Its not clear that creating new destinations is the right way to enable new behaviours like collaboration. There is a large momentum behind core online activities (e-mail, browse, IM, etc.) that might be better served by redirection, especially when the new behaviours are incrementally accretive to previous ones.
It was interesting to see Apple expand a new behaviour (with iTunes and music purchase) into media playback generally. -- graphicallyspeaking
Best way to learn about something is try and break it:)
Fortunately (for them), they weren't attempting to crack B3, AOL's new portable browsing technology. They'd have been out'o'luck. -- graphicallyspeaking
We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.
HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.
We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.
HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.
We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.
HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.
VOIP + WiMax (or some such) will up end destroying core Cel and Hardline businesses, unless they are successful in tiering Internet access (i.e. charging or prioritzing certain content-providers/websites) - which would be a BAD thing.
Barring that, it'll become about triple or quadruple pay (voice, IP, cable, etc.) bundles of access, as it has in Europe.
I think the latter scenario is good for consumers, the former, well not so much.
Hm - that's an interesting point: is the argument that on a level playing field, time to market matters, but backwards compat tips the scales? not sure I agree -- graphicallyspeaking
Two sides to this: (1) conformance for developers (makes our lives easier) (2) compatibility for consumers (they don't care about making our lives easier) -- graphicallyspeaking
"In the last six months of 2005, Microsoft confirmed 12 vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer, down slightly from the 14 in the first half of last year. Firefox, however, sported 13 vendor-confirmed flaws, one more than IE, but also down from the 27 in the previous period."
"Fundamentally, the newly announced (and extended) Open AIM SDK will enable developers to enhance the AIM network's reach and functionality.
What can you do with it:
- Extend AIM Triton at a low level
- Embed AIM functionality in your own applications
- Create your own version of the AIM client
- Embed presence functionality and communications touchpoints in web applications
To be clear: there are some restrictions and limitations on the ways in which you can leverage the AIM services we've made available, as we feel our way through the operational and business implications. But this should open up a broad set of possible applications on top of the AIM network and namespace immediately.
In particular, Open AIM does NOT provide IM network interop with other Instant Messaging networks, at this time."
Just for context, this may feel small from the outside (and perhaps it is), but it is directionally indicative of a big cultural shift from AOL.
The one thing to keep in mind is that this is NOT about IM network interop - its about opening the AIM network up for "customization".
I expect I'm not the only AOL employee that discusses this further on his/her blog: graphicallyspeaking so (some) more info there...
Yes, I guess my point was indeed that yes, "Open Source" is a process, but that I don't know that I view it as a meaningful dividing criteria between "good" software and "bad" - there are LOT of other factors; it just seem like OSS is the "hot" one to discuss...
I've always thought it VERY odd to think about "Open Source" as a thing.
It'd be like saying: We studied the quality of software compiled with the Watcom 10.0 C++ compiler. "Open source" cuts across so many levels of skill and projects. You can pretty find projects that support (or destroy) whatever thesis you'd like to put forward
Even more, somebody pays for the development of the software, one way or another.
This artlice (from ONLamp) http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/07/21/soft ware_pricing.html really puts into better perspective.
Basically, it says ALL software can be deconstructed to being about the service (at least so long as the technology curve continues, in practice, to limit its lifespan).
Maybe its because software copyrights are all wrong? Copyrights seems to work much better in the music industry (overzealous RIAA tactics aside:P). They (in practice) protect the OUTPUT, that is, how the music sounds - not what instrument you used or how you played it. I think the obvious, but perhaps incorrect, extension to the software world was to copyright the CODE - just as you do the "music" (notes and arrangement), not the product (UI, algorithms, workflows, etc.). But perhaps that was a BIG mistake... there isn't the same monotone relationship (no pun intended) between code and product as there is between notes and songs.
And yes, the damages seem way out of control.
Hmm - we do something similar at AOL in terms of the poem (yes, I know - you're SHOCKED that big companies do similar misguided goofy things:P). I had just written about it on my blog given all the Apple press swirl about this.
But we (AOL) are not really trying to prevent the random developer or user from doing anything - obviously this isn't about being secure TECHNICALLY. We just wanted to prevent giant business partners and competitors and the like profiting from doing things with our software and users we didn't authorize.
I'd imagine Apple's reasons are similar, though that doesn't really line up with this shutdown order.
As I don't think anything like this has gone to court yet, it sounds like either they need to enforce their rights everywhere to keep them, or they're trying to force the precedent, or they've got some zealous/quasi-religious entitlement thing going, between their iPod protectionism, shutting down rumour sites, and now this... Ah, its ok, they're Apple - EVERYBODY loves Apple:)
This isn't really an "ah-hah! gotcha!" kind of thing, or an attempt at humour (though it is a little funny). Its about LEGAL protections - copyright, DMCA, etc.
We did something similar at AOL - I had just posted about this at my blog.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not clear that creating new destinations is the right way to enable new behaviours like collaboration. There is a large momentum behind core online activities (e-mail, browse, IM, etc.) that might be better served by redirection, especially when the new behaviours are incrementally accretive to previous ones.
It was interesting to see Apple expand a new behaviour (with iTunes and music purchase) into media playback generally.
--
graphicallyspeaking
oops. Didn't realize the # of posts (was, ironically, having some browser issues :))
:P).
:)
I got a bit carried away trying to get people to click-thru to an April Fool's bit (that's be the B3! bit, so thanks for mentioning it!
The rest of the post, and point, is legit though
--
graphicallyspeaking
Best way to learn about something is try and break it :)
Fortunately (for them), they weren't attempting to crack B3, AOL's new portable browsing technology. They'd have been out'o'luck.
--
graphicallyspeaking
We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.
HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.
Still, B3! makes this irrelevant.
--
graphicallyspeaking
We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.
HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.
Still, B3! makes this irrelevant.
--
graphicallyspeaking
We found the same thing at AOL, in testing speed with our various Broadband partners. The average time to COMPLETE a pageload across a wide test suite of webpages basically doesn't change once you get over 1.5Mbps.
HOWEVER, (1) the median time does shift slightly (i.e. the perception of load) up to 3-ish Mbps, though latency clearly starts becomes the dominant factor and (2) downloads and multimedia still scale pretty linearly.
Still, B3! makes this irrelevant.
--
graphicallyspeaking
Funny... I don't think they're even trying to target people.
--
graphicallyspeaking
VOIP + WiMax (or some such) will up end destroying core Cel and Hardline businesses, unless they are successful in tiering Internet access (i.e. charging or prioritzing certain content-providers/websites) - which would be a BAD thing.
Barring that, it'll become about triple or quadruple pay (voice, IP, cable, etc.) bundles of access, as it has in Europe.
I think the latter scenario is good for consumers, the former, well not so much.
What's not clear to me is how, even with open web services (ala Web 2.0 hype) how any company but the big players profit. Unless, I guess, "getting bought" maybe counts?
--
graphicallyspeaking
Hm - that's an interesting point: is the argument that on a level playing field, time to market matters, but backwards compat tips the scales? not sure I agree
--
graphicallyspeaking
Hunh - off topic, but makes me wonder. If Linux kernel doesn't adopt GPL 3, will any of the major vendors? *Can* they?
I think ideology and capitalism are about to meet again - mainly because of the server loopholes
--
graphicallyspeaking
Yep, that's what Nintendo thought. And Sega. And S- well, we'll see...
--
graphically speaking
Two sides to this: (1) conformance for developers (makes our lives easier) (2) compatibility for consumers (they don't care about making our lives easier)
--
graphicallyspeaking
From the article:
:P
"In the last six months of 2005, Microsoft confirmed 12 vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer, down slightly from the 14 in the first half of last year. Firefox, however, sported 13 vendor-confirmed flaws, one more than IE, but also down from the 27 in the previous period."
Even in the revised count it was 17 Firefox, 24 Internet Explorer...
And that doesn't account for the vulnerabilities within embedded tech like Java, Flash, Quictime, Windows Media, et al... that'll affect EVERY (modern) browser.
NONE of this is particularly great if you're a consumer. If you're Symantec of another Security vendor though - weel, life is OK.
From my blog
"Fundamentally, the newly announced (and extended) Open AIM SDK will enable developers to enhance the AIM network's reach and functionality.
What can you do with it: - Extend AIM Triton at a low level - Embed AIM functionality in your own applications - Create your own version of the AIM client - Embed presence functionality and communications touchpoints in web applications
To be clear: there are some restrictions and limitations on the ways in which you can leverage the AIM services we've made available, as we feel our way through the operational and business implications. But this should open up a broad set of possible applications on top of the AIM network and namespace immediately.
In particular, Open AIM does NOT provide IM network interop with other Instant Messaging networks, at this time."
Just for context, this may feel small from the outside (and perhaps it is), but it is directionally indicative of a big cultural shift from AOL. The one thing to keep in mind is that this is NOT about IM network interop - its about opening the AIM network up for "customization". I expect I'm not the only AOL employee that discusses this further on his/her blog: graphicallyspeaking so (some) more info there...
Yes, I guess my point was indeed that yes, "Open Source" is a process, but that I don't know that I view it as a meaningful dividing criteria between "good" software and "bad" - there are LOT of other factors; it just seem like OSS is the "hot" one to discuss...
I've always thought it VERY odd to think about "Open Source" as a thing.
t ware_pricing.html really puts into better perspective.
Basically, it says ALL software can be deconstructed to being about the service (at least so long as the technology curve continues, in practice, to limit its lifespan).
It'd be like saying: We studied the quality of software compiled with the Watcom 10.0 C++ compiler. "Open source" cuts across so many levels of skill and projects. You can pretty find projects that support (or destroy) whatever thesis you'd like to put forward
Even more, somebody pays for the development of the software, one way or another.
This artlice (from ONLamp) http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/07/21/sof
--
graphicallyspeaking
Maybe its because software copyrights are all wrong? Copyrights seems to work much better in the music industry (overzealous RIAA tactics aside :P). They (in practice) protect the OUTPUT, that is, how the music sounds - not what instrument you used or how you played it. I think the obvious, but perhaps incorrect, extension to the software world was to copyright the CODE - just as you do the "music" (notes and arrangement), not the product (UI, algorithms, workflows, etc.). But perhaps that was a BIG mistake... there isn't the same monotone relationship (no pun intended) between code and product as there is between notes and songs.
And yes, the damages seem way out of control.
me http://sree.kotay.com/
:P
Heh. You're funny AND you have a funny name - this MUST be slashdot :P
Hmm - we do something similar at AOL in terms of the poem (yes, I know - you're SHOCKED that big companies do similar misguided goofy things :P). I had just written about it on my blog given all the Apple press swirl about this.
:)
But we (AOL) are not really trying to prevent the random developer or user from doing anything - obviously this isn't about being secure TECHNICALLY. We just wanted to prevent giant business partners and competitors and the like profiting from doing things with our software and users we didn't authorize.
I'd imagine Apple's reasons are similar, though that doesn't really line up with this shutdown order. As I don't think anything like this has gone to court yet, it sounds like either they need to enforce their rights everywhere to keep them, or they're trying to force the precedent, or they've got some zealous/quasi-religious entitlement thing going, between their iPod protectionism, shutting down rumour sites, and now this... Ah, its ok, they're Apple - EVERYBODY loves Apple
This isn't really an "ah-hah! gotcha!" kind of thing, or an attempt at humour (though it is a little funny). Its about LEGAL protections - copyright, DMCA, etc. We did something similar at AOL - I had just posted about this at my blog.