HTML5: An Introduction To Next Generation Web Development
Posted by Tilak in HTML5, Mobile Phones, Web Innovations on March 12, 2012 1:16 am
I was just going through my ‘Documents’ folder and I found an old presentation I gave about HTML5 mid-last year at NASA. I’d like to think it’s a pretty comprehensive introduction. The target audience should have an understanding of web development, javascript, and previous standards of HTML. The presentation contains a brief background on the language and an overview of the most popular features. Features covered include native audio/video support, geolocation, canvas, drawing API, web forms 2.0, drag and drop, and more. Also covered is backwards compatibility and section 508 compliance. Extras include polyfills, modernizr, and a brief introduction to CSS3.
Posted by Tilak in HTML5, Mobile Phones, Web Innovations on March 12, 2012 1:16 am
I was just going through my ‘Documents’ folder and I found an old presentation I gave about HTML5 mid-last year at NASA. I’d like to think it’s a pretty comprehensive introduction. The target audience should have an understanding of web development, javascript, and previous standards of HTML. The presentation contains a brief background on the language and an overview of the most popular features. Features covered include native audio/video support, geolocation, canvas, drawing API, web forms 2.0, drag and drop, and more. Also covered is backwards compatibility and section 508 compliance. Extras include polyfills, modernizr, and a brief introduction to CSS3.
Pinterest: A ‘Niche Social Network’ Success Story
Posted by Tilak in Niche Marketing, social media, Social Networks on January 9, 2012 10:20 pm
Last June, my fiancé discovered Pinterest: a new social networking site where you pin images of things you like for others to see. It’s a sharing site for clothes, quotes, pictures, cooking, decoration, weddings, etc. By the end of that week, her sister and mom were both on Pinterest. Soon after, my mom followed. Six months later, in December 2011, the total unique visits hit 11 million. It grew 4000% in just 6 months. If you haven’t heard of it, ask any girl you know. Chances are, she’s heard of it!
Why? Well, Pinterest, whether intentional or not, has content that caters to a niche: women. The content on the site is dominated by images featuring home décor, crafts, fashion, and food. Although there are no limitations on what you can upload, because the site is dominated by a certain theme of content, it attracts a certain demographic. According to the marketing intelligence firm: Hitwise, visitors to the site in the 12 rolling weeks ending December 17th skewed female (58%) and between the ages of 25 and 44 (59%). The concept is simple. Like Facebook, Twitter, or Digg, you upload/share something you like, and other people can ‘re-pin’ it and/or comment on it. So why did Pinterest break through to the mainstream? If the capabilities are not much more than Facebook, Twitter, and thousands of other competitors, how did Pinterest make it into the 10 most visited social networks? The answer is simple: the content targeted a niche.
Niche content breeds an environment of exclusivity, privacy, and a sense of community. Supported by the ‘Social Identity Theory‘ in sociology, and the popular marketing strategies of ‘exclusivity’ and ‘scarcity’, Pinterest, intentionally or unintentionally, appeals to the niche market of women. Derived desirability from the niche market and the power of word-of-mouth marketing makes Pinterest a haven for women to share. Women tell their friends of Pinterest, their friends visit Pinterest, see something they like, become users, then spread the word to their friends. Pinterest has become a community housing the interests of women. And looking forward, when Pinterest inevitably initiates an advertisement-based business model, the refined majority demographic will attract exclusive advertisers targeting women.
As the market for social networks begins to get saturated, niche networks like Pinterest will begin to prevail. Social networks adding value to a niche are perfect candidates for word-of-mouth marketing. Supported by Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point: with a high ‘stickiness factor’ and context within the demographic, a few powerful connectors and salesmen can turn the social network into a social epidemic. Complimented with advertisers seeking niche marketing, these networks will have a sustaining revenue base. Pinterest is one of the first niche social network successes, and as the market matures, and the demand for niche social networks rises, it will be considered a pioneer in its industry.
Posted by Tilak in Niche Marketing, social media, Social Networks on January 9, 2012 10:20 pm
Last June, my fiancé discovered Pinterest: a new social networking site where you pin images of things you like for others to see. It’s a sharing site for clothes, quotes, pictures, cooking, decoration, weddings, etc. By the end of that week, her sister and mom were both on Pinterest. Soon after, my mom followed. Six months later, in December 2011, the total unique visits hit 11 million. It grew 4000% in just 6 months. If you haven’t heard of it, ask any girl you know. Chances are, she’s heard of it!
Why? Well, Pinterest, whether intentional or not, has content that caters to a niche: women. The content on the site is dominated by images featuring home décor, crafts, fashion, and food. Although there are no limitations on what you can upload, because the site is dominated by a certain theme of content, it attracts a certain demographic. According to the marketing intelligence firm: Hitwise, visitors to the site in the 12 rolling weeks ending December 17th skewed female (58%) and between the ages of 25 and 44 (59%). The concept is simple. Like Facebook, Twitter, or Digg, you upload/share something you like, and other people can ‘re-pin’ it and/or comment on it. So why did Pinterest break through to the mainstream? If the capabilities are not much more than Facebook, Twitter, and thousands of other competitors, how did Pinterest make it into the 10 most visited social networks? The answer is simple: the content targeted a niche.
Niche content breeds an environment of exclusivity, privacy, and a sense of community. Supported by the ‘Social Identity Theory‘ in sociology, and the popular marketing strategies of ‘exclusivity’ and ‘scarcity’, Pinterest, intentionally or unintentionally, appeals to the niche market of women. Derived desirability from the niche market and the power of word-of-mouth marketing makes Pinterest a haven for women to share. Women tell their friends of Pinterest, their friends visit Pinterest, see something they like, become users, then spread the word to their friends. Pinterest has become a community housing the interests of women. And looking forward, when Pinterest inevitably initiates an advertisement-based business model, the refined majority demographic will attract exclusive advertisers targeting women.
As the market for social networks begins to get saturated, niche networks like Pinterest will begin to prevail. Social networks adding value to a niche are perfect candidates for word-of-mouth marketing. Supported by Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point: with a high ‘stickiness factor’ and context within the demographic, a few powerful connectors and salesmen can turn the social network into a social epidemic. Complimented with advertisers seeking niche marketing, these networks will have a sustaining revenue base. Pinterest is one of the first niche social network successes, and as the market matures, and the demand for niche social networks rises, it will be considered a pioneer in its industry.
What SOPA Teaches Us About Social Media and Politics
Posted by Tilak in Political Campaign, social media, SOPA, Twitter on January 4, 2012 1:45 pm
The online censorship act, otherwise known as the ‘Stop Online Piracy Act’ (SOPA), intends to provide authority to the Department of Justice (DoJ), to mandate removal of websites engaging in activities deemed as primarily infringement related. This is the first government legislation of this nature and has technology heavyweights and industry experts headlining the opposition.
The bill would allow the DoJ to force DNS providers to block domains, mandate removal from search engines, and force removal from social networking sites based on loosely defined criteria. Without specific predefined guidelines, this bill would allow subjective censorship of the Internet by the government. SOPA gives the government the power to censor the Internet: 1984, Clockwork Orange … the modern day United States? Not if we can help it! Internet heavyweights Google, Facebook, Twitter, the founders of Twitter and Square, founders of YouTube, and many more are in vehement defense of the first amendment and in opposition of the first bill to censor the internet. Twitter buzz from industry experts like Fred Wilson, Anil Dash, Vivek Wadhwa, Michael Arrington, and more, has spread the word throughout the technology community, but has yet to reach the doors of Congress. With hundreds of thousands of tweets against #SOPA, numerous blog posts, and online boycotting of SOPA supporters (like GoDaddy) one would expect a much larger-scale impact.
The surprising truth is that these rumblings go largely unheard on Capital Hill. Even with significant efforts to close the gap, the technology gap between the private and public sector still exists. Current efforts to bring Congress online, although thorough, are very limiting in requiring constituents’ to communicate solely via government-run websites. One of the major issues is that online communication cannot be contained on Congress websites. Communication currently circulates via all major social networks, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google+. There is limited effort, by Congress, to engage on government legislation issues via social networking sites. Engaging via social media or a ‘social networking customer service’ model, that is becoming prevalent in private organizations, is still largely missing in government. There are some pioneers in government like the White House, and select politicians (i.e. Bloomberg) that are bridging the technology gap by engaging via social networking websites, but the majority of politicians and Congress remain unaware.
Another major contributor to the communication gap between the Internet and Congress is the lack of constituency statistics. Because most incumbent politicians only recognize feedback from constituents, and location information is not always readily available in many forms of social media, politicians are unsure of whether any buzz they hear is from their constituents. This exacerbates the ongoing issue with unheard opposition to SOPA.
As the culture continues to change and communication continues to gravitate towards social networking sites, government engagement via social networks with the intent of gauging public/constituent opinion on legislation and political issues will inevitably become a standard practice. Until this happens, however, alternate methods of communication need to be applied to communicate with the respective incumbents.
Image Source: Information Diet
Posted by Tilak in Political Campaign, social media, SOPA, Twitter on January 4, 2012 1:45 pm
The online censorship act, otherwise known as the ‘Stop Online Piracy Act’ (SOPA), intends to provide authority to the Department of Justice (DoJ), to mandate removal of websites engaging in activities deemed as primarily infringement related. This is the first government legislation of this nature and has technology heavyweights and industry experts headlining the opposition.
The bill would allow the DoJ to force DNS providers to block domains, mandate removal from search engines, and force removal from social networking sites based on loosely defined criteria. Without specific predefined guidelines, this bill would allow subjective censorship of the Internet by the government. SOPA gives the government the power to censor the Internet: 1984, Clockwork Orange … the modern day United States? Not if we can help it! Internet heavyweights Google, Facebook, Twitter, the founders of Twitter and Square, founders of YouTube, and many more are in vehement defense of the first amendment and in opposition of the first bill to censor the internet. Twitter buzz from industry experts like Fred Wilson, Anil Dash, Vivek Wadhwa, Michael Arrington, and more, has spread the word throughout the technology community, but has yet to reach the doors of Congress. With hundreds of thousands of tweets against #SOPA, numerous blog posts, and online boycotting of SOPA supporters (like GoDaddy) one would expect a much larger-scale impact.
The surprising truth is that these rumblings go largely unheard on Capital Hill. Even with significant efforts to close the gap, the technology gap between the private and public sector still exists. Current efforts to bring Congress online, although thorough, are very limiting in requiring constituents’ to communicate solely via government-run websites. One of the major issues is that online communication cannot be contained on Congress websites. Communication currently circulates via all major social networks, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google+. There is limited effort, by Congress, to engage on government legislation issues via social networking sites. Engaging via social media or a ‘social networking customer service’ model, that is becoming prevalent in private organizations, is still largely missing in government. There are some pioneers in government like the White House, and select politicians (i.e. Bloomberg) that are bridging the technology gap by engaging via social networking websites, but the majority of politicians and Congress remain unaware.
Another major contributor to the communication gap between the Internet and Congress is the lack of constituency statistics. Because most incumbent politicians only recognize feedback from constituents, and location information is not always readily available in many forms of social media, politicians are unsure of whether any buzz they hear is from their constituents. This exacerbates the ongoing issue with unheard opposition to SOPA.
As the culture continues to change and communication continues to gravitate towards social networking sites, government engagement via social networks with the intent of gauging public/constituent opinion on legislation and political issues will inevitably become a standard practice. Until this happens, however, alternate methods of communication need to be applied to communicate with the respective incumbents.
Image Source: Information Diet
CNN Black In America 4 Review
Posted by Tilak in Black In America, Diversity In Media, Twitter on November 17, 2011 3:42 pm
The controversial, highly anticipated, race-driven, Silicon Valley CNN special, Black In America 4, hosted by Soledad O’Brien, aired Sunday evening providing a climax to the diversity debates and accusations that flooded the Twittersphere and Blogosphere over the past few weeks. Having closely followed the race debates since the release of my now popularized write-up of the firestorm that took place on Twitter a few weeks ago, it is difficult to ignore disappointment with the supposedly climactic CNN documentary. Though there were dashes of enlightenment and brief moments of truth, the majority of the final product was overshadowed with dramatics and manufactured controversy.
Prior to delving into the heavily biased editing of the documentary and the journalistic irresponsibility of CNN, I do want to highlight some brief moments of truth and enlightenment. The documentary provides aspiring entrepreneurs with an insider perspective of Silicon Valley: the stress, the struggle, the pitch, the competitiveness, and the intimidation. The cutthroat nature of the industry is presented effectively. The documentary rightfully demonstrates lessons of practice and teamwork as pivotal to success as an entrepreneur. In addition to providing a structured glimpse into Silicon Valley, the documentary also introduces a wide range of entrepreneurial personalities, from down-to-earth and likeable (Wayne Sutton), to focused and sometimes abrasive (Angela Benton). Succeeding as a guide to aspiring entrepreneurs on what to expect and how to prepare for the transition between bootstrapping and Series A, the documentary revives some credibility lost from its diverted focus on theatrics.
An irritating motif of the documentary is the vilification of influential figures in Silicon Valley. A major difficulty in critiquing such a controversial documentary is the assumed disagreement to the journalist’s perspective. I want to make clear that I am not debating the validity of racism and discrimination in Silicon Valley, but am rather critiquing its presentation in the proposed documentary. The narrative of the documentary presents Silicon Valley as a “no man’s land” for minorities and women with reigning bigotry from some of the most influential figures in the industry. Soundbites like “I don’t know a single black entrepreneur” and “I don’t even know where to find those people” taken from Michael Arrington and Ron Conway respectively, are used largely out of context. With the former quote, it is not apparent, until reading Arrington’s “Uncrunched” blog, that his words are taken out of context. Per Arrington’s perspective, he was unaware of the subject matter of the interview, and therefore, was reliant on memory, at best, while on the hot seat. And during the interview, when the question is relayed back to the host, she is identically unable to answer, even though ironically, she is aware of the subject matter of the interview and contrarily, had an opportunity to conduct any due diligence required. Further cementing Arrington’s argument, once the opportunity availed to conduct due diligence, Arrington was able to name African American entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. Alternatively, with regard to the latter quote taken from Ron Conway, it becomes apparent within the documentary that his words are taken out of context. His usage of the pronoun “those people” references individuals outside the exclusive entrepreneurial networks that define Silicon Valley, rather than any specific demographic. I am a firm believer that levels of racism and discrimination are present in nearly every industry in the US, but attribute much of the vilification in the documentary to the editing staff and well-placed soundbites.
Silicon Valley remains a relatively new industry, and because the quantity of minority applicants is significantly lower than their counterparts, a one to one comparison cannot yet be made. It becomes difficult to measure a statistically significant diversity gap that can be compared to other industries. There are no references to these limitations and uncertainties in the documentary. In the documentary, of the 8 young African American entrepreneurs selected to make pitches, (Spoiler Alert!) 2 actually get funding for their projects: Hank Williams for Kloud.co and Pius Uzamere for BeCouply. This is 25% of the selected sample. In failing to address limitations and uncertainties of this statistic, the conclusion the documentary implies is very misleading. This statistic, ironically, dismisses any accusations of discrimination in Silicon Valley because it exceeds the 18% counterpart for the general sample (regardless of ethnicity or gender). However, in reality, there are very few minority founders and CEOs in Silicon Valley. Instead of pressing focus on statistical inadequacy and causes and resolutions, the documentary focuses on catharsis and dramatics.
One major issue prohibiting minorities in Silicon Valley are the exclusive entrepreneurial networks present. As Ron Conway attempts to relay, it is easier for VCs and investors in Silicon Valley to find entrepreneurs within these organizations and networks as they themselves associate with these organizations and networks. The cause of the diversity gap is in the demographic imbalance in these organizations. This does not necessarily make them discriminatory, but it does serve as a barrier to entry for minorities and women. As reputable minority-driven entrepreneurial networks emerge, and integrate with existing networks, this gap will significantly decrease. This is one of many issues. Unawareness in underprivileged communities of Silicon Valley as a path to success, encouragement from underprivileged communities to study STEM (Science Technology Engineering & Math), and access to enabling programs are a some of the other issues contributing to the diversity gap. Black In America 4 should have delved down into all of these issues. More focus should have been put on unawareness, incubators, and entrepreneurial organizations (for aspiring entrepreneurs to look towards for help). Instead of using the entirety of the special to manufacture a ‘good vs. evil’ theme, this public stage should have been used to address a wide range of problems and brought attention to possible solutions.
Given the reach and influence of the CNN documentary, it is the civic responsibility of CNN, journalists, and editing staff to elucidate all aspects of the diversity conflict in Silicon Valley and relay possible resolutions to these conflicts. Alternatively, CNN focuses more on theatrics, and declares absolute statements without providing biases, limitations, and uncertainties in their argument. Many major outlying issues affecting minorities in Silicon Valley are lost in the dramatics. As for the “silver lining”, the documentary did experience brief moments of success. Black In America 4 is an excellent source for those who want to learn more about entrepreneurship, pitching, and Silicon Valley. However, for those concerned about the diversity gap in Silicon Valley: the hurdles and the solutions, Black In America will leave you unsatisfied, at best.
Posted by Tilak in Black In America, Diversity In Media, Twitter on November 17, 2011 3:42 pm
The controversial, highly anticipated, race-driven, Silicon Valley CNN special, Black In America 4, hosted by Soledad O’Brien, aired Sunday evening providing a climax to the diversity debates and accusations that flooded the Twittersphere and Blogosphere over the past few weeks. Having closely followed the race debates since the release of my now popularized write-up of the firestorm that took place on Twitter a few weeks ago, it is difficult to ignore disappointment with the supposedly climactic CNN documentary. Though there were dashes of enlightenment and brief moments of truth, the majority of the final product was overshadowed with dramatics and manufactured controversy.
Prior to delving into the heavily biased editing of the documentary and the journalistic irresponsibility of CNN, I do want to highlight some brief moments of truth and enlightenment. The documentary provides aspiring entrepreneurs with an insider perspective of Silicon Valley: the stress, the struggle, the pitch, the competitiveness, and the intimidation. The cutthroat nature of the industry is presented effectively. The documentary rightfully demonstrates lessons of practice and teamwork as pivotal to success as an entrepreneur. In addition to providing a structured glimpse into Silicon Valley, the documentary also introduces a wide range of entrepreneurial personalities, from down-to-earth and likeable (Wayne Sutton), to focused and sometimes abrasive (Angela Benton). Succeeding as a guide to aspiring entrepreneurs on what to expect and how to prepare for the transition between bootstrapping and Series A, the documentary revives some credibility lost from its diverted focus on theatrics.
An irritating motif of the documentary is the vilification of influential figures in Silicon Valley. A major difficulty in critiquing such a controversial documentary is the assumed disagreement to the journalist’s perspective. I want to make clear that I am not debating the validity of racism and discrimination in Silicon Valley, but am rather critiquing its presentation in the proposed documentary. The narrative of the documentary presents Silicon Valley as a “no man’s land” for minorities and women with reigning bigotry from some of the most influential figures in the industry. Soundbites like “I don’t know a single black entrepreneur” and “I don’t even know where to find those people” taken from Michael Arrington and Ron Conway respectively, are used largely out of context. With the former quote, it is not apparent, until reading Arrington’s “Uncrunched” blog, that his words are taken out of context. Per Arrington’s perspective, he was unaware of the subject matter of the interview, and therefore, was reliant on memory, at best, while on the hot seat. And during the interview, when the question is relayed back to the host, she is identically unable to answer, even though ironically, she is aware of the subject matter of the interview and contrarily, had an opportunity to conduct any due diligence required. Further cementing Arrington’s argument, once the opportunity availed to conduct due diligence, Arrington was able to name African American entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. Alternatively, with regard to the latter quote taken from Ron Conway, it becomes apparent within the documentary that his words are taken out of context. His usage of the pronoun “those people” references individuals outside the exclusive entrepreneurial networks that define Silicon Valley, rather than any specific demographic. I am a firm believer that levels of racism and discrimination are present in nearly every industry in the US, but attribute much of the vilification in the documentary to the editing staff and well-placed soundbites.
Silicon Valley remains a relatively new industry, and because the quantity of minority applicants is significantly lower than their counterparts, a one to one comparison cannot yet be made. It becomes difficult to measure a statistically significant diversity gap that can be compared to other industries. There are no references to these limitations and uncertainties in the documentary. In the documentary, of the 8 young African American entrepreneurs selected to make pitches, (Spoiler Alert!) 2 actually get funding for their projects: Hank Williams for Kloud.co and Pius Uzamere for BeCouply. This is 25% of the selected sample. In failing to address limitations and uncertainties of this statistic, the conclusion the documentary implies is very misleading. This statistic, ironically, dismisses any accusations of discrimination in Silicon Valley because it exceeds the 18% counterpart for the general sample (regardless of ethnicity or gender). However, in reality, there are very few minority founders and CEOs in Silicon Valley. Instead of pressing focus on statistical inadequacy and causes and resolutions, the documentary focuses on catharsis and dramatics.
One major issue prohibiting minorities in Silicon Valley are the exclusive entrepreneurial networks present. As Ron Conway attempts to relay, it is easier for VCs and investors in Silicon Valley to find entrepreneurs within these organizations and networks as they themselves associate with these organizations and networks. The cause of the diversity gap is in the demographic imbalance in these organizations. This does not necessarily make them discriminatory, but it does serve as a barrier to entry for minorities and women. As reputable minority-driven entrepreneurial networks emerge, and integrate with existing networks, this gap will significantly decrease. This is one of many issues. Unawareness in underprivileged communities of Silicon Valley as a path to success, encouragement from underprivileged communities to study STEM (Science Technology Engineering & Math), and access to enabling programs are a some of the other issues contributing to the diversity gap. Black In America 4 should have delved down into all of these issues. More focus should have been put on unawareness, incubators, and entrepreneurial organizations (for aspiring entrepreneurs to look towards for help). Instead of using the entirety of the special to manufacture a ‘good vs. evil’ theme, this public stage should have been used to address a wide range of problems and brought attention to possible solutions.
Given the reach and influence of the CNN documentary, it is the civic responsibility of CNN, journalists, and editing staff to elucidate all aspects of the diversity conflict in Silicon Valley and relay possible resolutions to these conflicts. Alternatively, CNN focuses more on theatrics, and declares absolute statements without providing biases, limitations, and uncertainties in their argument. Many major outlying issues affecting minorities in Silicon Valley are lost in the dramatics. As for the “silver lining”, the documentary did experience brief moments of success. Black In America 4 is an excellent source for those who want to learn more about entrepreneurship, pitching, and Silicon Valley. However, for those concerned about the diversity gap in Silicon Valley: the hurdles and the solutions, Black In America will leave you unsatisfied, at best.
Is Google Losing Its Edge?
Posted by Tilak in Google, Web Innovations on November 8, 2011 8:38 pm
When you hear the word ‘Google‘, what do you think of? Search, Gmail, Maps, Android? or maybe innovation, trust, reliability? or is it … ‘do a barrel roll’? For many, it’s all of the above. Google has held the benchmark for technology innovation and is renowned as the creator of modern trends throughout the past decade. And with hit after hit since its origination in the late 90s, Google has gained our trust and made its way into our homes and our daily routines. We rely on Google. So when you start hearing bad press about new costs, unsuccessful redesigns, and failed launches, you begin to ask: “Is Google Losing Its Edge?”
Search “Google” in … well, Google, and you’ll see that over the past month, they have made significant changes to some of their products, resulting in extensive bad press:
The first being the redesign of Google Reader. In an attempt to save further market Google Plus, Google decided to integrate it with Reader. Reader is an RSS client and one of Google’s prior home-runs with a large user base. To the disappointment of many current users, this new release requires Google Reader users to also use Google Plus. Serving as a catalyst to this disappointment, the user interface redesign accompanying this release was poorly received and contributed to widespread dissatisfaction with the product.
Furthering their descent in the public eye, Google, soon after, announced plans to charge for Google Maps API beginning in 2012. The additional charges would only apply to those users that exceed 25,000 page views in a day. Although Google maintains that this change would affect only 0.35% of current users, the implications of this action will avert an exponentially higher number of users from using Google products. Google has, since its inception, offered free services, relying on their highly successful ad-based business model for revenue. A change in this business model signals a huge red flag to users and will, over time, result in a loss of trust.
As for Google’s third deadly sin in recent memory … Google dubiously made the front page of many publications last week with the failed release of the highly anticipated Gmail app for iPhone and iPad. After years of hesitation and delay, Google finally agreed to release a Gmail app for Apple phones and tablets just last Wednesday. Surprisingly, the product was so flawed, that within minutes, it had to be pulled from the Apple’s App Store. Newswires, the blogosphere, and the twittersphere were inflated with dissatisfied customers, bad press, and reevaluations of the mass public faith in Google.
These three events threaten Google’s, once untouchable, throne. Google committed the biggest crime of all, they failed to understand their users. The trust that serves as the foundation of the company has been shaken for many. Not only has Google failed to understand its users, but it changed its ‘free’ business model, and released a broken application. This is highly uncharacteristic of Google. How can you trust a company that you don’t recognize?
Overlooking disappointment in an attempt to understand, the decisions leading to these unfavorable events seem to be a product of the current technological climate. Technology is booming. Silicon Valley has recovered from the burst of the late 90s and is thriving. Innovation is blossoming and many competitors are rising. If there was ever a time for Google to be unsettled by competition, it is now. Google has made unsuccessful attempts to compete with Groupon (with Google Offers), Facebook (with Google Plus), and Twitter (with Google Buzz & Jaiku). Like any king evading an attack on his kingdom, Google is making moves. Unfortunately, “haste” and “reckless” have defined many of these movements.
With a reputation built on fine-tuned, vigorously tested, high quality products (with alpha releases of products into, the now discontinued, Google Labs and multi-year betas), a slip-up of this caliber is unacceptable. Whether this is a result of constrained timelines to stay agile, or lack of control in management, this is unacceptable for a reliable household brand. Google is big enough to absorb all the recent bad press, but what they should be worried about is the direction they are heading in. The innovation and finesse that once described Google is beginning to fade. Google has been the most consistent performer in Silicon Valley over the past decade but recent times make you wonder.
Posted by Tilak in Google, Web Innovations on November 8, 2011 8:38 pm
When you hear the word ‘Google‘, what do you think of? Search, Gmail, Maps, Android? or maybe innovation, trust, reliability? or is it … ‘do a barrel roll’? For many, it’s all of the above. Google has held the benchmark for technology innovation and is renowned as the creator of modern trends throughout the past decade. And with hit after hit since its origination in the late 90s, Google has gained our trust and made its way into our homes and our daily routines. We rely on Google. So when you start hearing bad press about new costs, unsuccessful redesigns, and failed launches, you begin to ask: “Is Google Losing Its Edge?”
Search “Google” in … well, Google, and you’ll see that over the past month, they have made significant changes to some of their products, resulting in extensive bad press:
The first being the redesign of Google Reader. In an attempt to save further market Google Plus, Google decided to integrate it with Reader. Reader is an RSS client and one of Google’s prior home-runs with a large user base. To the disappointment of many current users, this new release requires Google Reader users to also use Google Plus. Serving as a catalyst to this disappointment, the user interface redesign accompanying this release was poorly received and contributed to widespread dissatisfaction with the product.
Furthering their descent in the public eye, Google, soon after, announced plans to charge for Google Maps API beginning in 2012. The additional charges would only apply to those users that exceed 25,000 page views in a day. Although Google maintains that this change would affect only 0.35% of current users, the implications of this action will avert an exponentially higher number of users from using Google products. Google has, since its inception, offered free services, relying on their highly successful ad-based business model for revenue. A change in this business model signals a huge red flag to users and will, over time, result in a loss of trust.
As for Google’s third deadly sin in recent memory … Google dubiously made the front page of many publications last week with the failed release of the highly anticipated Gmail app for iPhone and iPad. After years of hesitation and delay, Google finally agreed to release a Gmail app for Apple phones and tablets just last Wednesday. Surprisingly, the product was so flawed, that within minutes, it had to be pulled from the Apple’s App Store. Newswires, the blogosphere, and the twittersphere were inflated with dissatisfied customers, bad press, and reevaluations of the mass public faith in Google.
These three events threaten Google’s, once untouchable, throne. Google committed the biggest crime of all, they failed to understand their users. The trust that serves as the foundation of the company has been shaken for many. Not only has Google failed to understand its users, but it changed its ‘free’ business model, and released a broken application. This is highly uncharacteristic of Google. How can you trust a company that you don’t recognize?
Overlooking disappointment in an attempt to understand, the decisions leading to these unfavorable events seem to be a product of the current technological climate. Technology is booming. Silicon Valley has recovered from the burst of the late 90s and is thriving. Innovation is blossoming and many competitors are rising. If there was ever a time for Google to be unsettled by competition, it is now. Google has made unsuccessful attempts to compete with Groupon (with Google Offers), Facebook (with Google Plus), and Twitter (with Google Buzz & Jaiku). Like any king evading an attack on his kingdom, Google is making moves. Unfortunately, “haste” and “reckless” have defined many of these movements.
With a reputation built on fine-tuned, vigorously tested, high quality products (with alpha releases of products into, the now discontinued, Google Labs and multi-year betas), a slip-up of this caliber is unacceptable. Whether this is a result of constrained timelines to stay agile, or lack of control in management, this is unacceptable for a reliable household brand. Google is big enough to absorb all the recent bad press, but what they should be worried about is the direction they are heading in. The innovation and finesse that once described Google is beginning to fade. Google has been the most consistent performer in Silicon Valley over the past decade but recent times make you wonder.
Race Fueled Twitter Showdown: @Wadhwa, @AnilDash, and @Arrington
Posted by Tilak in social media, Twitter on October 27, 2011 4:19 am
Earlier this evening, there was a race fueled showdown on Twitter, primary participants included industry goliaths Vivek Wadhwa (@wadhwa), Anil Dash (@anildash), and Michael Arrington (@arrington). The events were initially incited by journalist @lyneka‘s coverage of the #blackinamerica panel held in Silicon Valley (SV). The focus of the panel was minority under-representation in Silicon Valley. During the debate, @lyneka tweeted “I’m interested in @arrington‘s opinion of the Indian guy [Wadhwa] that says ‘get the white guy’ at Stanford to sell your idea to SV”. This request for an opinion erupted into a heated, multi-hundred-tweet-filled, mass-represented, full-on showdown.
@Arrington denied accusations of inequality in Silicon Valley and took a stance of meritocracy instead. @Wadhwa quickly rebutted with facts about the percentage of minorities and women holding positions as tech CEOs and drew comparisons from the past thirty years to now. A few minutes later, amongst facts, accusations, rebuttals, and profanities were thrown into the mix by all parties. The rapid-fire tweets set the tone for a classic Las Vegas fight night, very reminiscent of MGM Grand in the Tyson days. Crowd feedback roared as sidelined entrepreneurs and spectators started throwing in their “two cents.” Fierce punches were thrown, including words like “Racist”,”Bigot”,”Bullshit”, and “Ignorance”. Just as the civility reached the bare minimum, @anildash entered the scene.
Bringing something unseen in the rantings of the initial two parties, tact, @anildash approached the situation with the intent to gracefully difuse it. Kindly disagreeing with @arrington, and very discreetly agreeing with @wadhwa, @anildash advocated for acceptance of the existence of inequality in Silicon Valley while dismissing @arrington‘s defensive behavior as instinctual. He then furthermore encouraged discussions to broaden understanding. Amidst this calming, a final blow was thrown. This time by @mona, an entrepreneur on the sidelines, who had at some point embraced, as an opportunity, the fact that women are asked for ‘propositioned favors’ upon seeking Venture Capital funding. Immediate dismissal of these statements ensued by both @wadhwa and @anildash. Finally bringing the showdown to an end, @arrington agreed to followup with @anildash offline, @lyneka tweeted kind words about @wadhwa, and @mona realized the severity of her public gaffe and masked it with sarcasm.
Aside from the fact that this showdown was largely entertaining, there are some lessons to be learned. The first being @anildash has read How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. The second is that minorities still have a hard time breaking into Silicon Valley, even though there are folks out there advocating for the up-and-coming entrepreneurs. As most entrepreneurs already know, being aware is the first step in inciting change, so please be aware of possible roadblocks for minorities, and try to take initiative where ever you see fit (including watching the #BlackInAmerica documentary on CNN).
Follow me on twitter: @tilak_joshi
Posted by Tilak in social media, Twitter on October 27, 2011 4:19 am
Earlier this evening, there was a race fueled showdown on Twitter, primary participants included industry goliaths Vivek Wadhwa (@wadhwa), Anil Dash (@anildash), and Michael Arrington (@arrington). The events were initially incited by journalist @lyneka‘s coverage of the #blackinamerica panel held in Silicon Valley (SV). The focus of the panel was minority under-representation in Silicon Valley. During the debate, @lyneka tweeted “I’m interested in @arrington‘s opinion of the Indian guy [Wadhwa] that says ‘get the white guy’ at Stanford to sell your idea to SV”. This request for an opinion erupted into a heated, multi-hundred-tweet-filled, mass-represented, full-on showdown.
@Arrington denied accusations of inequality in Silicon Valley and took a stance of meritocracy instead. @Wadhwa quickly rebutted with facts about the percentage of minorities and women holding positions as tech CEOs and drew comparisons from the past thirty years to now. A few minutes later, amongst facts, accusations, rebuttals, and profanities were thrown into the mix by all parties. The rapid-fire tweets set the tone for a classic Las Vegas fight night, very reminiscent of MGM Grand in the Tyson days. Crowd feedback roared as sidelined entrepreneurs and spectators started throwing in their “two cents.” Fierce punches were thrown, including words like “Racist”,”Bigot”,”Bullshit”, and “Ignorance”. Just as the civility reached the bare minimum, @anildash entered the scene.
Bringing something unseen in the rantings of the initial two parties, tact, @anildash approached the situation with the intent to gracefully difuse it. Kindly disagreeing with @arrington, and very discreetly agreeing with @wadhwa, @anildash advocated for acceptance of the existence of inequality in Silicon Valley while dismissing @arrington‘s defensive behavior as instinctual. He then furthermore encouraged discussions to broaden understanding. Amidst this calming, a final blow was thrown. This time by @mona, an entrepreneur on the sidelines, who had at some point embraced, as an opportunity, the fact that women are asked for ‘propositioned favors’ upon seeking Venture Capital funding. Immediate dismissal of these statements ensued by both @wadhwa and @anildash. Finally bringing the showdown to an end, @arrington agreed to followup with @anildash offline, @lyneka tweeted kind words about @wadhwa, and @mona realized the severity of her public gaffe and masked it with sarcasm.
Aside from the fact that this showdown was largely entertaining, there are some lessons to be learned. The first being @anildash has read How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. The second is that minorities still have a hard time breaking into Silicon Valley, even though there are folks out there advocating for the up-and-coming entrepreneurs. As most entrepreneurs already know, being aware is the first step in inciting change, so please be aware of possible roadblocks for minorities, and try to take initiative where ever you see fit (including watching the #BlackInAmerica documentary on CNN).
Follow me on twitter: @tilak_joshi
Will Social Media Redefine Political Campaigns?
Posted by Tilak in Internet Marketing, Political Campaign, social media on October 25, 2011 4:41 am
The past 6 years have redefined our culture. With the devastating collapse of the financial markets, and emerging dissatisfaction with the current economic inequality (#OccupyWallStreet), technology and social media have come into the forefront of media, business, and the global landscape. Technology is defining this generation. Global conflicts including genocide, dictatorships, riots, and inequality are more transparent with social media. Crowdsourcing has emerged to address global issues like AIDS (with UNAIDS) and poverty (with KIVA). Social media is a carrier of information, and a connector of people. It opens up possibilities previously constrained by logistical issues.
Social media is an effective marketing tool. It’s value-add can be compared to that of advertising on TV, but with the added dimension of two-way communication. The purpose of a political campaign is to market a candidate, his ideals, his experience, and his promises, to the mass media. What better way to do this than to leverage the fastest growing form of media currently in existence? Social media marketing has grown by 55% in the last year alone (Banking 2020). $3.08 Billion were spent on advertising on social networks in 2011.
The most successful campaigns will leverage the technology boom by hiring entrepreneurs and technology experts. Crowdsourcing campaign ideas is also an option that political candidates can entertain. Obama has already taken a step in the right direction in partnering with Tumblr to understand major issues affecting constituents. Last presidential election, debates were successfully broadcasted live on Youtube. Since then, technology has matured significantly. Innovation is becoming synonymous with technology, and innovative technological ideas are a must for successful campaigns. Means for constituents to connect to candidates online is a key to not only capturing a young audience, but also many baby boomers (AARP at the Web 2.0 Summit) who are taking a greater interest in current technology. Social media can make or break a political campaign. Sarah Palin is an excellent example of social media breaking a campaign. Many of her political gaffes went viral and produced negative publicity. Campaign managers need to team up with entrepreneurs and technology experts to understand how to leverage the power of social media to work to their benefit.
Check back in soon for my guide on Online Marketing: Pros, Cons, How To. Coming soon … In the meantime, I’ll leave you with a campaign video for Ed Lee, candidate for mayor in San Francisco. Easily one of the best campaign videos I have ever seen.
Posted by Tilak in Internet Marketing, Political Campaign, social media on October 25, 2011 4:41 am
The past 6 years have redefined our culture. With the devastating collapse of the financial markets, and emerging dissatisfaction with the current economic inequality (#OccupyWallStreet), technology and social media have come into the forefront of media, business, and the global landscape. Technology is defining this generation. Global conflicts including genocide, dictatorships, riots, and inequality are more transparent with social media. Crowdsourcing has emerged to address global issues like AIDS (with UNAIDS) and poverty (with KIVA). Social media is a carrier of information, and a connector of people. It opens up possibilities previously constrained by logistical issues.
Social media is an effective marketing tool. It’s value-add can be compared to that of advertising on TV, but with the added dimension of two-way communication. The purpose of a political campaign is to market a candidate, his ideals, his experience, and his promises, to the mass media. What better way to do this than to leverage the fastest growing form of media currently in existence? Social media marketing has grown by 55% in the last year alone (Banking 2020). $3.08 Billion were spent on advertising on social networks in 2011.
The most successful campaigns will leverage the technology boom by hiring entrepreneurs and technology experts. Crowdsourcing campaign ideas is also an option that political candidates can entertain. Obama has already taken a step in the right direction in partnering with Tumblr to understand major issues affecting constituents. Last presidential election, debates were successfully broadcasted live on Youtube. Since then, technology has matured significantly. Innovation is becoming synonymous with technology, and innovative technological ideas are a must for successful campaigns. Means for constituents to connect to candidates online is a key to not only capturing a young audience, but also many baby boomers (AARP at the Web 2.0 Summit) who are taking a greater interest in current technology. Social media can make or break a political campaign. Sarah Palin is an excellent example of social media breaking a campaign. Many of her political gaffes went viral and produced negative publicity. Campaign managers need to team up with entrepreneurs and technology experts to understand how to leverage the power of social media to work to their benefit.
Check back in soon for my guide on Online Marketing: Pros, Cons, How To. Coming soon … In the meantime, I’ll leave you with a campaign video for Ed Lee, candidate for mayor in San Francisco. Easily one of the best campaign videos I have ever seen.
BlackBerry Barely Hanging On: Can BBX Save RIM?
Posted by Tilak in Corporate Technology, Mobile Phones on October 19, 2011 3:43 am
On Tuesday, Research In Motion co-CEO, Mike Laziridis, announced BBX, the future BlackBerry operating system, at the Blackberry Developer Conference in San Francisco, CA. This new operating system is a combination of the current BlackBerry OS with an operating system it purchased last year (QNX). The operating system is said to have a greater focus on multi-media, apps, and is expected to serve as a better competitor to Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS. One of the primary benefits to BBX is that it will be backwards compatible with current HTML5 apps, will have Adobe Flash and SDK built-in. It sounds like a worthy competitor in the mobile playing field, but is it too late?
Although RIM released some flattering statistics (one billion app downloads, 40% increase in users from 50 to 70 million active users over the past year), the popularity and growth of both Android and iOS significantly overachieve that of BlackBerry. Since the release iOS and Android, both have reduced BlackBerry’s commanding market share down to 3rd best. As of this month, of the approximately 33% of smart phone owners in America, Android takes the cake at 43.7% market share, with iOS coming in second with 27.3% market share, and BlackBerry trailing with only 19.7% market share. Android increasing its market share nearly 6%, since July 2011, at the expense of BlackBerry, as iOS has remained consistent at 27%. [Source: BGR]. These unsettling statistics for RIM are just the tip of the iceberg of recent issues.
RIM dubiously made the news with their infamous worldwide outage last week. They made even more news by offering customers a refund in apps instead of cash. Unfortunately for RIM, bad press is just the start. This outage coincided with the highly anticipated iPhone 4S release. What is a more convincing reason for you to switch to your phone’s highly anticipated competitor than your current phone ceasing functionality? The successful launch of the iPhone 4S is an indirect indicator of the implications of the bad press for RIM. Additionally, with the release of Android 4.0 (also known as Ice Cream Sandwich) coinciding with the BBX announcement, the likelihood of BBX buzz diminishing rapidly is high. BBX is the product RIM should have released when they announced their App Store (2009). Its two years too late. With market share at an all time low, and the heavy press coverage of the outage, RIM has an uphill battle ahead of them. BBX may be their chance at redemption, but all signs point to ‘no’.
BlackBerry may have buried itself too deep to catch a final breath of fresh air. And while I admire their persistance, Laziridis and the rest of the RIM gang have an extraordinary task ahead of them. Pulling a company out from under this level of debris is rare and nothing short of a miracle. No offense RIM, but I’ve already moved onto Android, so I’m just a spectator, and from my perspective, you’re putting on a great show.
Posted by Tilak in Corporate Technology, Mobile Phones on October 19, 2011 3:43 am
On Tuesday, Research In Motion co-CEO, Mike Laziridis, announced BBX, the future BlackBerry operating system, at the Blackberry Developer Conference in San Francisco, CA. This new operating system is a combination of the current BlackBerry OS with an operating system it purchased last year (QNX). The operating system is said to have a greater focus on multi-media, apps, and is expected to serve as a better competitor to Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS. One of the primary benefits to BBX is that it will be backwards compatible with current HTML5 apps, will have Adobe Flash and SDK built-in. It sounds like a worthy competitor in the mobile playing field, but is it too late?
Although RIM released some flattering statistics (one billion app downloads, 40% increase in users from 50 to 70 million active users over the past year), the popularity and growth of both Android and iOS significantly overachieve that of BlackBerry. Since the release iOS and Android, both have reduced BlackBerry’s commanding market share down to 3rd best. As of this month, of the approximately 33% of smart phone owners in America, Android takes the cake at 43.7% market share, with iOS coming in second with 27.3% market share, and BlackBerry trailing with only 19.7% market share. Android increasing its market share nearly 6%, since July 2011, at the expense of BlackBerry, as iOS has remained consistent at 27%. [Source: BGR]. These unsettling statistics for RIM are just the tip of the iceberg of recent issues.
RIM dubiously made the news with their infamous worldwide outage last week. They made even more news by offering customers a refund in apps instead of cash. Unfortunately for RIM, bad press is just the start. This outage coincided with the highly anticipated iPhone 4S release. What is a more convincing reason for you to switch to your phone’s highly anticipated competitor than your current phone ceasing functionality? The successful launch of the iPhone 4S is an indirect indicator of the implications of the bad press for RIM. Additionally, with the release of Android 4.0 (also known as Ice Cream Sandwich) coinciding with the BBX announcement, the likelihood of BBX buzz diminishing rapidly is high. BBX is the product RIM should have released when they announced their App Store (2009). Its two years too late. With market share at an all time low, and the heavy press coverage of the outage, RIM has an uphill battle ahead of them. BBX may be their chance at redemption, but all signs point to ‘no’.
BlackBerry may have buried itself too deep to catch a final breath of fresh air. And while I admire their persistance, Laziridis and the rest of the RIM gang have an extraordinary task ahead of them. Pulling a company out from under this level of debris is rare and nothing short of a miracle. No offense RIM, but I’ve already moved onto Android, so I’m just a spectator, and from my perspective, you’re putting on a great show.
Microsoft Strengthens Its Hold On The Corporate World
Posted by Tilak in Corporate Technology, Microsoft, Small Business on October 17, 2011 3:04 am
On Friday, Microsoft completed its acquisition of Skype for $8.5 billion. This should be a huge red flag for corporations, but it’s not; Microsoft’s biggest customers are often unaware. Many of the top corporations have an unbelievably inefficient information architecture. Microsoft Sharepoint is the base for almost everything technology based at these companies, and everything by default runs on IIS and SQL Server because they are a “Microsoft company”. Microsoft’s creative licensing and support cost structures encourage the use of their full product suite. Once you sign up for one Microsoft product, they make it seem intuitive, by cost and technology, to use the rest. Microsoft lures in corporations with their big name, corporate suite, and supported products. Microsoft has really taken a hold on huge corporations by leveraging their brand and the fact that they provide full support. And out of fear of outages and not fully understanding the technology, huge corporations are encouraging this process. Microsoft’s recent acquisition of Skype will be no different. Skype was one of the few independent technologies emerging in the corporate world, and now it’s Microsoft owned as well.
When Microsoft first created its product suite, it was cutting-edge and something corporations should have embraced. Now, it’s not news that Microsoft is no longer on the cutting-edge for many of its products. But because corporations have spent so much money on training, licenses, and establishing a Microsoft based infrastructure, they are intimidated by change. Some even argue that change is unnecessary based on the “if it ain’t broke, why fix it” principle. Cost-benefit analyses have been done by the wrong people. Managers, even technology managers, may not be the proper parties to conduct these analyses. This is primarily because most technology managers at these large firms have been bred by Microsoft technologies. Room needs to be made in these corporations for a new breed of analysts and architects to have proper control to perform an assessment of technology. The benefits of moving towards new technologies are often undershot. Citing from my experience, proper implementation of a technology infrastructure may have upfront costs about 20% greater than current costs, but the five-year savings can be increased by up to 300% (case study coming soon).
Inefficiency in technology runs through the veins of these Fortune 500 companies and small businesses alike. What these companies don’t understand is that embracing open-source technologies, or any other technologies outside of Microsoft is not a bad bet. Sure support may have to be in house, but surprisingly enough, full development and maintenance is still scalable and could very possibly be cheaper than specialty Microsoft training, licenses, and products. An additional benefit is that the result would be a more efficient application. Not only would everything be done more efficiently, they could significantly cut overhead of all the Sharepoint licenses, and other Microsoft licenses. Think about how many handsomely paid Microsoft product SMEs there are. Why do there need to be so many Subject Matter Experts on the usage of individual Microsoft applications? Why not just hire architects and developers to create new, innovative, current, and cutting-edge products at a fraction of the cost?
Any organization built on Microsoft needs a re-evaluation of their information architecture. Sometimes Microsoft may be the best and most cost-effective option, but more often than not, it will not be. With the number of technologies and technology specialists out there, there is a vast market of custom, open-source, and off-the-shelf industrial and corporate level alternatives that can make your organization more cost-efficient and cutting-edge.
Posted by Tilak in Corporate Technology, Microsoft, Small Business on October 17, 2011 3:04 am
On Friday, Microsoft completed its acquisition of Skype for $8.5 billion. This should be a huge red flag for corporations, but it’s not; Microsoft’s biggest customers are often unaware. Many of the top corporations have an unbelievably inefficient information architecture. Microsoft Sharepoint is the base for almost everything technology based at these companies, and everything by default runs on IIS and SQL Server because they are a “Microsoft company”. Microsoft’s creative licensing and support cost structures encourage the use of their full product suite. Once you sign up for one Microsoft product, they make it seem intuitive, by cost and technology, to use the rest. Microsoft lures in corporations with their big name, corporate suite, and supported products. Microsoft has really taken a hold on huge corporations by leveraging their brand and the fact that they provide full support. And out of fear of outages and not fully understanding the technology, huge corporations are encouraging this process. Microsoft’s recent acquisition of Skype will be no different. Skype was one of the few independent technologies emerging in the corporate world, and now it’s Microsoft owned as well.
When Microsoft first created its product suite, it was cutting-edge and something corporations should have embraced. Now, it’s not news that Microsoft is no longer on the cutting-edge for many of its products. But because corporations have spent so much money on training, licenses, and establishing a Microsoft based infrastructure, they are intimidated by change. Some even argue that change is unnecessary based on the “if it ain’t broke, why fix it” principle. Cost-benefit analyses have been done by the wrong people. Managers, even technology managers, may not be the proper parties to conduct these analyses. This is primarily because most technology managers at these large firms have been bred by Microsoft technologies. Room needs to be made in these corporations for a new breed of analysts and architects to have proper control to perform an assessment of technology. The benefits of moving towards new technologies are often undershot. Citing from my experience, proper implementation of a technology infrastructure may have upfront costs about 20% greater than current costs, but the five-year savings can be increased by up to 300% (case study coming soon).
Inefficiency in technology runs through the veins of these Fortune 500 companies and small businesses alike. What these companies don’t understand is that embracing open-source technologies, or any other technologies outside of Microsoft is not a bad bet. Sure support may have to be in house, but surprisingly enough, full development and maintenance is still scalable and could very possibly be cheaper than specialty Microsoft training, licenses, and products. An additional benefit is that the result would be a more efficient application. Not only would everything be done more efficiently, they could significantly cut overhead of all the Sharepoint licenses, and other Microsoft licenses. Think about how many handsomely paid Microsoft product SMEs there are. Why do there need to be so many Subject Matter Experts on the usage of individual Microsoft applications? Why not just hire architects and developers to create new, innovative, current, and cutting-edge products at a fraction of the cost?
Any organization built on Microsoft needs a re-evaluation of their information architecture. Sometimes Microsoft may be the best and most cost-effective option, but more often than not, it will not be. With the number of technologies and technology specialists out there, there is a vast market of custom, open-source, and off-the-shelf industrial and corporate level alternatives that can make your organization more cost-efficient and cutting-edge.
Call to Arms: Web Innovation is on the Move
Posted by Tilak in Web Innovations on June 14, 2011 2:14 pm
Today, with the click of a button you can plug-in just about any functionality into your website. Yesterday’s most complex, complicated solutions are being black-boxed into apps and libraries for reuse. APIs are essential, successful designs are easily accessible, and social networks are prevalent. What used to take months to complete can now be done in a day. All of this has allowed many engineers to enter a comfort zone. Even though there are persevering entrepreneurs, most developers are borrowing more than they are inventing.
While the simplification of web design is a positive impact, a significant drawback is that many developers are limiting their expertise to reusing solutions instead of creating solutions. Web 2.0 and its goals of making the web usable, standardized, and social have persevered. However, they are meant to lay the ground work for something bigger. Developers need to understand that although they need not reinvent the wheel, that’s what APIs are for, they still need to invent a car. There was the renaissance then the industrial revolution. Now, we are in the consumer revolution and the focus is on usable, simple solutions to target mass audience issues.
The past 10 years brought us the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Groupon. These products solve communication problems for users. Because they were catering to the consumer demand, they were quickly embraced by the mass public. But even though they are being used so widely, there may still be flaws in their methods or a better way to do it. Just because a style or technology is widely used does not necessarily make it the most optimal method, instead it is the most optimal method currently discovered. This is not a recommendation to throw away all existing solutions and start from scratch every time. It is just some encouragement not to throw away one of your own ideas because something already exists in that realm. It is a call to all designers and innovators who have ideas to exercise them. It is a call to all those lazy developers to find that fire from they once had before everything was just handed to them on a silver platter. Sure there are a few developers and companies still out there who innovate, but imagine how much more change and greater results we could achieve if every single web guru, developer, or just average Joe attempted to push the envelope. How much more efficient, stylistic, and optimal would the web get if every developer put forth their best idea?
Over the past few years, many ideas have been thrown away because they’re not the norm set by Google, Apple, Twitter, or Facebook. Sure it’s good to take into account how these internet giants solve their problems, but know that these companies themselves challenged the norm set by Microsoft, IBM, and MySpace to emerge into the market. They themselves had to follow this process of challenging previous black-box solutions and ideas and to improve upon them and propose new ideas. In the ’90s, there was the growth of the internet and the emergence of e-commerce. In the 2000s, there was the standardization of the web, a focus on usability, and the emergence of social networking. Right now is when technology is booming again. Venture capitalists are out there looking for the right ideas. Use what’s out there and find something that can be changed. Gather your ideas, write a proposal, and get the ball rolling. Change is good, change is inevitable, change is constant, but laziness is attractive. Stop being lazy and be a part of the change. Success lies in embracing the change and pioneering the change. For all you know, you could be the next Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, or Shawn Fanning, so get off your ass and put your ideas into gear!
Posted by Tilak in Web Innovations on June 14, 2011 2:14 pm
Today, with the click of a button you can plug-in just about any functionality into your website. Yesterday’s most complex, complicated solutions are being black-boxed into apps and libraries for reuse. APIs are essential, successful designs are easily accessible, and social networks are prevalent. What used to take months to complete can now be done in a day. All of this has allowed many engineers to enter a comfort zone. Even though there are persevering entrepreneurs, most developers are borrowing more than they are inventing.
While the simplification of web design is a positive impact, a significant drawback is that many developers are limiting their expertise to reusing solutions instead of creating solutions. Web 2.0 and its goals of making the web usable, standardized, and social have persevered. However, they are meant to lay the ground work for something bigger. Developers need to understand that although they need not reinvent the wheel, that’s what APIs are for, they still need to invent a car. There was the renaissance then the industrial revolution. Now, we are in the consumer revolution and the focus is on usable, simple solutions to target mass audience issues.
The past 10 years brought us the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Groupon. These products solve communication problems for users. Because they were catering to the consumer demand, they were quickly embraced by the mass public. But even though they are being used so widely, there may still be flaws in their methods or a better way to do it. Just because a style or technology is widely used does not necessarily make it the most optimal method, instead it is the most optimal method currently discovered. This is not a recommendation to throw away all existing solutions and start from scratch every time. It is just some encouragement not to throw away one of your own ideas because something already exists in that realm. It is a call to all designers and innovators who have ideas to exercise them. It is a call to all those lazy developers to find that fire from they once had before everything was just handed to them on a silver platter. Sure there are a few developers and companies still out there who innovate, but imagine how much more change and greater results we could achieve if every single web guru, developer, or just average Joe attempted to push the envelope. How much more efficient, stylistic, and optimal would the web get if every developer put forth their best idea?
Over the past few years, many ideas have been thrown away because they’re not the norm set by Google, Apple, Twitter, or Facebook. Sure it’s good to take into account how these internet giants solve their problems, but know that these companies themselves challenged the norm set by Microsoft, IBM, and MySpace to emerge into the market. They themselves had to follow this process of challenging previous black-box solutions and ideas and to improve upon them and propose new ideas. In the ’90s, there was the growth of the internet and the emergence of e-commerce. In the 2000s, there was the standardization of the web, a focus on usability, and the emergence of social networking. Right now is when technology is booming again. Venture capitalists are out there looking for the right ideas. Use what’s out there and find something that can be changed. Gather your ideas, write a proposal, and get the ball rolling. Change is good, change is inevitable, change is constant, but laziness is attractive. Stop being lazy and be a part of the change. Success lies in embracing the change and pioneering the change. For all you know, you could be the next Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, or Shawn Fanning, so get off your ass and put your ideas into gear!