If the current technology can't predict 5am rain on the 11pm newscast than I don't know what the point of it is. 

Dare Obasanjo drudges up an old post by Russel Beattie in which he declared the mobile web was dead (while coincidentally announcing the death of his mobile web based startup).  Mr Obasanjo goes on to say he now agrees with that sentiment...

I recently switched to using Skyfire as my primary browser on my mobile phone and it has made a world of difference in how a use my phone. No longer am I restricted to crippled versions of popular sites nor do I have to lose features when I visit the regular versions of the page. I can view the real version of my news feed on Facebook. Vote up links in reddit or Digg. And reading blogs is no longer an exercise in frustration due to CSS issues or problems rendering widgets. Unsurprisingly my usage of the Web on my phone has pretty much doubled.

This definitely brings to the forefront how ridiculous of an idea it was to think that we need a "mobile Web" complete with its own top level domain (.mobi). Which makes more sense, that every Web site in the world should create duplicate versions of their pages for mobile phones and regular browsers or that software + hardware would eventually evolve to the point where I can run a full fledged browser on the device in my pocket?

While I'm glad Mr. Obasanjo has finally joined the ranks of the "fully featured browser" set I, as someone whose used an iPhone for over a year now, think his opinion is short sighted.

Yes it's great to have a fully featured browser in my phone and Yes I use my phone as a data device more than I ever have in the past.  But having said that I tend to gravitate towards sites that have been specifically designed for the iPhone. 

I'll use a regular site when I have to but having 5 steps (double click, pinch larger, move to left, pinch slightly smaller, scroll) just to get my web content readable is not a great user experience.  I encourage anyone who disagrees with this to compare using www.weather.com to www.weather.com/iphone  There's just no question about it: A customized mobile UI makes a huge difference.

Which is exactly why the Mobile Web isn't dead.  In fact, it's stronger than ever because now it's a competitive advantage in a rapidly expanding market (users who use their phones for data). 

Reading this I have to wonder if this Professor even realizes he's advocating for the criminalization of File Trading...

In a major development in RIAA litigation, Prof. Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School is charging that the RIAA’s tactics are an abuse of federal process and that the law on which the litgation rests — the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 — is unconstitutional.

...

In the opposition to plantiff’s motion to dismiss counterclaim (PDF), Nesson charges that the federal law is essentially a criminal statute in that it seeks to punish violators with minimum statutory penalties far in excess of actual damages.

Before getting to my initial point, let me spell out why this doesn't make much sense.

A Criminal Proceeding constitutes more than just "the punishing of an individual" it also involves restitution to society.  Because a crime is something that is committed against society, not against another party. 

That's the very definition of a crime.

The logic Prof. Nesson is using says any law where government sets a restitution amount is automatically a crime.  This in turn would make ALL civil suits a crime.  Since Government actually controls the level of compensation in every civil suit (albeit through the courts which rule on civil cases and not usually congress). 

So really his argument couldn't make less sense.  In fact, it shows how flawed the argument is when even the example he uses (of excessive fines being imposed on speeders) doesn't hold water because again a speeding ticket is paid to the Government not to another party.

Now back to the criminalizing.

The irony in all this is that Prof. Nesson is actually advocating for the criminalization of file sharing.  He's saying the Digital Theft act makes file sharing a crime which is why the fines are excessive.  So, if the court rules in his favor, that would lower the fine amount but would make file traders into actual criminals.

Given Criminal Statutes represent a status change in one's citizenship I don't see that as a good thing.  A felon, for example, can't carry guns and in many states can't vote. The Digital Theft law currently represents no such change but under Prof. Nesson's scheme file traders who lost their case would actually have criminal records.

I'm not sure anyone (even the RIAA) wants that.

Svetlana Gladkova is someone I consider to be one of the most thoughtful voices in the blogosphere today.  I rarely disagree with her.   But this quote proves that even the most thoughtful people can go astray when relying on the opinions of others...

I also see another problem for Microsoft venturing to the cloud computing market with Azure. The problem is mainly is in the perception of the company in the developers community. It is well-known that Microsoft products rarely are admired by developers for their reliability and the company itself is often criticized by the developers community for its clumsy attempts to finally build some presence online. Obviously, for developers to adopt this new platform where competitors already exist Azure needs to be a great offer to persuade the developers they need this particular solution and prove it will actually offer a perfect infrastructure and reliability - along with some very competitive pricing.

As pointed out in my last post I'm not on board with Azure but I feel the above characterization is off base. 

I point this out only to show how the tech blogosphere can distort the world to those who track it.  If one was to read the blogs you'd think that Ruby on Rails was the most popular platform in the world and that Microsoft technologies don't hold a candle to it.

But that simply isn't true. 

In fact, a quick look at the Tiobe index for October 2008 shows that Visual Basic and C# have more developers between them than Python, Perl and Ruby combined.  Moreover, the #1 spot still belongs to Java a language that has become nothing short of a punch line on the tech blogs.

The truth is, in the real world, a lot of the darlings of blogging are starting to lose steam.  Looking over at a recent Netcraft study I noticed that Microsoft's IIS webserver has reached 34% of the overall market compared to Apache's 50%.  That's a huge gain (to give some perspective, at the end of 2003 those numbers were 67% to 21%).  Given the huge amount of effort it takes to switch from one web server to another that's a very significant jump for Microsoft.

In the end most of the people who are spouting the opinion that Ms. Gladkova quotes above are zealots who would never use Microsoft software no matter what.  Microsoft could produce software that programs itself and I guarantee David Heinemeir Hansson wouldn't touch it.  So the most important thing for Microsoft right now is to simply focus on building a better platform.  That way they can get the serious developers even if the script kiddies continue to bash them in the blogs.

I specifically held off on writing a post about Amazon's new Windows based EC2 service because I (like everyone else in the tech blogosphere) knew this was coming...

Microsoft layed out its “Azure” foundational infrastructure for the cloud during the keynote kick-off on day one of the Professional Developers Conference (PDC) here in Los Angeles. The goal of Azure is to provide developers who want to write applications that run partially and/or entirely in a remote datacenter with a platform and set of tools.

Microsoft did not disclose pricing, licensing or timing details for Azure. The company is planning to release a Community Technology Preview (CTP) test build of Azure to PDC attendees on October 27. (The CTP consists of a software development kit and access to Microsoft’s cloud.

Now that I've seen Microsoft's plan...I think I have to give the nod to Amazon's Cloud based solution. 

There's a lot to like about Microsoft Azure but I just don't think that's what people want anymore.  They don't want to buy into some "grand vision" or to write their programs for a proprietary, locked in system.  That's what Azure seems to be.  It's basically its own proprietary abstraction layer with a bunch of equally proprietary services available to use.

On the other hand, what Amazon does is simply to give you a server in the cloud.  It acts and works just like a server you'd have on your desktop and should you ever choose to move your application back to your own server you could do so almost effortlessly.  That, to me, seems like the way to go and I don't think the value of such a setup can be overestimated.

Cloud Computing is a boon but at the same time a lot of things can go wrong and you simply don't want to tie yourself to one vendor.  Because what happens when that vendor gets overwhelmed and you start to see performance problems, or they institute terms you can't live with, or any of a thousand other scenarios.  I'm in favor of cloud computing but lets remember what it is: Your application running on someone else's computers.

Computers they can do whatever they please with.

Again, I don't want to be too hard on Azure.  It's certainly possible that this is just so visionary that I can't see the beauty of it as of yet.  It is actual laid out quite nicely.  It essentially ties all of the myriad of services that Microsoft has been rolling out since Ray Ozzie came on board into one coherent system that can be used quickly and easily.  But again, to take advantage of it you have to buy into Mr. Ozzie's vision of the future and tie yourself to it. 

In today's technology climate I simply don't see that as a realistic option.

So Apple's taking a side in the Culture Wars...

Apple has joined Google in publicly opposing a California ballot initiative that would deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The company announced Friday that it would donate $100,000 to the No on Prop 8 campaign, which opposes a measure to ban gay marriage that California voters will consider a week from Tuesday. Google has also spoken out against the ballot measure.

For those unfamiliar, a while back (2000) California voted to ban Gay Marriage.  That decision was then over turned by the state's Supreme Court.  Which has now led to a ballot initiative that will over rule the court and amend the California Constitution to permanently ban Gay Marriage.

Though I have many Gay friends I have to admit I can't bring myself to care either way on this.  I'm against discrimination but Gay couples already have Domestic Partnerships which grant full Gay Partner rights.  The law actually states "Domestic Partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits" of married spouses.  So what everyone is really arguing over is a word and I couldn't find that less relevant.

That said, I'm absolutely opposed to Apple, as a company, taking a side in this.

As an Apple Shareholder I'm offended that the company is taking a controversial position that could cost revenue and therefore make my stock worth less.  Recent polls show Prop 8 will likely pass by a whopping 61% to 38% meaning there are far more people who will be potentially offended by this than there are people who will approve of it.

Now some will say "If the executive staff is truly morally opposed to Prop 8 isn't it their duty to spend money on the cause?"

To which I'd say No. If they're truly morally opposed it's their duty to spend THEIR OWN MONEY to fight Prop 8.  Not the company's money.  There's nothing admirable about casting a boardroom vote.  It doesn't take a lot of effort and it doesn't cost them anything personally. 

Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin donated a combined $140,000 to the "No on Prop 8" campaign but they did it out of their own pocket.  I have nothing but respect for that.  THAT is worthy of admiration.  This is worthy of little more than scorn.

P.S.  To any Gay folks in a Domestic Partnership who might read this I'd like to give you the same advice I've given my gay friends.  If you want tell people you're married, just do it.  There's not a law against it, everyone will know what you mean.  Why do you need the Government's approval in the first place?

Addendum: Several people have pointed out that the poll numbers above are false.  It was one of those situations where I started the sentence, got interrupted, and then sat down and finished the sentence without re-reading where I left off.  What I meant to say was that recent polls show Prop 8 passing and that Prop 22, its predecessor, passed by 61% to 38%.  I apologize for misleading.

Mary Jo Foley reports the rumor surrounding Microsoft fast tracking Windows 7 is starting to grow...

As I’ve mentioned a couple of times on this blog, Microsoft privately is telling some of its customers that Windows 7 will be out in the latter half of 2009.

It’s true, as Microsoft’s spokespeople contend, that the “public guidance” around Windows 7 hasn’t changed; Microsoft marketeers continue to state that Windows 7 is on track to ship three years after Windows Vista was released to market (and cite that target date as January 2010).

As a network administrator, Vista was never much of a problem for me.  I didn't want to upgrade and it had effectively nuked the personal computers of several upper management types so no one was really pushing for it.

But as time goes by we're starting to see PCs that come with hardware that doesn't support XP.  Which is a problem for me. 

One would think I could just start installing Vista and be on my way (most of the problems are legitimately ironed out at this point).  But I can't do that for a couple reasons...

1.  Vista's name is now dirt.  To create a roll out plan for Vista I would have to advocate for it because upper management has a negative view of it.  Which, translated, means rolling it out would be one of the few actions non-technical people would question me on if I suggested it.  But if I advocate for it, and things do go wrong, it makes me as the IT Manager look bad (or worse than it would normally make me look).  So I have to have the utmost confidence in Vista to deploy it and I simply don't.

2.  Even though Windows 7 will probably look remarkably similar there are probably going to be some slight changes and with many users even slight UI changes are a big deal.  So in order to deploy Vista I have to make all the pre-requisite changes to my training curriculum only to turn around and redo all that work a year later.  Because even if the changes are small I still have to go over everything to make sure it's accurate.

So to me Vista is not really a possibility, ever.  But Microsoft still insists on taking its time with Windows 7 for some reason. 

This all boils down to the same issue I've pointed out for a while: Vista was a disaster and rather than just accept that and move on Microsoft keeps trying to rehabilitate its image.  The image of a product that isn't even going to be around for that much longer. 

It's stupid.

Microsoft needs to cut their losses now.  Windows 7 should come out as soon as possible even if it only amounts to Vista SP2 in a new package (though they should give it away for free to existing users if that's the case).  Vista's reputation is just too badly damaged at this point.

I mean seriously, when the "I'm a Mac" commercials turned from "Apple is Great" to "Vista Sucks and We All Know It" that should have been a hint to Microsoft that it's time to bail. 

Jason Calacanis writes an e-mail to his subscriber list on the Mahalo lay-offs and gives some advice on handling lay-offs in general.  TechCrunch has the whole e-mail but here's the header (bold by me)...

Location: Mahalo HQ, Santa Monica, CA
Wednesday, October 22nd, 6:10PM PST.
Word Count: 3,381
Jason’s List Subscriber Count: 8,889
List management: http://tinyurl.com/jasonslist
Message type: Startups
Forwarding instructions: startups, VCs
Republishing: PLEASE DO NOT REPRINT

At first I just thought it was funny until I saw this in the comments...

Doesn’t it specifically say not to republish it on the web?

Followed by this reply from TechCrunch's Erick Schonfeld

I don’t work for Jason Calacanis.

Wow...that's...wow.

Now for those who don't know Jason Calacanis and TechCrunch have a friendly relationship.  Mr. Calacanis was a co-sponser of TechCruch50 and he seems to have a friendly relationship with TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington. 

Given that I have to say If this is how TechCrunch treats its friends, God help its enemies.

On the broader point you really have to wonder about this type of thing.  A society functions on the respect it's members have for each other.  Mr. Arrington claims to be a Libertarian in his political bent which is a philosophy built around the idea that Government doesn't need to enforce moral rules because people themselves can be trusted to do so.  When the employee of a libertarian is so quick to dismiss the explicitly stated wishes of another it makes me wonder if we can expect anyone to respect others.

Don't get me wrong, as sins go, this is pretty light.  Mr. Calacanis sends this e-mail to a little under 9,000 people so it isn't like it was a secret.  But the blatant nature of the disrespect is still a little surprising.

Addendum...Mr. Schonfeld posts this defense in the comments of the TechCrunch thread....

It wasn’t an easy thing to do. I like Jason and am conflicted, frankly. We are partners on the TC50 conference, which we worked together closely on.

But ultimately my responsibility is not to my friends, colleagues, or sources. It is to you, the people who read TechCrunch.

Is this news? Yes. Is it relevant? Yes. I really had no choice but to post. Jason is a publisher. He should understand that. And I hope you do too.

Honestly, to my eyes that doesn't hold a lot of weight.  If that logic were followed by reporters it would be impossible for anyone to speak off the record to them.  There has to be a difference between private and public communication. 

I have a lot of respect for Jason Calacanis.  For that reason, this was hard to read...

Jason Calacanis' Wikipedia-for-profit Mahalo laid off 11 of its 20-to-25 member editorial staff and two developers yesterday, says a former employee. The source tells us some of the positions will be rehired in the Philippines. About 10 Mahalo employees in administrative and executive positions remain based in Santa Monica.

Anyone whose followed this blog knows I'm not a big fan of the "pre-emptive lay off" strategy and this is no exception (and I know I've covered it too much as it is so this will be the last time for a while).  But before getting into this I need to take a Brief Trip into the Macro Economics of Things.

Things to remember...

• As of October 7th, 15 days ago, the Unemployment rate was 6.1% which was the exact same as it had been a month earlier (and only 2.2% higher than the lowest rate recorded in my lifetime)
• As of September 30th, 22 days ago, Consumer Confidence had inched up from 58.5% to 59.8%.
• As of August 28th, 54 days ago, the U.S. GDP was UP 3.3%

But more important than those figures is one fact: There isn't a fundamental flaw in the economy.  What I mean by that is the current crisis was created by people getting loans they shouldn't have which caused undue risk in the financial sector and an overvaluation of assets. 

What we are seeing now is a correction of those overvaluations and the corresponding downward trend. Losing that chunk of perceived value will almost certainly cause a recession.  But once everyone shakes it off and comes to terms with what's happened the essential functions of the economy are still in tact (provided people are willing to grant credit which the Governments of the world have all but said they'll personally back if necessary)

What that means is we won't know how big a mess we're in until everything settles 6 months from now.  Which, coincidentally enough, is when businesses actually start seeing an impact on their bottom line.

Now Onto The Micro...

Businesses should make decisions based on their own unique circumstances.  Because there is no telling how macro economic issues will impact any given business.  There are millions of cases of businesses that not only succeed but grow and prosper in hard economic times.

Getting back to Mr Calacanis, he told Silicon Alley last month that he had enough money on hand to make it at least 4 years.  In his blog post today he says the layoffs bought him another year without any ad revenue whatsoever.  So basically he's firing people so he can make it to 2013 without any revenue.  To me, that's ridiculous.

What if they start making money 6 months from now?  What if the recession is shallow and the economy itself has recovered in 6 months?  The economy was sound a month ago, the fundamentals of the economy haven't changed, so whose to say it won't be fine 6 months from now?

Isn't it worth waiting until we see an actual down turn before firing people?  Ask yourself, is an extra 6 months in the year 2013 going to be so significant to Mahalo that they need to rush into action now?

I've always been A John Stossel fan and his most recent "Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics" was another great installment.  It's been uploaded to YouTube and I've embedded the first part below. 

I think the whole thing is worth watching but I particularly encourage you to watch from 3:58 to 4:32.  It's a mere half a minute but it's one of the most powerful statements about politics that I've ever seen.

I don't think I'm being over dramatic when I say that it might be the greatest 30 seconds ever committed to film in the history of mankind.  Here's the video...