tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213670552024-03-10T15:13:05.437-04:00graphicallyspeakingSree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.comBlogger245125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-42620747224202320762017-01-26T13:15:00.001-05:002017-01-26T13:15:14.698-05:00MediumThe times they are'a'changing. See you there.<br /><b><a href="https://medium.com/@sreekotay">https://medium.com/@sreekotay</a></b>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-28169401611983717082013-10-07T14:15:00.001-04:002013-10-09T08:40:42.805-04:00iOS 7. Meh.For the record, I am an iPhone fan -- since day 1 (and I can <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2007/01/apple-iphone-wow.html">prove it</a> :)).<br />
<br />
But I'm not loving iOS 7.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong: there's a lot to like. Its modern looking, less 'cutesy' (and way less cheesy), uses motion effectively, and generally improves the user interface affordances for a lot of use cases (contacts link in messages, actions in mail, etc.). And that doesn't even get into the tons of (overdue) under the hood improvements.<br />
<br />
But I think, overall, its a cacophony of form over function that hasn't been executed or even <a href="https://twitter.com/thomasfuchs/status/387306068034215936/photo/1">thought through very well</a> . It took me a little while to put my finger on it, but the things I don't like are almost exactly the things people <a href="http://www.wired.com/design/2013/09/how-ios-7-paves-the-way-for-a-golden-age-of-apps/">seem excited about</a>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><b>The User Interface blends with the content</b>. I agree content should be the focus, and the UI should not be noticeable, but that is not what I (generally) see with iOS 7 - instead its a hot mess. The UI was the star in previous iterations of iOS, and while it was obnoxious, it at least delineated interaction boundaries. In iOS 7, the "edges" between the 2 are kinda blurry -- too often marking neither as the hero, to the detriment of both. </li>
<li><b>iOS7 looks more modern</b>. In places, it looks incomplete. In places, it looks ugly. In lots of places, it looks great -- but it's<a href="http://weknowmemes.com/2013/09/ios-7-has-become-android/"> hard to argue</a> that it <b><a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2011/10/kindle-fire-return-of-desktop.html">Thinks Different</a></b>. The aesthetic is nice - but iOS now looks like a generic (albeit polished) smartphone.</li>
<li><b>The UI Metaphors are gone - but not really</b>. Skeumorphism is dead (for now), and "authentically digital" is the new king. While I fully and completely agree and appreciate how much more modern iOS looks, it still uses motion metaphors that are incongruent with the look and feel -- parallax, inertia, etc. It embraces many skeumorphic action patterns that are discordant without the visual cues to anchor it (iOS Timer, I'm looking at you).</li>
<li><b>There is no visual language</b>. Circles used to imply pages/screens. No skeumorphism -- purely digital. Now circles are everything: scrolling, signal strength, progress indicator, etc. Blue is something clickable -- except when you can't, or sometimes its clickable anyway. Selection visibility is all over the place. Meh.</li>
<li><b>Its been streamlined (and now too much is hidden). </b>Click, double-click, press-and-hold, flick-in-the-middle, swipe from edge, wat - Apple, stahp. Its kinda OK when these are global and/or accelators, but in combination with the increasing context sensitivity of these guestures (*cough* search)... not great.</li>
</ul>
<div>
I'm not predicting the end of Apple, or saying it's going to impact anything about their business.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm just a little... disappointed. A few hero screens look great -- but the effectiveness is only skin deep. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Look and feel? </div>
<div>
Look and fail.</div>
Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-77048986508915253342013-02-20T19:21:00.002-05:002013-02-26T23:47:58.502-05:00Implementing brainfuck, part 2<b><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Update: Faster binaries <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2013/02/implementing-brainfuck.html">posted</a>. Source coming shortly.</i></span></b><br />
<br />
In <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2013/02/implementing-brainfuck.html">Part 1</a>, I presented some benchmarks (see <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2013/02/implementing-brainfuck.html">here</a>) for my brainfuck implementation against some of the best. I'll now lay out the reference interpreter, the optimized interpreter, and source code.<br />
<br />
(I'm slower posting all this than I meant to be: apologies --- dayjob and all...)<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To start, the reference interpreter looks like this:</div>
<div>
<iframe height="400px" src="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bf_ref.htm" style="border: none;" width="100%"></iframe>
</div>
The source code is here: <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bffsree_ref.c">bffsree_ref.c</a> and <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bfsree.h">bfsree.h</a>.<b><i> <br />[</i>updated<i>: fixed missing header]</i></b><br />
Executables for <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bfusree_gcc.exe">Windows</a> and <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bfusree">Linux</a>.<br />
<br />
Its pretty basic --- pretty much add/subtract, move left/right, get/put, and then loop begin/end.
It basically is as basic as you can get, though it include three things that are, only in the loosest sense, "optimizations":<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Although the interpreter will ignore non-valid characters at runtime, they are actually stripped at parse time.</li>
<li>I accumulate operations into a counter at parse time (e.g. ++++ becomes +4)</li>
<li>I parse the jump locations for loops at parse time.</li>
</ol>
<div>
These are so simple to do inline that it feels like they hardly qualify, and you'll see all 3 in pretty much every implementation (I'd guess).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And presented below is the optimized implementation that I presented in <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2013/02/implementing-brainfuck.html">Part 1</a>:</div>
<iframe height="520px" src="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bf_opt.htm" style="border: none;" width="100%"></iframe>
<br />
Note that it is NOT materially different.<br />
The main differences are:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The collapse of the command and "helper" arrays</li>
<li>Double-instructioning -- whereby it is assumed that to do anything interesting in brainfuck, you always have to move the pointer, so every instruction has a move-the-pointer offset (saves on instruction decodes)</li>
<li>The inclusion of the "super instructions" that perform the following common tasks:</li>
<ol>
<li>Pointer shifting in a loop</li>
<li>Multiplication of a cell by a constant</li>
<li>Setting a cell to a value</li>
<li>Multiplication of a cell by a constant, then zeroing</li>
<li>Multiplying two cells</li>
</ol>
</ul>
<div>
The first 2 are pretty straighforward -- most of the work is in the third item: collapsing the existing instructions into the optimized "super" instructions without breaking any contracts. The primary optimizations are around loop invariance.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are a LOT more optimizations I didn't yet finish tackling -- dead code elimination and constant propagation, in particular -- that should yield materially better performance.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'll post the details and source to the optimizing implementation in a future post. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>(Oh, btw, forget to mention -- if you use the "-c" option with the optimized implementation from<a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2013/02/implementing-brainfuck.html"> part 1</a>, it will convert your brainfuck program to somewhat performant C code.)</i></div>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-13395652611270727582013-02-10T22:59:00.001-05:002013-02-26T23:45:34.035-05:00Implementing brainfuck<b><i>Updated: <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2013/02/implementing-brainfuck-part-2.html">Part 2</a> is now available.</i></b><br />
<br />
For those not aware, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck">brainfuck</a> is a small programming language whose sole existence is to <a href="http://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck">amuse</a> programmers. It has certainly been <a href="http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=54479">amusing</a>.<br />
<br />
In that vein, I got myself a nice X1 Carbon Touch with Windows 8 a few weeks ago, and as always with a new laptop, I play with a few projects to "break it in". I have a fun little image viewer that I upgraded to touch (a few more things to clean up - may post it), and one of the other toys I thought I'd play with was a brainfuck interpreter and debugger. The debugger part is important, as I've done a few language implementations before, but not all the way through the tool chain, and thought it'd be informative.
Sadly, I'm not through the whole tool chain yet -- still have to finish the editor/debugger, but the basic mechanics for the implementation are in place.<br />
<br />
Because I'm competitive, I wanted to also try some interpreter optimization ideas. I'd been kicking them around with a Javascript interpreter I did over the holidays (*cough* 2011 --- will get back to it at some point).
Brainfuck seemed simple enough that it would be a nice testbed.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I'll post some more details and source code, but thought I'd start with some results and executables to "whet the appetite" as it were.<br />
<br />
For those who are unfamiliar, brainfuck has only 8 operators: "<>[]+-,." ... and "<a href="http://www.helloworld.org/">Hello World</a>" looks like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck#Hello_World.21">this</a>:<br />
<pre style='background:white'>>+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++[<++++>-]<+.+++++++..+++.[-]
>++++++++[<++++>-] <.>+++++++++++[<++++++++>-]<-.--------.+++
.------.--------.[-]>++++++++[<++++>- ]<+.[-]++++++++++.</pre>
<span style="background-color: white;"></span>I first built a reference interpreter, and then found a few fast online intepreters: Alex Pankatrov's moderately optimizing <a href="http://www.swapped.cc/#!/bff">implementation</a> (bff) and Oleg Mazonka's "<a href="http://mazonka.com/brainf/">fastest in class</a>" interpreter (bff4) (according to Wikipedia). They both crushed my reference interpreter, which lead to my optimized implementation.
Compiled versions are included here:
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.swapped.cc/#!/bff">Alex's</a> <b>bff </b>for <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bff_gcc.exe">Windows</a> and <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bff">Linux</a>.</li>
<li><a href="http://mazonka.com/brainf/">Oleg's</a> <b>bff4 </b>for <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bff4_gcc.exe">Windows</a> and <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bff4">Linux</a>.</li>
<li>My <b>bffsree </b>for <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bffsree_gcc.exe">Windows</a> and <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/bffsree">Linux</a>.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Some <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/brainf_progs.tar">brainfuck sample programs</a> are <a href="http://www.kotay.com/sree/bf/brainf_progs.tar">here</a>.</div>
<i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;"><b>UPDATE</b>: Linux binaries updated; had uploaded in text mode (d'oh!).</span></i>
<br />
<div>
<i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;"><b>UPDATE 02.27.13</b>: Slightly faster binaries updated again.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">
</span></i></div>
Performance is as follows:
<br/>
<b>Linux</b>:
<br />
<table style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);"><tbody>
<tr><td><b>program: </b></td><td><b>mandel.b </b></td><td><b>hanoi.b </b></td><td><b>sisihi.b </b></td><td><b>long.b</b> </td></tr>
<tr><td>bff</td><td>6.0s</td><td>12.3s</td><td>n/a</td><td>14.4s</td></tr>
<tr><td>bff4</td><td>6.8s</td><td>0.5s</td><td>5.9s</td><td>3.1s</td></tr>
<tr><td>bffsree</td><td>2.7s</td><td>0.05s</td><td>1.4s</td><td>0.2s</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Windows</b>:
<br />
<table style="border: solid 1px #ccc;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><b>program: </b></td>
<td><b>mandel.b </b></td>
<td><b>hanoi.b </b></td>
<td><b>sisihi.b </b></td>
<td><b>long.b</b> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>bff</td>
<td>7.6s</td>
<td>16.2s</td>
<td>n/a</td>
<td>17.1s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>bff4</td>
<td>6.8s</td>
<td>1.3s</td>
<td>4.1s</td>
<td>3.1s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>bffsree</td>
<td>3.4s</td>
<td>0.8s</td>
<td>1.2s</td>
<td>0.16s</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Some notes:
<br />
<div>
<ul>
<li>GCC 4.7 for Windows and 4.6 for Linux were used.</li>
<li><b>bffsree </b>and <b>bff </b>can read from a file or stdin. <b>bff4 </b>reads from stdin.</li>
<li>"sisihi.b" is a brainfuck self interpreter running itself running "hi123.b" -- basically the executable you pick runs a brainfuck program that is a self intepreter running a self interpreter (itself) that runs a simple brainfuck program. Which is why they call it brainfuck.</li>
<li>The difference between Linux speed and Windows speed appears to be <b>gcc </b>version and console speed (Windows console is slow).</li>
<li>Both <b>bff </b>and <b>bff4 </b>seem to fail with "bench.b" (or are crazy slow) --- not sure what that's about.</li>
<li>Oleg's <b>bff4 </b>appears to have been the fastest since 2009 -- which is quite impressive.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
I'll discussion implementation notes in a follow-up post shortly.<br />
<b><i>Continued <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2013/02/implementing-brainfuck-part-2.html">here</a>.</i></b></div>
<!----->Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-81448148234901654762011-10-17T10:45:00.001-04:002012-08-13T07:56:15.326-04:00Redux: WebGL Random Pixel ToyFun: Check out <a href="http://www.storminthecastle.com/2011/10/09/webgl-sand-toy/">WebGL Sand Toy</a>.<br />
<br />
John Robinson, at his <a href="http://www.storminthecastle.com/">storminthecastle</a> blog, posted a 'cloud' version (i.e. a webpage :P) of a <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2006/10/random-pixel-toy.html">toy app I did 5 years ago</a>. His version is pretty cool, all the more so because it runs in the browser, using WebGL.<br />
<br />
Two things strike me about this (other than general fun/goodness):<br />
<ol>
<li>5 years(-ish) feels about right on the Moore's law curve, and is probably the target for 'native' smartphones apps making the transition to browser based (<a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/09/webtv/papers/HTML5_gaps_r4.pdf">if the W3C can get its act together</a>)</li>
<li>On the other hand, "runs like native" still seems like the highest compliment one can pay a browser based thing... so there's that.</li>
</ol>
<br />
By way of example for both points, consider:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://blog.kotay.com/goog/portfolio/bmw_z3_configurator.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="190" src="http://kotay.com/goog/portfolio/bmw_z3_configurator.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.viewpoint.com/technologies/viewpoint-media-player.shtml">Viewpoint Media Player</a> 3D, in a browser, circa 2002 usin<span id="goog_374570805"></span><span id="goog_374570806"></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/"></a>g '<a href="http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22SreeD+rendering%22#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22SreeD%22+rendering&pbx=1&oq=%22SreeD%22+rendering&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=105841l106101l1l106283l3l2l0l0l0l0l282l457l0.1.1l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=f10181c958c90d45&biw=1366&bih=643">SreeD</a>'</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://blog.kotay.com/webgl_car.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="230" src="http://blog.kotay.com/webgl_car.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://helloracer.com/webgl/">WebGL racer</a>, in a browser, circa 2011 using OpenGL</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In any case, <a href="http://www.storminthecastle.com/2011/10/09/webgl-sand-toy/">enjoy</a>.Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-68319819303032332362011-10-14T04:00:00.015-04:002011-10-14T17:56:33.437-04:00Kindle Fire: Return of the Desktop?<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576598670632549928.html">Much</a> has been <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/28/amazon-kindle-fir/">written</a> about the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Fire-Amazon-Tablet/dp/B0051VVOB2/ref=amb_link_357730182_4?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=1R48K50MMW6NJ7NCJKFY&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1324201442&pf_rd_i=507846">Amazon Kindle Fire</a> (Amazon's new Android based touchscreen Kindle e-reader/media player).<br />
<br />
<div>Is it a game changer? Maybe. We'll see. <br />
<br />
</div><div><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cdvwO3lr7Yk" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px;" width="420"></iframe></div><div>I've certainly ordered one, and though many say its <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220361/Amazon_s_Fire_no_iPad_killer_experts_say">no threat to the iPad</a>, given its media capabilities... I dunno --- people might be surprised. If its reasonably <a href="http://amazonsilk.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/introducing-amazon-silk/">performant (and compatible)</a> for browsing, and given its e-commerce, e-book, and media capabilities... well, we'll see. </div><div><br />
</div><div>Certainly its going to <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/19019/apple_ipad_plus_amazon_fire_kill_tablet_market">make it tough</a> for other Android tablet vendors; Jeff Bezos is right in asserting that <a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/296777-bezos-kindle-fire-is-an-end-to-end-service">devices alone don't sell</a> (and this is <a href="http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.html">old news</a>) -- it's devices+services, as Apple has amply demonstrated again and again.</div><div><br />
</div><div>All that said, there's another interesting thing about the Kindle Fire that distinguishes its market approach from Apple's. </div><div><br />
</div><div>It's about content.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Apple sells activities -- a lifestyle; Amazon sells content.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Contrast Amazon's pitch with Apple's:</div><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="258" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/btfbIVGES1I" width="460"></iframe><br />
<div>Disagree if you want, but its a philosophy difference that extends to the VERY FIRST SCREEN: Amazon hilights the content, not the application(s) -- go watch the Amazon video at the top of the post again.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Sure, you can by music, movies, and books with your iOS device, and there's no question that's a big part of the appeal -- but Apple's metaphor is about the task (books-->'Winnie the Pooh', videos-->'Inception'), and Amazon's is the reverse.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Interesting.</div><div><br />
</div><div>And here I thought "document-centric" computing, and the desktop metaphor it implies, was dead (I even wrote a <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2008/06/rip-finderexplorer-aka-desktop-1984.html">eulogy</a>).</div><div><br />
</div><div>Is it going to work? Maybe. We'll see.</div><div><br />
</div><div>But, either way, I have to give props to Amazon, and Bezos, for, well, trying to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8rwsuXHA7RA">Think Different</a>... :P</div><div><br />
</div>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-46777323910555458882009-09-12T17:28:00.006-04:002011-10-14T04:35:51.071-04:00#ihatewhengirlssay "that didn't take long"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Interesting to watch "tweetalanches" happen... and where/when they get started. For example, today at 10am, "#ihatewhengirlssay" was not a hashtag with any tweets. At the </span></span><a href="http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23ihatewhengirlssay"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">moment </span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.... a few hundred. It should be interesting to see how much "damage" it causes before the dust settles. The whole things reminds of Scott Adams' "Avatar" concept/character in his most excellent books: </span></span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Debris-Experiment-Scott-Adams/dp/0740747878/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252791511&sr=8-1"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">God's Debris</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> and </span></span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Religion-War-Scott-Adams/dp/0740747886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252791529&sr=1-1"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Religion War</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> (no relation to James Cameron's upcoming movie).</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Also of recent note: </span></span><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137768/Report_Twitter_to_release_revenue_generating_feature_in_Q4?taxonomyId=1"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Twitter's going to start making money</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">#ihatewhengirlsay "Twitter's going to make tons of money."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" ><br /></span></div><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><br /></div></div>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-71336199255765515292009-06-25T17:34:00.003-04:002009-06-25T18:16:19.570-04:00Comcast, Time Warner, and TVEverywhere<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Comcast and Time Warner jointly announced the </span><a href="http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=883"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"TV Everywhere" initiative</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> - much to the very vocal derision of </span><a href="http://www.internetnews.com/webcontent/article.php/3827036"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">blogs</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, </span><a href="http://gigaom.com/2009/06/23/comcast-time-warner-team-up-to-control-internet-video/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">pundits</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, and </span><a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/time-warner-comcast-depart-from-hulu-model-with-tv-everywhere/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">digital heads</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> everywhere :)</span><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The root of the announcement is, of course, that premium programming content will be available online, at no incremental cost to consumers (what marketers like to call "free" :)).</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Hard to see why this is a bad thing - but there are lots of big words, like "anti-competitive" and "anti-consumer", being bandied about, so let's try to deconstruct the questions being asked a bit. Note that opinions expressed here, as always, are strictly my own.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">1) Should content producers allowed to charge for access to their content?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I think the answer to that is "yes". There are some fair questions about who they charge, and how, and is there pricing collusion, etc. - but I don't think anyone means to imply that advertising is the ONLY model that content producers should be able to use? </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">2) Doesn't "TV Everywhere" </span><a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/time-warner-comcast-depart-from-hulu-model-with-tv-everywhere/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">depart from the Hulu model</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So... broadcasters (NBC, ABC, Fox, et al) </span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">ALREADY </span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">make the content available for free (over-the-air) - and they monetize with advertising. The "Hulu model" was to take the same business model, and make it available online. I don't mean to parse semantics here, but... kinda sounds like the same idea here: make content available wherever consumers are, using a model that is already working for consumers. Like Hulu, this isn't a new business - its a new distribution channel.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">3) Doesn't this "</span><a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2493"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">violate the open nature of the Internet</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Hmm - not sure I follow this one. "TV Everywhere" is not exclusive in any way - its simply a way for premium TV producers to get their content to consumers online, and helps identify those </span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">who are already paying for the content</span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> offline. If the content producers want to make their stuff free - well, it is their content; they're welcome to do so - not sure how this initiative impedes that idea. Yes, NBC, Fox, et al, already make their content available free to consumers (for a limited time window) - but also did so before Hulu. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Internet is an "all bits are equal" data pipe into the home - and nothing about offering subscription video over the Internet with "TV Everywhere" changes that?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The irony, to me, of posts like Om Malik's (about the "</span><a href="http://gigaom.com/2009/06/23/comcast-time-warner-team-up-to-control-internet-video/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">inefficent business model</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">" being propagated here, etc.) is that it sits on the site the same day as a post that reads "</span><a href="http://pro.gigaom.com/2009/06/is-there-a-future-for-original-ip-in-web-video/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Is there a future for original web video shows?</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">".... </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">There is a fair question here - will the price to consumers of content trend towards zero? And if it does, how will that impact quality (i.e. who's going to want to pay to make the good stuff)? </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">This program doesn't purport to answer that - mostly its just trying to get more people more convenient access to something they're already paying for.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">How horrible! :) </span></span></div></div>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-4932703038979710252009-06-01T16:32:00.004-04:002009-06-01T16:49:23.858-04:00MS Bing: The more things change...<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Microsoft launched their new search engine (</span><a href="http://www.bing.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Bing</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">) today. Its nice, though, as </span><a href="http://twitter.com/PhilClevenger"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">a friend on Twitter</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> pointed out, it does have that "Microsoft smell".</span><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">For instance, </span><a href="http://www.googlewhack.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Googlewhack</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> has always been a fun past time (find a search term of two words or less, that resolves to one and only one result) - and its fairly tricky to do (check out the </span><a href="http://www.googlewhack.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">site</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> for details) - on Google.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">But with Bing.... not so hard! Turns out that searching for </span><a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=google&go=&form=QBRE"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">a competitve search engine</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> (Google, Yahoo, AOL, etc). is a googlewhack, um, bingwhack.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><img src="http://www.kotay.com/bingwhack.jpg" /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I'm (pretty) sure that the algorithm is NOT based on that fact - but that it appears so is, well, so Microsoft smelling... try it yourself.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Bing! </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Cue </span><a href="http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/john-hodgman.jpg"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">John Hodgman</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> Apple commercial....</span></div></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rnDrkb-zytA&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rnDrkb-zytA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-61934860052367208982009-05-20T12:53:00.004-04:002009-05-20T14:05:54.822-04:00Browser benchmarks: When did they get so stupid?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So, the claim that IE is faster than Firefox, Safari, or Chrome, is ridiculous at many levels (</span><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/12/1246228"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">MS claims IE faster than other browsers</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">), and Microsoft was appropriately ridiculed for it.</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">But so is the idea that you have a test that demonstrates that the new Safari builds are "</span><a href="http://www.betanews.com/article/Apples-Safari-4-Beta-for-Windows-speeds-up-after-security-update/1242321496"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">above 15 times better performance than Internet Explorer 7 in the same system</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">". </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Seriously, that's just stupid., and renders the index meaningless.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Why not just multiple the index scores by 10? Then you can claim </span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Safari is 150X faster than IE7</span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Without scaling the index into a range that meaningfully communicates (or at least correlates) to user experience (which things like FPS and even 3DMark did for video cards), it renders the testing both </span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">invalid </span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">and </span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">irrelevant</span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></div>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-83289027954944300902009-05-15T22:03:00.006-04:002009-05-15T22:25:53.068-04:00Comscore v. Hulu: garbage in---garbage out?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Interesting. The New York Times is reporting that </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/business/media/15nielsen.html?_r=1"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Hulu is disputing audience count with Nielsen</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, stating "While Nielsen reported 8.9 million visitors to Hulu in March, another measurement firm,</span><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comscore-inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More information about comScore, Inc" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 153); text-decoration: underline; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">comScore</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, counted 42 million. "</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Wow.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Slightly embarassing, but I think that the Times is confusing "</span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Unique Visitors</span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">" (how many unique cookies are counted by a site - a reasonable proxy for people visiting the site) with "</span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Unique Viewers</span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">" (a syndicated video player concept - how many unique cookies were counted by the syndicated player; a reasonable proxy for the number of viewers who were served video by the site).</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In layman's terms, the first number would represent, in our example, the number of people who visited Hulu.com (unique visitors), while the second (unique viewers) would represent how many people watched a Hulu sourced video, whether on Hulu, a third party site (like </span><a href="http://www.fancast.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Fancast</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">), or embedded elsewhere (like on </span><a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2007/10/hi-hulu-hulu-nuku-nuku-wah-ha-hah.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">somebody's blog</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">). </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">A visit to </span><a href="http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/hulu.com+ask.com+fancast.com"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">alexa</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> or </span><a href="http://siteanalytics.compete.com/ask.com+hulu.com+fancast.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">compete</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> shows the number of "unique visitors" to be comparable to what Nielsen reported (a fact </span><a href="http://searchengineland.com/hulu-traffic-controversy-pits-comscore-vs-nielsen-19336"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">others have noted</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">). And guess what? Even Comscore doesn't put Hulu in the top 50 for April 2009 - which means even </span><a href="http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-14-2009/0005026564&EDATE="><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Comscore</span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> suggests that the number of unique visistors to Hulu is less than 19M</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> (if someone has the actual number, I'd appreciate it).</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So... move along... nothing to see here... </span></span></div>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-41061062791465484582009-04-26T23:07:00.001-04:002009-04-27T00:17:36.880-04:00Wow - what am I missing?Pirate bay craziness...<a href="http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/44103"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/44103</span></a><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The pirate bay is (was?) a site that holds *links* to torrents. I'm NOT in anyway in favor of copyright violation or intellectual property theft - but how is this (a) wrong or (b) worthy of the punishment? ($M in fines, and time in *prison*)??</span><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Its a search engine? It doesn't hold the content.... perhaps I'm missing something (have to admit I never used it).</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Update:</span></span> hiliarious (and accurate) <a href="http://www.thepirategoogle.com/">thepirategoogle</a> (pirate bay using google... duh, its a search engine, just like thepiratebay was)</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Update 2:</span></span> hmm - broken (blocked by google?)</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Update 3:</span></span> An update (tried to find the site owner, but couldn't)... so try this: <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/thepiratebaygoogle.html">thepiratebaygoogle on sree</a></div>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-71393632926360971322009-03-24T21:57:00.004-04:002009-03-24T22:22:08.058-04:00Boxee v. Hulu: Endgame<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">For those of you who haven't been following - In this corner: </span><a href="http://www.boxee.tv/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Boxee</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">'s a very nice media center type "10 foot" UI for watching video content (local and internet) using your PC/Mac. In the red trunks: </span><a href="http://www.hulu.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Hulu</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">'s a "free" browser based video service backed by NBC/Universal and Fox.<br /><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Round 1</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">: Boxee's supports </span><a href="http://blog.boxee.tv/2008/10/20/hola-hulu/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Hulu in Boxee</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> and goes from "nice" to "useful/interesting"<br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Round 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">: Hulu </span><a href="http://blog.hulu.com/2009/2/18/doing-hard-things"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">asks Boxee to drop Hulu</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> support. Boxee complies.<br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Round 3</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">: Sort of. Its not supported out of the box(ee :)), but Boxee lets users </span><a href="http://blog.boxee.tv/2009/03/06/new-version-hulu-update/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">manually add Hulu support</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">.</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Round 4</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">: </span><a href="http://blog.boxee.tv/2009/03/06/the-trials-and-tribulations-of-innovation/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Hulu blocks Boxee</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Round 5</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">: </span><a href="http://blog.boxee.tv/2009/03/24/rocking-with-pandora-at-webster-hall/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Boxee adds a browser</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">. (Mozilla/Firefox - read through the post)</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Now it gets interesting...</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So... much like the </span><a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2009/02/espn-makes-interesting-play.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">machinations of ESPN</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, the real question is why? </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">It's not entirely clear to me - and Boxee's end run should bring it to a head; If I connect a browser to my TV, why shouldn't I be able to play content that works on my PC? As a practical matter, there's no good way to differentiate (in the medium term - short term hacks might work)</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I kind of get the point for the content guys - they want to decide how and where their content gets consumed. Here's the thing - they may not get that choice: free is free.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">(Incidentally this is less of an issue for folks like us than you may think: either way its over our connectivity, and content aqcuisition is a big part of our costs - think it through. For example, note that <a href="http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/03/estimates-on-what-it-costs-netflixs-to-stream-movies.html">Netflix likes streaming</a> - because they charge you a subscription.)</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">It seems like the issue is that, ultimately, the Internet will erase a huge amount of value (valuation? perhaps not quite the same thing) from the world. I'm not arguing about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing - arguably, this was artificial value. Just saying its so... question is <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/comcasts-ondemand-online-web-video-service-coming-this-year-2009-2">how you adjust</a>.</span></div>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-54899923545357654142009-02-12T21:02:00.005-05:002011-10-14T06:17:28.801-04:00ESPN makes an... interesting play<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I'm surprised there's not been more coverage of ESPN's ISP extortion scheme. </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold; "><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/06/1444258"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">ESPN's Play To Make ISPs Pay</span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">(from <a href="http://slashdot.org/">slashdot</a>)</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Its kind of interesting - on the one hand, its their site, their content, they should be able to do what they want... on the other hand, well, it seems like deals like this seem like a bad idea on many levels. I guess the markets will speak on whether this makes sense.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">But amusingly, this was also covered on </span><a href="http://www.dslreports.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">BroadbandReports</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> (see </span><a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Small-ISPs-Revolt-Against-ESPN360-Model-100843"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">) - the amusing part is that the article ran with an advertisement (contextually served by our <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/11/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-goog.html">overlords at Google</a>) from, you guessed it, ESPN. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><img src="http://blog.kotay.com/espn.png" /><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Karma's a fickle beast.</span></div></div>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-17444188325194051102009-02-02T11:52:00.006-05:002009-02-02T12:34:54.341-05:00Twitter, really? You're surprised?<span style="font-size:85%;">I'm always a bit surprised at the media's surprise of media darlings (to wit: "<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10146753-62.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5">Twitter's Risk of Ubiquity</a>"). First, we're all lemmings - where "all" <strong><em>especially</em></strong> includes anybody who thinks they are a subject matter expert, analyst, or pundit.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Secondly (specific to this instance), <a href="http://gawker.com/tag/twitterati/">Twitter</a> is <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1I7GGLD_en&q=second+life+hype">Second Life</a> for the "cool" geeks (what's the emoticon for sarcasm?). Which is to say, though not as nerdy as 3D, it <b><i>is </i></b>an interesting indicator of future interaction patterns ("<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3436067109364123518">follow the alpha geek</a>"). But, its never going to be a interesting business, and the early pioneers will likely not stand the test of time.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">An ex-VP of Business Development of one of my endeavors once said "<strong><em>Our</em></strong> <strong><em>goal is to have a business model that you can't disprove in a finite amount of time</em></strong>." (</span><span style="font-size:85%;">I probably should have listened to him - but that's a story for another day)</span><br /><p><span style="font-size:85%;">So here's my new axiom for the new economy (I'll warn you in advance that its not as pithy as my former colleague's):</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">If you have a Chief Revenue Officer, you might be a jack-ass. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">The business of EVERY business is to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10112037-2.html">make money</a>. Seriously. Its right there in the <a href="http://www.mvp.cfee.org/en/glossary.html">definition</a> and everything.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></p>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-18909936036251107512008-12-19T23:24:00.004-05:002008-12-19T23:42:40.844-05:00Redux: Touch UI and the Art of Intent<span style="font-size:85%;">Some very interesting <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12773-transparent-gadget-could-trump-iphone-interface.html">research into touch UI from Microsoft Research, University of Toronto, and the good folks at Mitsubishi</a> (MERL's been doing some <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qadw0BRKeMk">great work</a>) illustrates how to improve the precision and efficacy of touch screen computing. This isn't strictly a technology problem (touch screens are pretty accurate) - its a human factors problem (an <a href="http://acad88.sahs.uth.tmc.edu/courses/hi6301/affordance.html">affordance</a> issue).<br /><br /><a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2007/11/touch-ui-and-art-of-intent.html">I wrote on this a while ago</a> - the mouse is pretty accurate, but one of the significant reasons I think it succeeded as an "intuitive" input device was that it created an interface paradigm that allowed "intent".<br /><br />Touch screens allow us to create programmable input devices (the <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2007/01/apple-iphone-wow.html">hardwares becomes "soft"</a> - the rest is just wiring) - I don't think its tactility that's makes it intriguing.<br /><br />While the article posits that they solve the "fat fingering" problem by allowing the interactive to happen "above" your fingers - that is, you can touch the front *and* back of the screen, I'll posit that its actually the recapturing of *intent* in the interaction flow that makes the difference here.<br /><br />Judge for yourself:<br /><br /><object height="242" width="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aASuL7RHJHM&hl=en"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aASuL7RHJHM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="242" width="300"></embed></object><br /><br />In any case, pretty cool.<br /></span>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-55081644573602246672008-12-10T14:37:00.005-05:002011-10-14T06:18:29.601-04:00I've seen the future!<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Not so much. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /></span><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/12/10/1432203.shtml"><span style="font-size:85%;">Microsoft Plans VR Simulation of Everything?</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> (from </span><a href="http://slashdot.org/"><span style="font-size:85%;">slashdot</span></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">)</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"Microsoft's research chief has been </span></span><a style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/25/3d-future-according-microsoft-photosynth-based-spatial-web"><span style="font-size:85%;">promoting the idea of commerce applications and other tools built on top of what he calls the 'Spatial Web'</span></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">, a blend of 3D, video, and location-aware technologies. He gave an example of a shopkeeper creating 3D models of his store's interior and goods with Photosynth and then uploading the results into a large 3D model of local shopping district. Customers could 'visit' the area, browse products, and order them for real-world delivery"</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">As a colleague of mine once said, quite some time ago:<br />"<strong>Sounds like Doom, without the fun</strong>" </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(Or... was that me? Can't remember....)</span> </span>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-9320020265616294612008-12-09T16:00:00.005-05:002008-12-09T16:26:34.292-05:00Review: Best Javascript book EVER.<span style="font-size:85%;">Douglas Crockford's "</span><a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Javascript: the Good Parts</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">" - go get it. Its concise, and takes you through the semantics of Javascript from first principles. Unlike most such books, which try to make learning JS easier by over-analogizing to other languages, Doug's book also highlights the differences from the very beginning - building a much better foundation for understanding the language, pros and cons.<br /><br />Heartilty recommended regardless of your level of sophistication or intimacy with Javascript. At a minimum, you'll come away with a better framework for approaching your web applications. And if you're language geek, you'll just like it.<br /><br />Plus, its concise.<br /><br />Probably my favorite programming book since </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript#PostScript_Level_1"><span style="font-size:85%;">the red book</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> (level 1, natch).</span>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-70311806588364291472008-11-10T15:46:00.004-05:002008-11-10T15:56:15.381-05:00Practical Joke?<span style="font-size:85%;">I read this headline on Slashdot:<br /></span><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/10/1651236"><span style="font-size:85%;">Halliburton Applies For Patent-Trolling Patent</span></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">It's GOT to be joke... see the original article: </span><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0118162765.shtml"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0118162765.shtml</span></a><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/3009387113_514d56960e.jpg"><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><img style="WIDTH: 306px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 500px" alt="" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/3009387113_514d56960e.jpg" border="0" /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Is it April 1 somewhere in the world? *Somebody's* got to be kidding... please? </span>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-24829505545182602142008-11-05T12:39:00.003-05:002008-11-05T12:46:21.197-05:00Election '08 (that's a wrap)<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"There's no question about it - In the next 40 years a Negro can achieve the same position that my brother had." - Robert F. Kennedy, 1968. </span></span>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-2910639307009041582008-09-19T10:45:00.001-04:002008-09-19T10:47:44.899-04:00Google Chrome Review in 25 words<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Pros</span>: Great UI (not break-through, but very nice), Fast</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Cons</span>: Memory hog, Crashes a lot, not quite as compatible</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Summary</span>: Its my default browser - go figure!</span></div>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-28017048862798542912008-09-02T15:18:00.009-04:002008-09-02T20:09:26.911-04:00Google Chrome: Quick Browser Benchmark<span style="font-size:85%;"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Update</span>: IE 7 was not included because it took too damn long to finish and I got bored.</span></div><div><br /></div>Using <a href="http://dromaeo.com/">Dromaeo</a>.<br /><br /></span><span style=";font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">Firefox 3_____2042 ms</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style=";font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">Safari 3.1.2__2561 ms</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style=";font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">Chrome 0.2:____540 ms</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />Actual product thoughts forthcoming after a few days of usage... but my "first 10 minutes" review is: nice, but nothing that would make me switch (from Firefox).</span>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-77553171979882273102008-09-01T21:10:00.009-04:002008-09-02T08:26:39.041-04:00New Browser: Google Chrome -Launching Tomorrow! (maybe?)<a style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-01-n47.html"><img style="margin: 0pt 0px 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.kotay.com/google_chrome.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update</span>: </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/fresh-take-on-browser.html">Official statement</a><span style="font-style: italic;">.</span><br /><br />Lots of information available at <a href="http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-01-n47.html">blogoscoped</a>. Of particular interest is how it looks like its going to be introduced: using <a href="http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/">an online graphic novel by Scout McCloud</a>.<br /><br />The new JavaScript VM should be interesting - I've certainly felt you could achieve 5-10X current JavaScript <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2006/03/javascript-applications-pt-2.html">without resorting to a JIT for dynamic languages</a>. Too much is made of the process isolation (IMHO) - though there is something nice in the idea that each tab is a "reboot" of your browser.<br /><br />They also outline some <a href="http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-02-n72.html">UI design choices</a> which I think are appropriate - we did them quite intentionally on <a href="http://www.glazman.org/weblog/dotclear/index.php?post/2005/11/24/1400-aol-explorer">AOL Explorer</a>, and (forgive the sense of vindication but) two items I feel particularly that I pushed (<a href="http://boards.core77.com/viewtopic.php?t=16168">larger back button</a> and tabs above the address bar) look like they're mainstreaming... pity we blinked so often back then.<br /><br />Hopefully there will be more in "Google Chrome" - a rethought browser is looooong over due. Definitely <a href="http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/">read Scott's comic commentary</a> as to why.<br /><br />Probably unfair to juedge without a test drive, but what I see in screenshots is still pretty incremental (as was AOL Explorer) - it would be a <a href="http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/business-spin/2007/08/17/the-summer-google-became-an-arrogant-monopoly">continued sign of corporate hubris</a> to imagine success by tweaking a successful formula and sticking their brand on it.<br /><br />(Note that I'm not saying it won't work.... :P)<br /><br />I'll post some thoughts when I try it out.<br /><br /></span>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-45328154639290610632008-08-19T17:29:00.005-04:002008-08-19T17:49:02.944-04:00Open Source Legal Ruling Sets Precedent<span style="font-size:85%;">The <a href="http://www.crn.com/software/210004167">ruling</a> is from last week, but still worth mentioning as there seems to be some <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/08/copyright_rulin.html">confusion and swirl </a>about the scope and impact of the ruling. As always, I'm <a href="http://sree.kotay.com/2006/03/gpl-3-hole-y-wars-pt-3-punchline.html">happy to provide my opinion</a> on the subject :)<br /><br />The short version is this: someone incorporated some very liberally licensed source code into a commercial product, and did not abide by the terms under which the original source code was released - namely that if you use the code, you must provide attribution and a link/pointer back to the original. So the owner of the original source code sued.<br /><br />The questions that got answered by the courts were:<br />- Is an extremely liberal license the equivalent of depositing your work in the public domain? (no)<br />- Is an open source license a valid copyright, or does it fall into the jurisdiction of contract law? (copyright)<br /><br />Basically, it means that the copyright holder has the right to impose restrictions on the use of licensed products. <br /><br />Although some folks have noted that this could fuel further <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/15/bad-news-for-riaa-judge-to-reconsider-infringement-standard/?mod=googlenews_wsj">RIAA/content license nonsense</a>, it should be noted that this ruling did NOT touch on fair use (the right of the individual to manage his/her "copy"), but on the rights of re-use and re-distribution.<br /><br />And although it was a "win" for open source advocates - especially because copyright law provides the opporunity injunctive relief ("the right to withold") - it didn't address the so-called viral nature of GPL-like licenses, either.<br /><br />Still, all-in-all, seems like a win for rationality - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf">read it for yourself</a> (its not long).<br /></span>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21367055.post-25659318512034450312008-07-17T01:22:00.002-04:002008-07-17T01:23:26.371-04:00True Story<span style="font-size:85%;">Until Facebook, I never realized how annoying something as mundane as my birthday could be. Thank you social networking overlords.<br /></span>Sree Kotayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01637645734999157782noreply@blogger.com1