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

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.

• 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.

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).

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…

Of course anything that happens regarding Steve Jobs will make the tech blogs, but yesterday was a big day in the life of a newly converted Mac user. It was the start of WWDC, and as usual, Jobs gave his keynote as an opening act. Also as usual, there were massive rumors circulating both forums and blogs alike, some rumors came true, other fell back into the “save for next Apple event” pile. Here are some of the things announced today and my take left along side of them:

Mac OS X Leopard

• Desktop: We have a new dock and semi-transparent top bar. The new dock is definitely nice with the Stacks feature, but listing a semi-transparent bar as a feature? What’s up with that? If Jobs would have skipped the bar and focused solely on the dock, I would be much more pleased. Either way, the new dock is a definite improvement. It’s a step in the left direction.
• Finder: This is where I am most excited for Leopard. The finder has a whole new way of browsing through the files and folders located all around your hard drive. New icons that mimic the file/folder contents, new Cover Flow view, and and improved searching with Spotlight all excite me. I believe that Core Animation will be integrated somehow into the new Finder features which would make this new explorer even prettier.
• Time Machine: Nothing really new, but Time Machine looks nice. Admittedly, it is just a backup program with a pretty GUI, but what’s wrong with that? Having it integrated into my OS is very welcome.
• Spaces: Again, nothing new, but this is probably my second favorite feature coming to Leopard. This makes it OK for those of us who can’t fit four screens on our desks. It looks like it will have very intuitive integration into everyday use, and with the rapid increases in RAM size and decrease in prices, more programs are going to be open more of the time. One screen can’t really handle that without something like Spaces.
• iChat: A few new things make this simple text/audio/video chatting program even more appealing. You can now show your the people who you are chatting with your presentations, slideshows, or other things not pertaining to your face. Nice new features, nothing shocking though.
• Boot Camp: We all knew that Boot Camp would be integrated into Leopard, and although we were hoping that Apple would make it into a Parallels/VMware killer of sorts, Jobs presented it as a complementary product to these two others. The new Boot Camp will allow quick switching between your different virtual machines. Small update.
• Front Row: It will look like Apple TV, that’s nice… I guess. I don’t really use Front Row right now, maybe I will next year at college. This new interface doesn’t affect me too much.

iPhone

• 3rd Party Apps: No SDK, only web apps. Apple needs to learn that, although first-party limitations have worked thus far, competitors are coming in on all sides. Seeing as Apple is entering into a brand new market that already seems saturated with carriers and phone makers, being locked into the Cingular/AT&T contract sucks big time. Only web apps really hinders the capabilities for others to develop kick-ass applications.
• Size Issues: The picture of the iPhone has changed on the Apple website (which has also received a redesign). What is odd is that it now seems MUCH smaller than before. It turns out that after the old and new images are compared and the new one is vertially stretched, they match exactly. This is some shady imaging on Apple’s part. It looks like Andre the Giant’s hand holding the iPhone where as before it was Mini-Me’s.

Other/Misc.

• Safari 3 for Windows: I get the point of releasing an Apple browser for Windows. It can be used as yet another point of entry for Apple. It’s too bad that their product sucks. Mac users don’t even use Safari, why would Windows users. If Windows users are to use any browser other than IE (which sucks equally to Safari), they will either use Firefox or Opera. Apple still has a ways to go with this browser. They might want to focus on getting a home-court advantage before going to the visitor’s side.

  Update: Wired has done benchmarks on Safari 3, Firefox 2, and IE 7. Guess what? Apple lied. Safari is slower than both…

• Games: Another “why?” to me. Now that Parallels is making strides in virtualization with Windows and the integration of gaming on Macs using the Windows OS, why keep producing games for Macs? I don’t think it makes sense on a developer’s side. It makes perfect sense for Apple, but not for EA.

These new ads are very basic in nature. What do they show? How to work the device. Through clever workflow ideas (Calamari) they display the ways that the iPhone can easily switch from and to each different function in-between sessions. The narrator is soothing, the music appropriate, and the visual part is as simple as it can get: a hand holding an iPhone. Then again, it does have one level of complexity at times; its that damn second hand.

That second hand is going to be a big problem for Apple. The fact that the iPod is completely functional is one hand is amazing (but this attribute is repeatable). June 29th is the launch date according to these commercials.

Update: TUAW did an article about these new ads saying that the Mac ads should be more like this. I can’t agree enough. I feel that the Mac ads are rude and elitist. They are what make me NOT want to be like the Mac guy.

Take a good look at that image. Now realize that this 1GB flash media player costs only $40. Seeing the word Zen branded on these little devices tells you that they are part of the Creative Zen line of a wide variety of media players. And like many of Creative’s products, it does what Apple’s products do at a drastically reduced price. Apple’s Shuffle, which does the exact same functions (play music files randomly w/o an LCD screen), costs $80 (double the Zen Stone).

The Zen Stone exemplifies my main problems with Apple’s products and their pricing schemes. Apple is able to charge ridiculous prices for ordinary products employing technology that has been available for years. There is no use trying to deny that their marketing and PR departments are probably the best in the world, but I still don’t think that their products justify their prices. Paying more for an inferior product isn’t cool, though it might be fashionable.

After Steve Jobs’ blaming the record industry for DRM saying that he’s all for DRM-free music, but not taking any personal responsibility for the problem, the major record label EMI has published a press release stating that it will be offering higher quality, DRM-free music on the iTunes Music Store. Here is a great summary of the points made today (by Gizmodo):

•EMI approached Apple about DRM free tracks, not the other way around.
•EMI is cool with any other music store doing DRM-free tracks. This is not an iTunes exclusive.
•Those stores can put songs in any format they want. The iTunes premium price and AAC 256 kbps format are Apple’s Marketing decision.
•One underpublicized aspect of this deal is that full albums will cost the same. That means that while LCD Soundsystem’s North American Scum will cost more than a DRM‘d version, the full album, Sound of Silver, that it came from will cost the same either way. Combine that with the ability to upgrade tracks into full albums, and DRM‘d songs into free tracks eases the stinging a bit.
•EMI made this move based on research that showed consumers want DRM-free tracks.
•They’re doing this to get a bigger stake in online music, believing that even though CDs are 90% of their sales, those figures will shrink or stay flat. They’re projecting that online sales should rise to to 25% of their sales by 2010.
•That includes music sales on cellphones. That’s 500-billion capable handsets, worldwide, by end of this year.
•The DRM-free tracks should, they believe improve sales: Even as piracy gets easier, so does the ability to play songs on any MP3 player available. (That is, once some other music store releases EMI tracks on MP3.)
•Although Jobs says, “We expect to offer more than half of the songs on iTunes in DRM-free versions by the end of this year.”, EMI says the first of the new tracks will be on sale in May.
•EMI won’t disavow RIAA lawsuits, however.