms of the philosophy of operating systems.

The thing I love about Ubuntu is that almost everything outside the core kernel (the central bit of code runs the system), everything else is a component. You can choose between GNOME, KDE or XFCE depending on what you like to see on your desktop. You can add a "dock" a la Mac OS, or a sidebar a la Windows Vista. You can choose to have multiple virtual desktops, or not. You can customise your OS to be as lean or as bloated as your want it.

And this is only in terms of the interface.

On the flipside, the problem with Vista was probably that it was designed in a time where the emphasis was on pretty graphics, and cool, clickable "things" on your desktop. 98, ME and XP before it was about integrating functionality (like tying Internet Explorer to your operating system) and making everything one bloated piece of work. The worst thing is, since everything is so integrated, you could turn off some stuff, but you could never really make it run as lean as a Linux machine.

So imagine how interesting it is for me to read that Mr. Gates and Mr. Ballmer are now claiming that Windows 7 will be lighter, faster, and more componentized.

More componentized you say? Like, I could pick and choose the bits and pieces of OS I'd like to have installed? Is Microsoft finally seeing the errors of it's bloatware ways and going the way of the open source community?

From the video, I'm not so sure. Still, at least it looks like we'll get to choose between a Touch version and a non-touch one. Too bad I'm not a fan of finger-printing my screen.

Holo-Bill a let down

We were promised a special appearance by Microsoft's Bill Gates at WCIT 2008 via special holographic appearance. Unfortunately, the fine print failed to mention the word 'Live.' Thus, we were treated to a corporate video shot in holo-technology with a canned speech from holo-Bill. Here are some stills only, video was a bit too dark:





Nevertheless, the audience was consoled with a somewhat updated video of Microsoft's Surface technology, which we are no doubt starting to see the point of. It looks like it'll make use of Near Field Communication (NFC) to transfer data and content from Surface to devices. Have a look:

Bill Gates quits Facebook, should you too?

Just a couple of months after splashing US$ 240 million on Facebook shares, Bill Gates has decided to abandon his personal Facebook account.

The reason? 8,000 friend requests a day and no way to bulk accept, set "limited profile" and "Skip this step" all of them at one go. If you take (internet connection speed-permitting) 10 seconds to add one friend, Bill'll spend nearly a day (22.22 hours) just to accept those 8,000 friends. And there's plenty more where that came from, you can be sure.

We've probably come to a cross-roads, then, as far as social networking is concerned. With MSNBC reporting Myspace users are spending 14% less time on the social network this month, it seems social networks as we know it now need a drastic re-design to keep people on them.

I'm sure some interface re-designing will help, but I also think we're ready for the next big social network after Friendster, MySpace and Facebook have all had their day.

I'm wishing Social Network 3.0 will be an open platform that's seamless across all my devices (meaning PDA, mobile device, desktop and laptop). Something that's a bit of Microsoft Outlook mashed up with Facebook where with a single update to my contacts in Outlook whilst at work, I can easily sync up with that same address book at home and on my N95.

I know this sounds a bit like Open Social, but I think it should go beyond the web and onto the applications you use everyday (Thunderbird, this could be a great opp to one-up Microsoft!). It's kind of how Flock integrates the web-browser with Facebook, Flickr and all your favourite Social Networking sites, only with a much, much higher level of integration.

Next, it'd be great if I could easily arrange people into groups, so only contacts I actually know will show up on my phonebook or email list whilst the "rest of the world" "friends" are kept on a "social only" page - on my desktop, laptop, PDA and mobile device. Perhaps make a work version and "life" version of virtual desktops to suit the time so different views appear at different times and switching is seamless at the click of a button.

Finally, can we just have ONE social network for everyone to be on? Or at least, have OpenID and Open Social succeed to the extent where we can be on different networks, but I'll have all the same connections to my friends regardless of social network, offline client, or platform (desktop, laptop, mobile device).

So, maybe this is why Microsoft splashed US$240 million for...So Facebook could integrate with MS Outlook? It's possible.

To Microsoft: forget Yahoo! and buy Motorola's handset division

This post is inspired by this post. See this cartoon.

So Yahoo decides to play wait-and-see with Microsoft, rejecting the initial offer and waiting for US$40 per share. Meantime, the Redmond money men must be calculating if that amount of money is worth spending for a company with so many similar technology assets.

Here, I present, another acquisition option: Motorola! Well, it's handset division.

Moto's all but hinted that they've thrown in the towel in the mobile phone industry and are "exploring ways" to accelerate the recovery of its handset business. Most analysts are reading this as "please buy us out."

And so the names have been spun around - LG could chomp and instantly make itself number 3 in this market. So could Samsung or even Huawei. My take is... what about Microsoft?

Sure, Microsoft can make great devices. Witness the XBOX 360 and all the Microsoft Mice and Keyboards. But it can just as easily flop (Zune?). Purchasing Motorola would give MS a leg into the mobile space and put it smack dab into the centre of the convergence space - internet + computers + mobile.

Serious.

The one thing that Motorola has consistently been unable to get right has been its operating system. In fact, personally, I think the best Moto phones are those that ship with Windows Mobile 6, which (surprise surprise), is a Microsoft product.

Services is the other thing that Motorola haven't really communicated a gameplan on. Microsoft does services. Doesn't take a genius to put two-and-two together.

The only problem would be integrating a hardware division into Microsoft. But, it's not like this something that Microsoft hasn't gone and done before. Moto's handphone division could still continue operating independently whilst integration could take a step by step process.

The bottomline is, MS has money to spend. Yahoo's probably a fair acquisition. But, in my books, Motorola's handset business looks prime.

Microsoft / Yahoo - it's about the users

The Micro-hoo deal has been talked to death, but it does raise an interesting point on the direction that these big tech companies are heading at the moment, which is perhaps indicative of the overall trend.

Every big tech company seems to be converging into a space that's going to be about software + hardware + internet + search + advertising. And advertising seems to be the most important area for all these companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google (yes, throw in Apple and Nokia too) to get their act together.

Gone are the days when Microsoft was all about DOS or Windows. Today, think XBOX and the Windows Live services. Similarly Google isn't just search anymore, but nifty tricksy apps like Google Maps and Google Apps. We've not yet seen hardware from Google, but it's ANDROID project seems like a nod in that direction. Don't forget that Nokia has bought NavTEQ, launched OVI and is readying N-Gage whilst Apple's iTunes is still going places and .mac still survives.

Detractors have said that Microsoft already have its share of web products and buying Yahoo would create conflict and confusion. Yet, the Microsoft-Yahoo deal sounds like perfect sense to me. Because whilst techology, products and company assets are the big and obvious factors (see other deals), this deal highlights an asset that's often overlooked and which is painfully important - users.

Yes, it's obvious that Microsoft have loads of competing products in the same space as Yahoo - think Yahoo! Messenger vs. the Windows Live Messenger, Hotmail vs. Yahoo!Mail, Yahoo! 360 vs. Windows Live Spaces (does anyone use this anymore?) and the loads of other social networking tools and net apps available.

But the real dealmaker behind this deal is not the apps or services or technology (though there might be some of that in there somewhere), it's the user-base that Yahoo! has amassed that's making this deal so attractive.

A cursory web-trawl didn't help me find any numbers for this but anectdotally, virtually everyone I speak to has used a Yahoo! service at one point or another and most are still actively using them.

But won't users jump ship post acquisition?

Granted, users can even jump ship pre-acquisition. Or just about whenever. But the fact that Yahoo! has maintained a relatively steady visibility and user-base (even after Google's Meteoric rise, and let's face it, Yahoo apps aren't half-bad), indicates to me that users will more likely stay (especially if I've got all my lovely photos uploaded on my Flickr pro account).

Also the trend towards open social networks, means users are more and more looking or interoperability from the networks, services and apps they use and probably won't mind the merging of competing Microsoft - Yahoo services into one app (like finally collapsing Hotmail into Yahoo! Mail.)
Why users, though?
Because users translate into revenue in terms of an advertising sense, and that's really what its about isn't it, really?

I think the Microsoft-Yahoo! deal will shed more light on what the future will become (on the convergence track) and how deals are made. If technology was the Number 1 asset previously, it's time for companies to take stock and look at how they can acquire users instead of just technology.

Your next ad agency - Google?

*Disclosure - I work for Text 100 on the Nokia account. This blog posting is purely my viewpoint, taken from my knowledge of the industry, without any confidential information.*

"There's money to be made in online advertising," - [random internet company exec]

There was an interesting article today in The Business Times (yes, I read NST) about how Google was seeing a real rosy future in mobile phone advertising. (read it here) Well, this isn't exactly new news per se, but I just really liked the article as it presented a real concise picture of the next step in the convergence of mobility, communications, technology, services and content.

You see, the first problem companies really had with the internet was how to monetize it. Why? Because the internet is used mainly by a bunch of freeloaders who expect and want everything to be free. Yet, even if you're generating be best content in the world, the moment you ask people to pay for it online, you can expect your readership, listenership or viewership to drop to about 10% of what you've got. Wonder how many people would watch YouTube if you had to pay US$1.00 per clip? Uh-huh.

So, advertising has been the way forward for making money on the Internet, and this one company, Google, has gotten pretty good at it. Indeed, when the then leader Yahoo! was floundering, along came Google with AdSense and voila! we discovered the first truly workable internet advertising model. Of course, it helped that AdSense was really Web 2.0-savvy (simple bloggers could just add AdSense and make money) and the blogosphere was in the middle of its boom.

So now, as we're moving on to the next great phase of technology - the mobile internet - it suddenly makes sense that Google would want in on bringing advertising to the fourth screen - your mobile phone (or device or multimedia computer). Tom Merritt once said on Buzz Out Loud (though I forget which episode), that "Google's goal is to advertise to you wherever you are with whatever means possible." Fantastic plan, actually.

However, Google's probably not the only one moving in this direction this time. Microsoft, via its Live services hopes to attract a couple of eyeballs and sell some advertising as well. Yahoo! is shaping up its own internet advertising offering. Both have solid partnerships with handset manufacturers and are developing application suites that may (and I am heavily speculating here) include advertising in the future. Nokia (and this I know for a fact) has already acquired mobile advertising firm Enpocket and a bunch of other services companies like Twango, and more recently Navteq - so you can expect some innovative new ideas on advertising soon. Do you think Apple might consider moving into advertising too?

So here's the big picture, you now have several big companies steeped in devices, software, or services, all moving towards one zone of competition - advertising. As the internet becomes a more powerful medium, this little niche in advertising may one day become the mainstream mode of reaching people (if it hasn't already). What, then, do you call companies like Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and Nokia? Ad agencies?