Nik Gomez

Apple’s new wall of exclusion: a demo of HTML5 and open standards

wait, I thought Firefox, Chrome, and Opera supported HTML5 too...

Apple has been catching a lot of flack for it’s HTML5 Showcase page it recently put up on its website. And for good reason! The problem with the site is that it purports to be a page intended to

show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript.

So what’s the problem? You can only view the demos with Safari. If you’re using Firefox, Chrome, or Opera – all modern browsers that support HTML5 – you get the error message shown in the image above. The fact that Apple is browser sniffing and excluding products that are all capable of displaying the content on those demo pages is troublesome.

Christopher Blizzard of Mozilla summarizes the issue and what’s really important in this way,

The most important aspect of HTML5 isn’t the new stuff like video and canvas (which Safari and Firefox have both been shipping for years) it’s actually the honest-to-god promise of interoperability. Even stodgy old Microsoft, who has been doing their best to hold back the web for nearly a decade, understands this and you’ll see it throughout their marketing for IE9. (Their marketing phrase is “same markup” – watch for it and you’ll see it everywhere in their messaging.) The idea that the same markup, even with mistakes, will be rendered exactly the same. HTML5 represents the chance for browsers to work together and find common ground.

It really sucks that Apple thinks it can push the market around like this, but it’s great to see that people aren’t going to take it.

intellectual honesty and html5 -Christopher Blizzard

Apple is to HTML5 as Google is to Flash

the battle of Apple with HTML5 and the iPad vs Google with Flash and Chrome

OK, I completely understand the insane generalization I just made with the title of this post, but when it comes to online video adoption, I think it holds true. Apple has made it very clear from the launch of the iPhone that it really isn’t interested in working with Flash anymore. And as of the past couple weeks, Google has made it very obvious that it really isn’t interested in always doing what Apple wants.

Everyone knows that the iPhone doesn’t support Flash, and most people know that iPad arriving on Saturday won’t support it either. For a while, it looked like Adobe and Apple were making headway in cleaning up Flash so that it could run on Apple’s mobile devices without eating through battery life on the already life-strained devices. All that changed with the iPad. It’s become apparent that Apple has no interest in Flash and would much rather everyone move on to HTML5′s video tag.

As usual, when Apple says, “Jump,” there’s plenty of parties lining up asking, “How high?” In the past week, we’ve seen plenty companies announce that they’ve readied their “iPad compatable” sites that are devoid of Flash and HTML5 rich. The biggest of these announcement comes from Brightcove which lists customers like the New York Times, NPR, and the Wall Street Journal.

In opposition to this, and further feeding rumors of bad blood between the two, Google has fully integrated Flash into its Chrome browser and operating system. While the vast majority of users have already installed the Flash Player plug-in, it’s interesting that Flash is comes prewrapped in Chrome because 1) it flies directly in the face of Google’s public support of the HTML5 standard and 2) it shows Google’s dedication to Adobe’s Open Screen Project. Essentially, Google’s sending mixed signals to the tech world. Are we supposed to completely support the new open web standards including HTML5, or can exceptions be made when a company (like Adobe) throws their proprietary technology in the mix saying it’s needed to build a ubiquitous platform for developers?

My vote? I say go with HTML5. I think HTML5 has great potential, and new projects like SublimeVideo and RGraph are perfect examples of this. Flash has had its 15 minutes, and it’s due time for us to dump it in favor of open standards.

Google yelling “monopoly”

For a while now, my opinion of Google has been declining. There isn’t really one big event that has caused this, but I guess it is the compilation of the following:

• Their site design is horrible. Apart from the Google.com search hub, the minimal approach is unnecessary. Some might argue that this style is the best kind of UI. I argue that it isn’t intuitive, and that the lack of any design doesn’t do any good.
• Adsense seems to be getting worse at judging what content to base the ads off of. Contextual ads aren’t revolutionary anymore.
• Innovation on projects like Google Docs has seemed to slow down. I loved Writely, but since Google acquired it, the plain UI has left is barren.

As you can probably tell, these problems aren’t issues that Google has actively done. They are all things that have occurred because of the expansion of this online ad company to encompass everything that an online service provider could offer. My problems with Google have been passively incured, until now.

Since Microsoft’s announcement of a hostile $44.6 billion offer for Yahoo Inc., Google has gone on the offensive and issued a public statement criticizing the offer. The post from Google’s official blog titled “Yahoo! and the future of the Internet” is a blatant attempt to bring negative attention to the situation.

In the post, Google states that while the internet has been about the principles of “openness and innovation,” Microsoft might try to “exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC.”

“In addition, Microsoft plus Yahoo! equals an overwhelming share of instant messaging and web email accounts. And between them, the two companies operate the two most heavily trafficked portals on the Internet. Could a combination of the two take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors’ email, IM, and web-based services? Policymakers around the world need to ask these questions — and consumers deserve satisfying answers.”

Why is this a ridiculous statement? Because the listed web services (email, IM, and web portals) aren’t where the money is being made. Google is an ad company, so why would an ad company be so concerned with another company that – according to Google – will dominate these web service markets? Because Microsoft and Yahoo have made their attempts at ad-selling departments as well.

What Google fails to point out in this statement is that they are the dominant leader with more than 65% of the ad-sales market. Monopolistic practices by Microsoft? If anything, the monopolistic practices for revenue-generating departments have been on Google’s side.

• Official Google Blog statement
• Microsoft.com response

I don’t mean to come off as a Microsoft fanboy (I own a Mac for my everyday use, but I love my Zune) or as a Google hater (I use Gmail both for personal and USC email accounts). All I’m trying to say is that for too long, Microsoft has been an easy target to yell monopoly around. Just because a company is successful and has a corporate face (as opposed to Google or Apple’s fun-eco-friendly faces) doesn’t mean that its sometimes aggressive, market-upsetting actions are illegal.

Bill Gates’ 2008 CES keynote

I, probably like everyone else in the world, find picturing Microsoft without Bill Gates rather hard. Bill Gates is the face of Microsoft even more than Steve Jobs is the face of Apple (the iPod is Apple’s face). But as iconic as one of the richest persons in the world is, that doesn’t change the fact that Bill Gates will be stepping down from his position as CEO of Microsoft in July to take on the full-time responsibility that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation demands.

As has been tradition for the past few years, the kickoff of the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) is begun with Bill Gates giving the opening keynote. Tonight marks the last CES keynote Bill will give, and his intro to the address was very fitting. Here is a link to the video that was shown addressing what Bill’s last day at Microsoft might be like:

Bill Gates’ Last Day At Microsoft

Can anyone say cameo? And talk about getting your money’s worth. I didn’t count, but there are probably around 10-15 semi/full-blown famous people in that 6 minutes clip. Regardless of the fact that Bill can obviously get anyone in the world to do anything for him, this video was a nice piece of comedy that shined above what usually amounts to loads of geekery at events like CES. It’s sad to see such an outstanding innovator leave the industry, but there is little doubt in my mind that the work that he will do with his and Melinda’s foundation will rival what he did at Microsoft in terms of positive impact on the world as a whole.

As for the rest of the keynote, he and his Microsoft helpers did announce some interesting technologies, most importantly the broadcasting of the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics online with their Silverlight technology, but nothing really held up to the intro video. Even the Guitar Hero with Slash finale, it all seemed kind of lackluster when compared to the fact that an era of technology leadership is ending and that another is about to begin.

Addressing the CES conference, I probably won’t be covering any of it unless some product really jumps out at me. As for the Macworld conference, I’ll probably be all over that (even though I can’t go this year).

My Apple AirPort Extreme

Sooo, I normally wouldn’t spend $170 on a wireless router, but I have a number of reasons as to why I decided to purchase this piece of overpriced Apple hardware:

1. I had $120 credit to a store, and I didn’t know what else to buy.
2. I needed a wireless router, and the Linksys router I was interested in was sold out.
3. I own a MacBook Pro, and I think that the whole Apple-addiction is getting to me.

I understand that none of these can atone for my careless money-spending, but I must say that this wireless-n router is pretty damn nice.

Let’s get the obvious points out of the way. It is beautiful simply because it was “Designed by Apple in California”. It’s white, geometric, and minimal in its design. And it isn’t really competitively priced, but what Apple hardware really is (I understand that it’s getting better)?

In my room, there are wires going everywhere, which is part of the reason why I wanted a wireless router. This cleaned up two stray ethernet cords climbing up the side of my desk (one for me and one for my roommate).

Onto the setup. It was really easy, all I had to do was install the drivers/software that came bundled with the router; no different from any other router I’ve used. It recognized my incoming internet instantly, and my MacBook Pro recognized the router equally fast. It was setting up my hard drive where I found problems.

Try as I might, I couldn’t get my computer to pair with the hard drive. Even though the router recognized it, OS X wouldn’t for some reason. It turned out that my hard drive happens to be one of about 10 that no longer works due to some software and firmware restrictions. I hope that gets corrected soon, but I don’t think it will seeing as this router has been out for quite a few months.

All in all, this router works as it should. I have set it up as a wireless print server instead of a hard drive server, and it does what it is supposed to. Is it worth $170? No, but I had store credit and I think it looks nice…