matt hamann
the second cup never tastes like the first
Adobe Flash: A Second Look
Aug 20th
I wrote an article a few months ago regarding the future of Adobe’s Flash vs. HTML5. Certainly a global comparison of the two is a flawed approach since there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides. The side that boycotts HTML5 in favor of Flash is wrong 100%, but then again, so is the group that would have everyone believe that HTML5 is the next generation replacement for Flash and that Adobe’s Flash platform is basically dead. (Yes, CEOs of popular companies can be wrong too!)
The past couple weeks have been big news for Adobe since they just released the final version of Flash 10.1 for Android–more or less the first full version of Flash for mobile devices. (Yes, I realize there’s stuff out there for Symbian users as well.) This release has prompted another slew of news about the platform’s performance on Android 2.2 based devices, and unfortunately, it has received some scathing reviews. Part of this is due to some pretty unrealistic expectations that Flash on mobile devices would provide a comparable experience to Flash on a desktop. Adobe didn’t promise that–they promised a cross-platform framework that could be used to write code once and publish it anywhere. We’re not totally there yet since not all mobile platforms support it, but we’re getting there. This is the first real push by Adobe into the space, and my theory is that they spent a great deal of time making sure Flash Mobile was written well enough to quickly and easily move it to other platforms. That much remains to be seen.
But, this brings me to a bigger debate going on among the web developers, designers, and content creators of the world. Should all video be moving toward HTML5 implementations or would it be better to stick with the tried-and-true Flash-based video mechanisms? Not long ago, I would’ve said that pushing toward HTML5 native video players would be the best idea across the board, but I’ve recently reconsidered that stance.
I definitely think that HTML5 is a good start to a future where interactive content is available without the need for 3rd party plugins, but even if the drafted standard gets ratified in the near future (which is still highly doubtful), I’m not convinced that going Flash-less is the right move!
There’s a lot built into Flash that HTML5 cannot (currently) match. For instance, Flash is capable of adjusting the bitrate of a streaming video on the fly whereas HTML5 is not. This means that you can watch a video at a resolution of 720p on your laptop or desktop, then switch to your mobile phone and continue watching the same video at a lower resolution like 480p. This is very much necessary for a variety of reasons: 3G networks are slower and possess a higher latency than wired broadband connections, not all mobile devices are capable of processing the amount of data required to render a 720p video, much of the higher-bitrate benefit would be lost regardless, and the less data used over the wireless spectrum, the better. (An important consideration for bandwidth-capped AT&T customers, for sure!!)
Also, current HTML5 video implementations don’t present the same player flexibility that Flash does; in other words: less-intuitive play controls, and no video-overlays such as comments and ads (yay!?). HTML5 video can have issues at full-screen, fail to scale properly at various resolutions, and provides direct access to the video source. A major reason many content providers will outright refuse to use HTML5 video is due to the lack of content protection (TV networks) as well as many of the other aforementioned reasons (Hulu). While I’m certainly not a proponent of any DRM implementation (video, audio, or otherwise), many corporations aren’t similarly minded. They’ll choose Flash over HTML5 simply because Flash helps protect the content from would-be pirates and downloaders. The open-source community has been trying to explain this to the media conglomerates for years, but with little result. Sigh.
Even Apple (Adobe’s biggest opponent) unofficially recognizes this! Why else would all of their videos, trailers, and movies continue to stream in the (extremely proprietary) QuickTime format rather than straight HTML5 H.264-encoded video?! And while we’re on the topic of Apple, let me just once and for all settle something else: Steve Jobs’ comparison of Flash to the floppy disk is inherently flawed for the obvious reason that software is freely, easily, and transparently upgradeable, whereas hardware just isn’t. On the other hand, in the interest of fairness, Microsoft still pushes most of its video using Silverlight, which is a nice experience, but is no more or less a good idea than is QuickTime.
All-in-all, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be pushing toward a more open web, but as politically-mired as HTML5 has become, I’m not sure, in this specific instance, if that’s truly the way to go.
Your thoughts are–as always–quite welcome in the comments!
The Future of Openness: Verizon 4G
Jul 20th
On November 15th, Verizon Wireless will launch the United States’ first nationwide 4G network. Not only is this new network faster than anything else out there, it’ll be much more robust than ever before! Without going into a ton of boring details (of which there are plenty), the network benefits largely from two things: 1) much newer and more advanced wireless technology on each cell tower, and 2) a range of spectrum in the 700mhz band that Verizon bought several years ago. There are several benefits from moving into the 700mhz space, but essentially lower band radio waves cover longer distances, consume less power, propagate in more directions, and provide better penetration of solid objects like buildings and people. That’s right–more bang for your buck!
But what does that have to do with “openness”?
When the federal government placed the 700mhz band on the auction block, they were approached by Google, who proposed that one very specific stipulation be attached to the spectrum, no matter who won the final bid. In a nutshell, this requirement stated that anyone who purchased a part of the 700mhz band would allow any device, for any purpose, from any manufacturer to connect to and utilize the network. In return, Google vowed that they would guarantee something like $4 billion in payment to the FCC if no other entity offered at least that much cash for the spectrum.
Initially, telcos didn’t like this idea at all, since (as we all know so very well) they prefer to maintain strict control over their networks. In fact, it’s my understanding that even Verizon was very much against all of this at the beginning; however, much has changed since then.
Fast forward to today and recognize that Verizon has both won the bid for the spectrum and also created the Verizon Wireless Open Development Initiative. This program is basically a set of guidelines that manufacturers and hardware designers must follow when creating devices targeted to Verizon’s 4G network. As long as those guidelines are followed, a device certification will be awarded and the device will operate on the Verizon network when paired with an active SIM card. All-in-all, it’s pretty cool stuff!
So what does that mean for end users?
Well, it’s definitely a great thing! It means that any company can create a Verizon-compatible device and offer it on the Verizon 4G network without actually partnering with Verizon. For example, Google could offer a new phone (say, the Nexus Two?) on LTE without a Verizon partnership. All they need is approval via the Open Development Initiative! In fact, with the proper infrastructure in place, a company could offer a full VoIP service over the Verizon 4G network and the only thing the consumer would have to pay to Verizon would be the data access charge. (Google Voice anyone?)
Whether or not all of this pans out from the economics side of things still remains to be seen. Generally, mobile devices are successful only when subsidized through a mobile carrier, but with the right following and business model, we could see smartphones and other mobile devices offered for a low price with no device-bound contract! Obviously any plan data or otherwise would still go through Verizon and you’d have to pay them their due, but I see a lot of creative possibilities beyond that.
In the end, I believe we’ll see an eventual explosion of smart devices both mobile and otherwise that are compatible with the Verizon 4G network (and any compatible LTE network in general). In fact, November 15th could be the beginning of the end of “mobile” as we know it! Think about the traditional wired broadband model applied to wireless. The main problem may lie in how Verizon prices and packages its data plans. If AT&T’s recent change is any indication, we’re all in trouble. Fingers crossed everyone!
As for the rest of it, color me excited!
Clean up that Oil Spill!!
Jun 8th
The current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has gone on long enough. I say it’s time to do something about it and thankfully, Darth Vader heartily agrees. I thank him very much for publishing what is probably the single best solution for solving the current crisis. Lord Vader…take it away!
Attribution: @LordVader__
On the Quality Control of Open Source
May 25th
I love open source software.
I mean, how cool is it that an individual person or a group of like-passioned people are able to write and publish software for worldwide public consumption? Oft times this software is simply given away to anyone willing to take the plunge, and there’s quite a bit of open source “stuff” that I use on a daily basis. In fact, this blog is powered by one of the world’s most popular open source blogging platforms. The open source software (OSS) movement is powerful to say the least.
There are certainly differing levels of OSS available around the web. Some versions are clearly aimed at the technical/geek/developer/adventurous type of user. This software tends to be buggy, under constant development, and often requires users to poke around the source, recompile, and–on some level–make it better. I totally understand running this type of software, and it can prove extremely useful for the people who have the know how to make it do its thing.
But another continually growing category of OSS is that of “consumer-friendly” products. Wordpress is a great example of this. With barely any technical expertise (especially if you have a great web hosting provider or use wordpress.com), anyone anywhere can set up their own blog or Wordpress-powered website for free and in a matter of minutes. Wordpress goes through extensive testing before each version is released into the public, and even though the “techies” can still get the latest cutting edge development code, end-users generally end up receiving a solid and stable product. That’s not to say that it’s perfect, since there are always minor bugs found after release, but this is true of 100% of software on the market whether it be open source or not.
This, unfortunately, isn’t the case with every open source product released and advertised to the mainstream public.
When consumers purchase a software package from a company such as Microsoft, Adobe, or Intuit, they expect the product to be thoroughly tested and free of major bugs. They feel that they deserve quality because they paid good money for the package–and they’re right! Commercial enterprises must hire teams of quality assurance personnel to test, break, and re-test the software it makes to ensure (as much as possible) that it is free from errors.
So, when it comes to open source products, should end-users expect the same level of quality control?
I believe–quite firmly–that the answer is (mostly) yes. The cornerstone of software development in any scenario is making sure that the end-result is usable by your target audience. In fact, I would submit that anyone writing any type of software meant for public consumption should be absolutely dedicated to producing the finest quality product possible. This entails excellent software architecture, engineering, and testing at every step along the way. If the developer isn’t fully committed to producing quality code that is free from errors, then they shouldn’t be writing software in the first place.
Yup, you read correctly. If you’re not willing to put in the time and effort to produce a quality product, then get out of the business. Period.
Want an example of an open source project that needs to get it’s quality control act together? Look no further than Pidgin, a popular open source instant messaging client allows users to combine all of their IM accounts in a unified window. Last week, the developers released version 2.7 (a major update) into the wild without catching a major bug in the Windows version of the software. This bug prevented users from being properly notified (via flashing of the icon in the taskbar) each time a new message arrived. A bug report was filed, a developer responded relatively quickly, and within a day or so a patch was released to those people watching one particular bug report entry. But even after 72 hours of the patch release, no official notices were posted to the main website and no fix was applied to the installer that thousands of users are downloading every day. The official word on the subject was “we’ll release the fix in 2.7.1–whenever we get around to releasing that.” I don’t know about you, but lack of notification upon receiving an IM is a pretty important feature to fail to test. In fact, at time of this writing, I don’t think an official bug fix has been released!
This, my friends, is quite the poor example of good quality control.
While most open source developers have day jobs and aren’t earning any significant amount of money for developing code like that of Pidgin, they’re still entering into a contract with customers to provide a quality product–at least, to some extent. I believe this goes back to the mantra of “do no harm.” Developers must ensure that their software doesn’t affect the user in averse ways. Of course, there’s always the license agreement that comes with open source software stating that it’s provided as-is and under no warranty, but the point I made earlier still stands. Don’t release software without making it worth using!
So what do you think? Should free open source get the same level of attention and quality control as the commercial stuff? Or should we expect to live with unpolished software because hey, we’re getting something for nothing?
Confirmed: Official Starbucks Android app in the works!
May 11th
With the report Monday showing that Android-powered devices have taken over the iPhone as the #2 smartphone in the United States, you’d think most major companies that initially developed applications for the iPhone would have completed Android-compatible apps as well! Starbucks’s mobile apps have been some of the mysteriously missing major apps from the Android Market.
Not for long.
This evening, a tweet was posted by the Starbucks twitter account noting that the iPhone app had just been updated. Several people then responded by asking why there was no similar application for other platforms (one of which is Android). Well, in response to that question, Starbucks responded “We’re working on apps for all platforms.” in this tweet. So, while there’s no official release date, we can rest assured that an official Starbucks app is coming for the platform of your liking!
Which app are you waiting for on your favorite platform?
