Paul Walsh, the Irish Opportunist

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?

I’ve written many blog posts and articles for magazines about the mobile Web. It’s a subject that I’m quite passionate about and one that Segala invests heavily in by helping to create W3C standards. We’re also investing heavily in testing and certification products for mobile Web standards compliance, which help our partners to deliver services in this area.

This post has two messages.

1. Why I think the Web is likely to become more readily available with the launch of Apple’s iPhone as it acts as a new benchmark for the industry.
2. Why I’ve now got second thoughts about buying an iPhone.

End users now realising the difference between WAP (premium content created specifically for mobile phones) and the open Web is the main reason I think the iPhone will act as a new benchmark for the industry.

Take a look at the comments on an older post if you want to read what some very qualified people think. Be warned, the comments alone total more than 17,000 words, but as I said, they’re very qualified sources and people I respect from companies such as Microsoft, Google, .mobi, MobileAware and Opera.

Until now, I’ve been hearing the same argument against small screens, standard-less browsers, speeds and price points, as I did during my AOL days in the mid 90’s. People need to look forward. The growth rate of Mobile technology improvements in particular, is far greater than any other major landscape change in IT.

I also had a run in with the CTO of Mozilla (owner of Firefox) on the BIMA blog that I edit, but I was proved right when Mozilla canned it’s mobile browser just weeks after my post. Interestingly, I used the iPhone back then to demonstrate how the Web will appear on phones.

I also believe the iPhone will help the Web become more accessible to people in developing countries. I’m not saying people in India will now access the Web through an iPhone. What I am saying is that mobile vendors will now need to wake up and start designing phones are are more supportive of Web browsing and are extremely easy to use. Mobile networks are cheaper than fixed line networks, so users are more likely to use a mobile than a PC. As Bill Gates once said (either that or I had a dream and came up with a great quote):

If I had a choice, I’d put a mobile phone in the hands of every customer, not a PC.

BANGALORE, India (AFP) - Google vice president and chief Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf has predicted that mobile phones, not personal computers, will fuel growth of the worldwide web as countries like India snap up millions of handsets monthly.

From 50 million in 1997, the number of people who have logged onto the Internet has exploded to nearly 1.1 billion, Cerf, who is considered one of the founding fathers of the Internet, said Tuesday.

Yet, the Internet only reaches a sixth of the world’s population, Cerf told reporters during a visit to this southern city, known as India’s Silicon Valley, where Google has a research and development facility.

You will get those other 5.5 billion people only when affordability increases and the cost of communication goes down,” said Cerf, 63, who joined Google in 2005. “The mobile phone has become an important factor in the Internet revolution.

I can’t help but feel that Operators will soon be forced into providing lower data tariffs when customers demand and consume more data through surfing the Web also. The iPhone demonstrates that it is feasible to browse the Web from a small screen. It’s not just about the weather and train timetables as I’ve previously stated when debating with my colleagues in the W3C Mobile Web Initiative (where I’m a member of the Steering Council and Segala is a founding sponsor and co-editor of the conformance document).

So, will you buy an iPhone? Steve Clayton says he’s not interested. After reading his post, I was reminded of how much I really hated the LG Chocolate device, which also has a touch screen. In fact, his opinion persuaded me to rethink my position on the iPhone. The LG was so annoying that I still have marks on the wall where it received a well deserved bashing every other week. The trouble is, it took a while before I grew to hate it. I wonder if the same will be said for the iPhone.

Carly Taylor from mobile operator Three made a similar statement to Steve regarding the slow response of text messaging. In an email to the Mobile Monday list, Carl wrote

One point that takes away some of the shine for the cool types who will buy it for its looks:

• My experience was that the touch UI is poor for texting.
• No feel, and fingernails get in the way (bad for most women).
• For volume text addicts this will turn them off quickly.

This has also got me thinking, as it’s something that would bug the hell out of me. In fact, I think this issue alone would turn me off the iPhone.

So, my verdict is to wait for feedback from people who have used it as their daily lifestyle device for a few months. I’d like to hear what users think about the slow texting and annoying touch screen quirks when the novelty has worn off.

Are you going to buy one?

I would greatly appreciate some help with my new Mac. I’m currently in a W3C meeting so I’m unable to call anyone, or drop into a Mac store.

All my files and preferences for everything are gone. For example, my email client is asking me to setup accounts and my browsers don’t appear to have any history or passwords stored. The bin is empty so I’m confident (hoping!) my stuff hasn’t been deleted.

It’s as if I’m using a PC and have signed in as a new user. I’m the only user setup on this machine.

Is it obvious that it has been 12 years since I last used a Mac?! It’ll be another 12 years before I use this again if everything is gone for good.
Please feel free to comment on this blog and/or on my Facebook note where I’ve also solicited help.

Thanks in advance!

I’m reading more and more reports coming in that O2 is going to sell the Apple iPhone in the UK. However, this doesn’t make sense to me because it’ll mean users will have open access to the Web and quickly realise that iMode (premium content which makes up for most of O2’s data revenue) isn’t what they want. What they’re looking for is the ability to access whatever Web site they want and not just what O2 want them (you) to see.

Then again, if O2 is to ship the all singing and all dancing device, they’re likely to either remove the Web browser altogether, or make it difficult to find. This approach isn’t unusual for Operators when installing their own ‘variant software’ before distribution to retail outlets. Just because mobile vendors include specific applications, it doens’t mean Operators will include them when selling on to customers.

O2 is certainly not likely to place the Web and iMode browsers where they have equal prominence. Or are they? Perhaps they productised iMode to make it’s proposition more attractive to Telefonica and now realise it’s time to offer off-portal content.

The last time I wrote about the Mobile Web vs the Mobile Internet (cough; premium WAP stuff) I received a stunning word count of more than 17,000 words in comments alone. That’s a small book. To add to this, they were from very qualified people I trust at organisations such as Google, MobileAware, .mobi, WURFL and Opera. As a founding member of the W3C Mobile Web Initiative Steering Council, this is a subject close to my heart. It’s an area which attracts a lot of much needed debate too, which I quite like.

In short, I haven’t seen the iPhone yet, but I’ve always believed (before Apple announced its launch) that it will revolutionise how people perceive, consume and create content for small devices such as PDAs and mobile phones. It will demonstrate that the Mobile Web is not only about train timetables and weather information for business people traveling from Slough to London, as most mobile specific experts seem to believe.

There are more people in the world without access to the Web than there are who do. Most of these people live in developing countries. They’re likely to use mobile devices as their primary access point to the Web as it’s cheaper to roll out mobile networks than it is fixed line. Don’t be fooled into thinking users in developing countries don’t use the latest devices either, because they do. They’re fantastic early adopters.

If we were to sneeze in the European mobile market today, the US would catch a cold 2 to 3 years later. However, this may soon change with the release of the iPhone if the yanks finally realise the full potential of mobile devices and how they can engage consumers. As I see it, the iPhone is on par with the release of the first Intel Pentium chip, which helped to revolutionise our thought process regarding the capabilities of personal computers and the applications that could run on them.

If you decide to take a look at my original post about Mobile Web vs Mobile Internet, make sure to read the comments as they splintered off into a separate conversation to the original post. Even the original title is a little different to the main conversation.

OR

I was astonished to read (on Dan’s blog) that Mozilla doesn’t think users want to access the Web on mobile devices. Hence my picture above of what Mozilla must have in mind when it comes to the Web on the move, anytime, anywhere.

Dan was commentating on the Browser Panel at SXSW which was run by Arun from AOL (a colleague of mine from the W3C MWI). My buddy Charles from Opera took part too.

Brendan Eich, CTO of Mozilla is the reason for this post though. According to Dan, Brendan said

I don’t believe people are going to browse the Web on their phone. I don’t believe people want to use Wikipedia from their phone.

I’m absolutely amazed by Brendan’s view and I sincerely hope it’s his personal view and not Mozilla’s. Otherwise this $300m business faces the prospect of ending up in the bin alongside it’s parent, Netscape. For a guy who’s incredibly smart working for an organisation that has gained a market share of 10% to 12% of desktop browsers within 2 years, his comments are a little surprising to say the least. Brendan’s comments in my opinion, lack vision. Hell, they lack logic.

I couldn’t disagree more with Brendan. There are more people in the world who don’t have access to the Web than there are people who do. Of those people, most of them are in developing countries. The vast majority of them are extremely likely to use a mobile devices as their primary access point to the Web as it’s more difficult and more expensive to roll out fix lined networks than it is mobile.

Google announced some statistics recently that back up my view. BANGALORE, India (AFP) - Google vice president and chief Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf has predicted that mobile phones, not personal computers, will fuel growth of the worldwide web as countries like India snap up millions of handsets monthly.

From 50 million in 1997, the number of people who have logged onto the Internet has exploded to nearly 1.1 billion, Cerf, who is considered one of the founding fathers of the Internet, said Tuesday.

Yet, the Internet only reaches a sixth of the world’s population, Cerf told reporters during a visit to this southern city, known as India’s Silicon Valley, where Google has a research and development facility.

Worldwide there are 2.5 billion mobile-phone users, whose numbers are growing rapidly in developing countries led by China and India, the world’s most populous countries, Cerf said in his presentation.

India, a country of 1.1 billion people, alone is adding seven million mobile-phone users a month, a powerful enough lure for British telecom giant Vodafone to pay 11.1 billion dollars for a controlling stake in local mobile firm Hutch-Essar this month. Read the original new article.

I feel so strongly about helping to bring the Web to more people, I decided to become a founding sponsor of the W3C Mobile Web Initiative (MWI). One of the goals of the MWI is to create best practice guidelines to help developers build Web sites that will work on desktop computers, but importantly, work better on mobile devices too.

Other founding sponsors include Vodafone Group, Nokia, HP, Opera, MobileAware, ftgroup and Volantis. Other active participants within the initiative include companies such as AOL, .mobi, Google and Telefonica.

One of my recent posts amassed a staggering word count that exceeded 17,000, with comments from Google, .mobi, Opera, WURFL and more. I had to splinter the conversation into a different post which is still ongoing and awaiting a response from me.

The mobile web is a hot topic and there’s always room for disagreement. However, I’m still amazed to hear the fastest growing desktop browser say that it doesn’t think people will want to use a mobile to browse the Web. Perhaps they should have a chat with Apple.

Mozilla, I love what you’re doing. Hell, we’ve got a cool Firefox extension ourselves. However, please pull your head out of the sand if you really believe mobile is only for calling your granny.

Thanks to Keith Waters (France Telecom) for the picture above.