More happiness
This made my day even better, now I can really sleep happily! Apple cracks me up sometimes... :)
HotRecorder.com
I woke up this morning with an ache surging through my entire body like no other; at first I thought I had the flu. As the day progressed, I realized it was just a fever (my mom says that a fever is some form of the flu w/e). So I was inside all day. Then I watched the Mavs vs Heat game, and became more depressed as I witnessed the Mavs fall apart in the third and fourth quarter (I was rooting more for Mark Cuban than anyone else). Then to top it off, I picked up my phone and tried to access my voicemail. For some reason, the outgoing calls weren't working. Ah, what a terrible day!
Then I came across this site while reading some of my RSS feeds. Now that's what I call some innovative navigation... Never seen anything like it. That just changed my whole day. Now I can sleep happily. :)
37signals to launch Backpack Calendar
This video illustrates the ease of use and power that the new Backpackit.com calendar is going to have. This reminds me somewhat of Google Calendar but with the 37signals touch. Beautiful.
Backpackit.com is a web app that I couldn't live without; if you want to get your life organized, this app has your name written all over it.
Google and Amazon
I've been hearing some talk about Google buying a chunk of Amazon, or maybe buying the entire company outright.
"There are creative ways to structure an investment that make sense for both Amazon and Google.
It doesn't have to be an outright sale. Google paid $1 billion plus a bunch of free advertising for a 5% interest in AOL, that will give Google access to Time Warner content and the AOL user base. Those were big Google vulnerabilities (small user base, little content), that were partially addressed by the AOL deal.
Google could do something similar with Amazon - make a billion dollar investment, move much of the data processing into Google's data centers, integrate Amazon content into Google search, and get access to Amazon's user base. Amazon pays off their crippling debt load, gets cash to expand the business, and is relieved of much of the nonstop investment in information systems that's hurting their results every quarter.
Users have one identity across AIM, Google and Amazon, and get the power of Google Search applied to product research. Advertisers can use one ad platform (Google's) to reach users on Google, AOL, Amazon, and Google Network sites. Amazon solves its two biggest vulnerabilities and gets higher traffic and sales.
And everybody makes more money. "
Google has the cash; currently they have $8 billion and another $2 billion extra coming in this year. But would making this move really be smart for them? Amazon has never been a profitable company; they've been in the red ever since their inception. Shoot, Craigslist makes more money than them. But this wouldn't be a move to make more money for Google, it would be a move to expand their user base. The only thing that Google's applications are all lacking right now is a strong user base. As stated above, that was the reason for their deal to 5% of AOL. But would a bigger user base increase Google's revenue? If you look at their search engine market share shows Google with 42.7%. So let's just say 42.7% of all amazon.com users used Google; if Google bought a chunk of them, that's 57.3% of all amazon.com users that they now have in their hands. They can do all the marketing they want to these people, and surely, it would increase their market share. I don't have the numbers of how many people use Amazon, but I'm sure it's enough that it would add to Google's market share of the search engine world. The bigger Google's market share, the more advertisers are willing to pay. The more money Google gets.
But let's not forget; this all comes at a big price to Google. Will they use their cash to do a major deal like this? We'll just have to wait and see.
Here they go again
Microsoft's has a new online app coming out, codenamed "Warhol." Microsoft is doing it again; they're launching a product that will 1) have a tiny user base 2) have barely more features than that of YouTube and 3) launch with so much hype that people will be let down. Why do they keep doing this? Even Google Video has been destroyed YouTube in online user posted videos. The thing that drives these sites is the user base. The more users, the more videos you're going to get when you search for one. This makes people happy. When I'm searching for a video on Google Video, I'll usually get 6-10 results, where as YouTube comes up with 20-30 every time. This has not only made me stop searching videos on Google Video, but I would never even think about uploading a video to that site. Microsoft just doesn't understand; they are not a small startup, they are not an agile company. YouTube can change features and add features in a matter of days, whereas it would take Microsoft a few weeks. This is going to screw MS over in the end.
AJAX…
I came across a comment from this recent Ajaxian.com post.
" Thanks for the mention. I wrote the article as many Web 2.0 companies don’t appear to have any visible revenue streams. Who knows what the future holds, but for now these AJAX homepages can be filed under ‘cool / watch this space’, but not under ‘big bucks’.
The problem is that many Web 2.0 sites are developed because genius developers CAN develop them. Not because they should. And it is hard to know where to draw the line… is it about business, or is it about pleasure?
You’ve gotta love the technology - AJAX is supreme, from a user experience perspective. But I just wonder whether these sites will still be alive and kicking next year, or the one after.
Turns out Fold.com might be making some sort of resurrection - we’ll soon see. Let’s hope they extend compatibility to IE and grab more market share. And that it has some sort of revenue model…"
This struck me; how many Web 2.0 companies can you think of that actually do have revenue models? The only one that comes to mind off the top of my head are the products by 37signals. But come on, how can you say that "Web 2.0 is just a fad"? I hear this all the time! So is Google, Microsoft and Yahoo build huge applications on passing fads? I don't think so, these companies spend hundreds of hours researching the best technologies for their new applications. And, as Google has proved, Web 2.0 can be extremely powerful (Gmail, Calendar, Maps). So to all the people saying "Web 2.0 is just a fad"... Take a second to realize who's using it first.
Another comment that really stuck out
"Come on now people!! Is a knife good or bad??
Ajax is a TOOL. This is as stupid as saying “All HTML pages are bad” …
This same stupid subject came up over and over again when flash was gettign popular. “Flash is bad” What a bunch of BS. Again its just a tool. It is what the developer does with the tool that is good or bad."
Amen!!! I wonder why there is so much opposition to these new technologies? I remember having a "web development" teacher in 10th grade who would flip every time I would mention building an entire website in Flash. Yeah, maybe there is 15% of people that can't view the site, but guess what? I'm not making my sites for people who are so computer illiterate they don't even update their flash player. So many times, people focus in the minority of people who don't have something, when in reality there's some 85% of people that will be able to view the site. So quit looking at the glass half empty, you bunch of digital pessimists... :)
The future of Microsoft
With the recent news of Bill Gates stepping down to spend more time focusing on his philanthropic efforts, many people are wondering what the future of Microsoft is going to look like. I think one of the biggest problems Microsoft is going to face is the fact that Gates is leaving; he can't be replaced by anyone. He was at Microsoft from the start, and he's held a vision for Microsoft like every pioneer of a startup does. Yes, Microsoft was once a startup...
Not only has Bill Gates announced his departure, but Robert Scoble, the most famous Microsoft blogger has announced his departure also. He is going to work for Silicon Valley start up Pod Tech. I thought it was kind of funny when I went onto Pod Tech's home page and saw in the company's header "PodTech.net Welcomes Robert Scoble." Single-handedly, Robert changed the way thousands of developers and others viewed Microsoft. I had a chance to email Robert back and forth a few times, and I was pleasantly surprised to find a post he had written addressing what I had talked to him about in the emails. By doing something as simple as this, my entire outlook on Microsoft was changed. But now he's gone, and (besides JonathonH) I don't see anyone else replacing him anytime soon.
Is Microsoft losing it? Is Steve Ballmer going to be their Edward John Smith (the captain of The Titanic)? In the past two months, their shares have plummeted from $27.25 to $22.10. But come on, no one can deny the monopoly Microsoft has on operating systems. Around 90% of the entire world runs on Microsoft's operating system. I can't even begin to think of how much that is.
If Microsoft sticks to their original source of capital, their operating systems, they will be fine. But if they keep trying to compete with companies Google and Yahoo! for search engines, they are going to fail miserably. All you have to do is do a search at live.com to see how far Microsoft is behind from Google; Google's results are almost always far more relevant.
Good luck to Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and the rest of Microsoft. And my best wishes go out to Robert Scoble and his new company.