Disqus - Latest Comments for mikebrittain

Re: OAuth

mikebrittain — Thu, 01 May 2014 16:32:26 -0000

The access token code sample is out of date. Should be:

curl -XGET 'https://api.appfigures.com/... \
-H'Authorization: OAuth oauth_signature_method=PLAINTEXT,
oauth_verifier=certified,
oauth_consumer_key=mykey,
oauth_token=myotoken,
oauth_signature=dogbert&catbert'

Re: The Mobile Web

mikebrittain — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 23:44:47 -0000

Most of these points have been made already. I think about the missed opportunity of mobile web apps over the past few years a lot. The current app ecosystem is just too attractive for developers because of the huge amount of attention paid to it (advertising) by the carriers who are competing to sell us handsets.

* Developer Tools and Frameworks. There are a lot of individual pieces, but no single, obvious, and popular framework for building what feels more like an "app" rather than a collection of pages on the web (an earlier comment use the term "card"). We're competing against the very obvious native SDKs. It *is* possible to write "installable," offline web applications for mobile browsers, but you still have to cobble together much of the application framework yourself -- it's not yet a well-understood pattern. The HTML5 app cache is not the most wonderful thing to work with, either.

Latency is brought up as an advantage of native over web, I think that's a fallacy. The tools are just not here to help manage the perception of speed for users. An API call from a native app over HTTP is the same thing as requesting an HTML page -- only the page refresh and (re-)loading of resources gives the perception that "the web" is a slow medium.

* Payments. Less a matter of payment at time of download (e.g. App Store) than it is having a single, trusted digital wallet that you can pay from. Tapping out a 16-digit card number, name, expiry, etc. on a handset is a huge barrier.

Try-before-you-buy would be far better to consumers than the proliferation of $0.99 and $1.99 apps that are so cheap that it doesn't matter if you've wasted your money on junk a few times.

* Improved Platform (i.e. Browsers). You can argue that the browser is at a disadvantage from native apps because it is an abstraction from the OS. This is hampered further by lower CPU, memory, battery power -- all of which will continue to improve over time. But while SDKs and native apps continue to rule and have an obvious, and working, payment model the innovation in mobile browsers will be slower.

Browsers will need API parity with native SDKs -- i.e. access to cameras, audio, location, file storage, wallets/NFC, preferences (privacy, security), notifications, running in background, network detection, etc.. I would expect you'll see more innovation here within Chrome OS than on the more mainstream mobile OSes.

* Discovery. There's not a one-stop-shop for native and web apps. The Chrome Web Store is actually decent and provides ties to in-app payments via Google Wallet. Same with Mozilla's new store, though I'm unaware of any payment service there.

Consumers have been well conditioned by handset makers and carriers that they will get their apps from the major native app stores. We have yet to see marketing like that for mobile web apps. And most consumers will use what is put right in front of them, and what they're hearing in commercials.

Re: inessential.com: Anatomy of a feature

mikebrittain — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:43:29 -0000

"Oh, it's easy." Amen, brother.

Re: On the WWDC. Apple, AT&T and iPhones oh my!

mikebrittain — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:02:47 -0000

I've got to say that AT&T is likely forcing those 2-year contract commitments because they have already subsidized one iPhone and expected to recoup a certain amount of dough on that contract. I would bet that Apple put the screws to AT&T to subsidize as much as possible so as to increase adoption rate at a cheaper price... otherwise, we'd still see that $500 price tag that came on the original iPhone (it was $500, right?).

Unfortunately, AT&T takes the blame because iPhone devotees want their new gear. I suspect that it's just as much Apple's fault for creating false economics.

All of that said, I'm glad I skipped the 3G because it didn't look like that much of an upgrade. But the 3GS sounds pretty awesome. :)

And, Howie, you can look forward to me buying you a Windows Mobile phone for your birthday next year. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Re: Afternoon Awwwww… Cat 0, Mirror 1

mikebrittain — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:45:00 -0000

Brilliant.

Re: Sick Day

mikebrittain — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:11:03 -0000

"No blogging" fail.

Re: Afternoon Awwwww… UNstoic Kitty

mikebrittain — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:20:18 -0000

Man, you've got to give it to the "related" videos: http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: Breakfast Links: Why Would You Knit That?, Phwoar & a programmer’s game

mikebrittain — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:13:17 -0000

Why *would* you knit that?!?

Re: iPhone RSS Review: Bylines v. Google Reader

mikebrittain — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:26:17 -0000

Haven't used Bylines, yet. I've been hearing good things about it. Given your review, I'm probably going to drop the ten spot and try it out.

Re: Javascript v. Flash/Air

mikebrittain — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:39:15 -0000

JavaScript, for a long time, has been nipping at the heels of Flash. I can remember a site from about 5 years ago that I would have sworn was Flash, based on the design, animation, and overall slickness... instead it was a very advanced JS developer who "got it". JavaScript can do *most* of what Flash is capable. The advantage Flash has is a single "platform" (it's player/plug-in), and the ability to innovate without many compatibility issues. JS innovation is speeding up due to modern browsers and toolkits which abstract the underlying implementations (i.e. you write code in jQuery and the toolkit deals with browser compatibilities).

We're getting there...

Flash, however, will continue to take a lead over innovations in browsers and JavaScript, I think. Consider that while JS was catching up with Flash in asynchronous XML/JSON and RIAs were becoming more prevalent, Flash leaped into the enviable position of being *the* tool for delivering video online.

I was expecting FlashLite to be big for mobile phones, but I think that other innovations, or maybe competition from carriers, is stifling that. With mobile Safari and the Android platforms coming out so advanced, I don't think FlashLite is as important as it could have been.

You're right that Flash is, and probably always will be, the tool for designers. I used to wonder when the Flash IDE would start exporting RIAs into JS apps. I would still sort of like to see that happen. I don't know whether that is compelling for Adobe, however.

Re: I like Chrome, but it really isn’t the Jesus Browser

mikebrittain — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:46:47 -0000

I also like that Google hosts versions of jQuery for developers to embed in their own apps. My guess would be that they will contribute (or have already?) optimizations to jQuery that will make it possibly even faster to run in V8.

Re: I like Chrome, but it really isn’t the Jesus Browser

mikebrittain — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:51:27 -0000

I think it's difficult to envision that Google, at least anytime soon, will have Chrome deployed on any large number of computers. It will be difficult to fight their way into the marketplace, especially with a product that on the surface doesn't do much of anything different than Firefox, Safari, and IE. With that in mind, even if they don't win browser share, the idea of building all of this technology and making it open source seems like a strong move for them. Imagine Firefox and Safari adopting V8 as their internal JS engines (for some reason, I doubt that Microsoft would follow this crowd)? Two of the most popular browsers would render JS incredibly fast. That's a win for Google and their application-centric products.

If Google *does* get market share (through enterprise or university adoption, distribution with Linux OSes, advertising on their own site, Google Pack, etc. *), then they may start to change the minds of many average users -- that the Internet is the platform. One of my favorite features, and it's not widely discussed, is that you can add an "Application Shortcut" to your desktop for various sites. For example, make a shortcut of GMail and put it on your desktop. You get the cute red envelop icon, and clicking it opens GMail in it's own window with a preserved session state. That seems a lot like opening Apple Mail, Outlook Express, Thunderbird, Eudora (!), etc. Same with Google Docs -- nice icon, opens like traditional software. When (average) people start thinking about sites as applications, then Google's "platform" or "OS" will start to win over users from Microsoft Office.

Again, if Firefox, Safari, and IE add this sort of feature, Google wins.

Finally, since you mentioned Ubiquity, I've got to say that I love it. It's experimental, so it looks like an add-on right now. I think that's going to change. Think OmniBar + AwesomeBar + Ubiquity all in one field at the top of your browser. Simple to use for average users, but extensible for power users. I can't wait!

* Granted, most of these sources are where you pick up power-users, not average users.