Vlad Bobleanta // Welcome!
>My Twitter stream is the primary place to get my opinions and what I consider to be the most interesting stories of the day<
>Go to my online home or visit My Google Profile<
This post is outdated.
Google Wave is the best thing since sliced bread.
Well, it may become the best thing since email. That remains to be seen, however its potential is enormous. If you don't yet know about Google Wave, watch this (lengthy) video of its introduction at Google I/O:
And all I can think is, how did these guys manage to set up a system where people pay to drive traffic from one place on Facebook to another place on Facebook? Even Google hasn’t managed to figure that one out yet. I’ve known they (and MySpace) have done this since launching their ad platforms, but it never really hit home until today how brilliant this all is.
All I can think is, people used to (I hope it isn't still happening) pay for "land" on the Moon (or was it Mars?). People will pay for anything, if said anything is properly marketed.
"Brilliant" as this may be for Facebook, I can't help but wonder how brilliant it is for those actually forking the cash for this.
I love the internet too (that's how the linked post ends).
And BananaBucks.
Somewhere, somehow, Facebook started evolving into something that wasn’t very desirable. You knew MySpace was going downhill when you logged on one day and saw that you had a friend request from a bottle of Pepsi, or a can of Axe deodorant. With Facebook, it was logging on one day and seeing your mom, and your mom’s friends, trying to become your friend that may have signaled something weird was happening. For others it was the Facebook applications that sprang out of nowhere and quickly turned people’s profiles back into the hideous malformed websites that we all used to remember as MySpace profiles. For me, it was the realization that I was interacting with all my friends in a highly efficient manner that made it just as easy to see what my best friend was doing, as someone who I don’t even talk to, yet accepted their friend request anyway as a gesture of good will.
I never quite 'got' Facebook. I still don't.
I think the UI is overly complicated, thus the UX is horrible. I spend most of my time there (which amounts to 10 minutes every two weeks) trying to figure out what goes where, why is that there, where are the settings for that, are there even any settings for that...
To me, it's confusing.
Yet to 'normal people', you know, the people who haven't ever heard of Jaiku, it seems to work. I have seen numerous friends of mine who normally "visit" the web maybe 10 minutes a month spend hours a day on Facebook.
And watching what they do, I believe the strength of Facebook for the average person is in photos. The ease of use (in that respect only!), the tagging of people... And people (apparently) very much enjoy peeking into other people's lives via photographs.
It's like that real-life fascination with being presented photo albums. I never, ever understood this, but I saw almost everyone around me quite enjoy the experience.
It could still have been a place for me to hang out. In time, I would have got past all the UI quirks, and maybe I would have enjoyed some good conversations over there, especially since it's a lot better at handling those than the media darling Twitter. But good conversations can't take place there.
Because the thing that started Facebook's transformation into something that wasn't very desirable is, in my opinion, apps.
They're silly, useless time wasters. And I don't think anyone actually enjoys them. Or at least I hope so. These start lowering the value of the overall experience, they might even soft-spam (I invented that right now!) your notifications area... it's all downhill from there.
It's a pity. I think Facebook would have been an interesting place to connect to less geeky friends. IF it had no apps.
But this is just my take. Read Stefan's, linked above, because it focuses on an entirely different perspective. Which is very interesting and worthy of a read.
Last week’s Google Chrome OS announcement doesn’t seem to be impacting prior plans for Android netbooks. DigiTimes indicates that Acer is still planning to launch a dual-boot netbook that offers both Microsoft Windows XP and Google Android. I don’t envision any cost difference between an XP / Android netbook and an XP-only device- the cost of a Windows XP license has to be paid in both cases. So there’s no benefit in terms of cost, but there is a value-add in having another operating system for those that want it. Or is there?
I’m not sure I understand why Acer is continuing to pursue the Android angle. It will offer them some hands on time to integrate a Google operating system with their hardware. But Android is ideally suited for ARM-based devices, and Google has made it clear that Chrome OS is their future for netbooks. Heck, Acer is even one of the hardware vendors that have already signed on for Chrome OS.
Because, you know, Chrome OS will only be available in the second half of next year.
So why shouldn't Acer stick to its (admittedly, rather weird) plan for the dual-boot netbook? To wait at least a year before it can use Chrome OS?
Hell, then perhaps Acer should consider not releasing any new netbooks until Chrome OS comes out.
Come on.
TopicOfTheDay is simply a Twitter account and hashtag that runs and gives you a new question to think about each day. It is your way out when you have nothing to say and have tweeters block. Each day a new question is asked for you to respond, blog or do nothing.
Strange coincidence, Plinky is a Twitter-like service built exactly around that.
I wonder if they should have seen this coming.