Paul Walsh, the Irish Opportunist

Today MetaCert released the first build of its family safe browser extension for Chrome. It’s an early release, but it rocks! It blocks more than half a billion pages of pornography. That’s more than any other software application on the market.

Unlike Google SafeSearch and other applications, MetaSurf doesn’t block sites that it shouldn’t by using outdated methods such as keyword checking. It only blocks pages that have been indexed by MetaCert - with more pages being indexed every day. Check out the live counter at http://metasurf.net

Check out the extension and leave a great rating score if you like it.

Please be aware that it is impossible to stop users from disabling Chrome extensions. So we highly recommend using this extension if you want to block pornography for yourself, or for young children who are not likely to change the settings on your browser when your back is turned.

Download the Chrome extension now!

I read a post on TechCrunch today where the author claims that you can’t start a new company unless you can write code. I disagree.

I started my tech career as a computer operator at a bank and later worked at AOL during the mid 90’s where I built my first website in 1996 as the first Technical Account Manager in Europe - my team helped to launch technologies and clients such as AIM, 56K modem speed, Internet Radio, Games, integrate browsers and more. I also built some very complex applications using one of the first ecollaborative technologies in a RAD environment when ecollaboration was a new term in 1999.  Yet, I write this post as a non-coding founder as I don’t have the ability to write a single line of code that’s meaningful to our company. I designed this blog by editing the CSS but that’s the extent of my code writing (exactly, that’s not writing code). Since then, my career has led me down a fantastic path, made up of both technical and non-technical roles across the Internet and mobile industries and later, the mobile web. I’m one of the seven original founders of the W3C Mobile Web Initiative and helped to write some of the compliance specification, yet I don’t posses the ability to write the code for a site that would work on both desktop and mobile browsers.

TechCrunch and many bloggers and indeed investors, believe that you must have a cofounder who can write code. This isn’t true. However, as a founder, you must posses the following:

1. Ability to hire the best coder possible
2. Ability to motivate the coder so they can work to the best of their ability
3. Ability to ensure that the coder is motivated and working in a comfortable environment
4. Ability to measure the performance of the coder, helping them to understand and take advantage of their strengths and feel ok telling you their weaknesses so you can support them
5. Have a backup plan to ensure that another coder can take over should the original coder leave the project at a moments notice to ensure continuity of product development
6. Ability to hire the best coder possible to take over when point 5 comes into play

My most recent experience with MetaCert is relevant too as we are closing a series A round and our investors see the strength of the team, yet the founder doesn’t have the ability to write code. At MetaCert our main coder Kamrul, sadly left us after 5 years of R&D. Everything was backed up and well documented. As a result, there was minimal disruption to the development of our crawling and labeling platform when we hired Paraschos, another awesome coder. What happens if Paraschos leaves? Hopefully he won’t. But if he does, everything is well documented so we would hire another coder to take over. After writing this post I will revisit point 3 to ‘help’ ensure Parschos stays with us until we’ve managed to launch our kids browser for the iPad and beyond.

Giving a title of cofounder to a coder just because you think it’s necessary is all about ego. A non-founding coder run over by a bus as TechCrunch puts it, is equally damaging to a company than if the coder was a founder - it makes absolutely no difference.

Note: if you don’t notice at least one typo you’ll know I’ve hired a ghost writer

A fellow Twitter buddy asked for feedback regarding the hardware and software we use. I twittered my answer but it’s something I’ve been meaning to write a post on, as I think it says a lot about who we are in the context of our working environment. Drew Buddy is the Head of ICT at his college and I think, he’s using this feedback to collate a report.

So, what does the picture above say about me? Well take a close look. It’s a sticker of the Microsoft Blue Monster eating the head of Mozilla on my Apple MacBrook Pro. That sums it up nicely; I’m happy to use the most approproate hardware and software as long as it meets my requirements.

The picture should demonstrate that I’m open minded because although I’m a known standards enthusiast, I like to use the proprietary technology produced by Apple and products produced by the perceived monster and non-standards compliant Microsoft.

My hardware

• Apple MacBook Pro
• Apple iPhone
• Apple iPod
• Cannon Ixus 950
• N95 for Qik streaming

Software

• Microsoft Office
• Microsoft Vista (but don’t use it often)
• Waiting for Live Writer for the Mac (blog authoring tool)
• Apple Mail (the ‘geniuses’ at the Apple store recommend Entourage)
• Apple iCal

Internet

• BT Broadband (they are the most reliable!)
• Google Docs (but don’t use it often)
• Google Reader for keeping up to date on blogs
• Gmail (but only as a backup for my POP account)
• Wordpress for Corporate Web site and personal blog

My Social

• Facebook (for connecting/communicating with non-geeks)
• Twitter (for community building with early adopters/geeks)
• Qik (for live streaming my presence)

Office environment

• Home office
• Adam Street private members club

The fact that I’m happy to work from home demonstrates that I’m overly generous to my staff as our HQ is in the heart of Dublin’s most affluent area and designed by John Rocha

This post is intended for Drew, but please feel free to help him collate enough data to produce a meaningful report by leaving a comment about the stuff you use every day. I’d like to know also.

One of Damien’s posts about Google’s response to the Microsoft bid for Yahoo! was the first post to grab my attention in my RSS reader this morning, as it’s a story I commented on last week.

What started as a simple post about Google’s response, turned into an epic message about how Apple, Google and Mozilla are not all good and Microsoft is not all evil. They are all pretty much after the same thing; market dominance. They just use different tactics. All of which are good and evil.

Google’s response

Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC?

Could the acquisition of Yahoo! allow Microsoft — despite its legacy of serious legal and regulatory offenses — to extend unfair practices from browsers and operating systems to the Internet?

We believe that the interests of Internet users come first — and should come first — as the merits of this proposed acquisition are examined and alternatives explored.

I’m playing devil’s advocate here and certain to attract a retort from standards enthusiasts. If you’re one of them, please take a look at the contribution Segala (and I) make to open standards.

In my opinion, Google’s response has been childish to say the least. In fact, I’d like to call bullshit, which is a little stronger than Dennis Howlett’s ‘Pot, kettle, black’ post.

The truth about Google

I’ve had enough of Google’s so-called ‘no evil’ policy. Google may have started off with a best endeavours approach to add value to the Web, but it now seeks to increase its revenue share at the expense of relevant and trustworthy search results.

Did it ever start out to do no evil? A little company called Overture invented a means for combining search and advertising, with auction-based keyword targeted text ads. Yahoo bought Overture, then proceeded to sue Google, whice made sense: Google had completely ripped off Overture’s concept, and was liable for every dollar it earned using that form of advertising.

Rather than aggressively fight the small search company, which was clearly infringing on Yahoo-owned patents with every dollar it earned, Yahoo settled, agreeing to take 2.7 million shares of Google, just over 1% of the company (at the time). Yahoo sold those shares as soon as Google went public, for $82.62 a share, or $223 million. Thanks to InsideMicrosoft for the stats and Steve Clayton for pointing me to them via Twitter.

How can Google say it ‘does no evil’ when it filters search on behalf of an oppressive Chinese Government? (Ok, I’ve now given reason for the Chinese Government to ban this blog, like it did with the Segala blog when I posted about a Chinese blogger who was killed by government officials.) If it had people’s best interests at heart it wouldn’t place advertising above freedom of speech.

How can Google say that it is a company with the Internet’s interests at heart? If it did, it wouldn’t make the highest bidders more prominent in search results. Instead, it would present to users, the most relevant and trustworthy Web sites. Paid search is not obvious to the vast majority of end users.

While I’m at it…

The Yahoo! takeover would enable Microsoft to compete with Google’s monopolistic search engine. Google has approximately 80% of the global search market and doesn’t permit anyone to see what’s inside the box. Why? Well, because it gives them a competitive advantage, which it’s entitled to. It only provides open access to APIs because it benefits them in the long run. They even provide products for free to help compete directly with Microsoft. I don’t believe Google want to move to the desktop. I believe they just want to hurt Microsoft.

Android is another example. It’ll be fantastic for the Mobile Industry but, the open source framework comes with Google applications preinstall. That’s no different to Windows coming with Real Player embedded.

So what do I mean by monopolistic? Well, take a look at Mozilla Firefox (a non-profit do-gooder). Firefox is Microsoft’s main competitor in the browser market. Google and Firefox couldn’t be snuggled up any closer in bed with Firefox acting as Google’s hot water bottle. I say this because Firefox has approximately 12% of the global market and its default search engine in the toolbar is Google, from whom it generates the majority of its revenue. Mozilla is now a $300m business.

Search engines such as Excite (my all time favourite) Altavista and Lycos all provided honest search results. That is, prominence was given to the Web sites which provided the most relevant content to search terms. Ok, so they had flaws, but at least they didn’t sell out to the highest bidders like Google. Google in my opinion, hasn’t added any value whatsoever to search. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

What I’d like to see happen

1. I’d like to see Yahoo! owned del.icio.us (what a dumb ass domain) given a face lift so it’s easier for the longtail of users to adopt, thereby encouraging scale. Give users the option to integrate browser based bookmarks with del.icio.us bookmarks so we end up with a more extensive database of relevant search results.
2. Keep the Yahoo! brand but turn it into a search engine. Use the bookmarks as described above, as an engine to help provide more meaningful search results.
3. Use Yahoo! as the default search engine for Internet Explorer
4. Improve IE8 so it’s more standards compliant, without introducing yet another tag to make the assertion about compliance
5. Embed all the cool Yahoo! stuff such as Flickr into IE
6. Employ or appoint better products people to take over Yahoo! properties
7. Adopt Content Labels in IE to enable more trust on the Web
8. There’s plenty more to talk about regarding their email and IM properties, but I’ll leave the commentating about those to others. Feel free to leave your opinion.

Why do people continue to take a shot at Microsoft when companies such as Apple, Google and Mozilla are out for themselves just like anyone else? Microsoft has, and continues to be in trouble regarding their market dominance, but none of it is based on their new products. It’s old news so move on.

A debate has started on Vodafone’s BetaVine. If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you’ll know that Vodafone provided me with exclusive rights to seed interest in the wider industry to help launch the Portal, after providing advice prior to its launch. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find the time to continue commentating about it. Anyway, it’s doing exactly what I had hoped. It’s stimulating and supporting conversation within the industry. In this instance, it’s a heated debate which is likely to raise more awareness for the Portal if nothing else.

Luca Passani is the culprit (I mean that in the nicest possible way) responsible for starting the debate. If there’s one thing he’s good at, it’s starting a debate. Unfortunately he doesn’t know how to agree to disagree, or even respect the fact that he can sometimes be wrong.

My intention here is not to discuss the debate itself but instead, get people to use the right terminology. Ok, so my post about the correct spelling of Web site was a bit of a joke, but knowing the difference between WAP and the mobile Web is not, as it impacts end users for the worse.

It was a TechCrunch post that inspired me to write this note. I was about to post a comment but quickly realised that my message is important (and long) enough to warrant it’s own post. I’ve written about this previously where Luca has commented along with Google, Microsoft, .mobi, Opera and others. See here and here.

In my opinion, Luca has absolutely no interest in seeing the Web as we know it on the desktop, come to mobile phones. He is in favour of WAP and is an expert on the subject. WAP is not the mobile Web though, they are two entirely different technologies and he doesn’t have an appreciation for Web trends.

• WAP = sites built only for mobile phones
• Web = sites which should work on any device

WAP browsers and Web browsers look the same but what they display is completely different. One generates revenue for Operators and Content Providers and the other provides end users the ability to search and browse the Web. That’s why most end users don’t know the difference between a WAP site and a Web site. However, it’s not good enough to assume that they don’t care. It’s also wrong to assume they don’t want a choice.

In more detail
WAP sites are sites which have been built specifically to work on mobile phones. They do not work on desktop computers. This means if you come across a WAP site on your phone and wish to email the URL to a friend so they can see it at home, they can’t unless they’re using a mobile.

I used to own an LG Chocolate phone to demonstrate this point when giving presentations at conferences. I’d ask someone for the URL of their company Web site and then explain that it was impossible for me to view it on my new cool phone because it didn’t have a Web browser capable of displaying it.

Not all mobiles have browsers capable of displaying Web sites. Some phones come with a Web browser but it’s sometimes removed or hidden down the menu system by the Operator (not the manufacturer). Operators have always been extremely keen to keep it this way as they make money from WAP through revenue share deals with content providers.

It’s also worth mentioning that the Content Providers to which Luca and TechCrunch refer, are not likely to want users to access the Web (as invented by Tim Berners-Lee and harmonized by the W3C), as you do on a desktop computer. Otherwise they’ll stop making money through their commercial agreements with Operators. This means end users get whatever WAP sites Operators believe will generate the most revenue. This is not in the best interest of end users today.

It made sense to only offer WAP sites when mobiles were unable to display Web sites. It also makes sense to continue building WAP sites while mobile devices continue to improve, standards are adopted, prices come down, speeds improve and developers build Web sites so they work better on mobile devices.

In my opinion, we’re almost there. You only have to look at the recent launch of the iPhone to see what’s possible. It won’t be long before this capability is more widespread across more devices and the above points are addressed. As I keep saying, I’ve heard all the same arguments whilst at AOL in the mid 90’s. People use to say that online marketing would never take off because the Web was too slow, yada yada yada. The same type of people used to say that TV would never take off because it was so much smaller than the cinema screen.

End users do care about the difference between the two, or at least they would if told they were restricted to what the Operator wants them to see. Mobile stake holders make too many assumptions about what users want. That’s why the industry is so crap at getting it right.

So, can you see the difference between the two? If you had a mobile which stopped you from accessing the Web, would you care? Would you be happy to only view the WAP sites that your Operator forces upon you?

Please stop referring to WAP as mobile Web, it’s not. Just call it WAP.

From a customer point of view, you buy a mobile so you can surf the Web as you do from your desktop computer. Would you be happy to learn that you’re only able to use iMode, Live or other WAP sites?