DISQUS

Hi Robert,

A piece of constructive criticism? Try making a post without a single mention of FreindFeed or Twitter.

Back to Blogging Week - 4 mentions of FF, 3 of Twitter.

Real-time Systems - 12 mentions of FF, 12 of Twitter.

Crowd Sourcing - 1 mention of FF, 2 of Twitter.

Future of TV - 2 mentions of FF, 2 of Twitter.

Drama v. Helpfulness - 2 mentions of Twitter.

Cloud Camp - 1 mention of Twitter.

-----

I mean this to be helpful. I'm glad you enjoy spending time on these two social sites. But my tastes differ from yours. I used to enjoy reading your posts - like the one on the future of TV. But what I couldn't get around - what jumped out at me - were these mentions of FF and Twitter. (Do you know that you could have posted about Cloud Camp without that mention?)

I'm having a hard time with all this noise some "A-listers" create anymore about these two sites. Your peer Dave Winer just posted overnight something about a NY Times reporter being kidnapped... and how it was covered up even on Wikipedia... and then? He somehow got around to speaking about one of his larger personal agendas - Twitter's list!

ANyways, glad to see you posting this week. Hope you realize how "helpful" your blog is!

I really haven't seen either movie. But I've read novel that Dan Brown has ever written. Regards to the two that had movies made - Da Vinci was the first thing I ever read of his, with Angels/Demons next.

It probably would have been better to flip those two. I found Da Vinci Code extrememly satisfying to read - and Angels/Demons was... well, Da Vinci Code 1.0. Mainly because of the characterization (or shallowness of it).

Did it feel to you like that in regards to the movies?

Hey, cool! I got a startup "CEO" to reply to me personally. Mike, let me clue you in on some things that Robert wouldn't be able to.

(1) First and foremost - you sound way too defensive in tone. Overall, you sound like you could be somebody under 30 years old - meaning that you sound like I could be your father.

Grow up boy. You didn't discover how to be a middle-person selling tickets to us fans who so desperately want to purchase them. You simply convinced Robert - and hopefully several thousand others for your sake - that you have some kind of unique angle to do it.

Chill pill dude.

(2) I'm actually impressed that you said "57 really great ticketing ways". Not 56. Not 58. By ay chance are you from the 'brugh? Home of Heinz? They have 57 ways too.

That was meant as a way to make you less defensive. Please, Mike... I simply told Robert that I felt he went way too overboard as he usually does - minute before he claimed that Facebook has 700,000 new members. DAILY. Be careful who you decide to do your marketing.

(3) So, Mike. Let's talk about your business plan.

First and foremost - since I'm the consumer here - why should I use you over StubHub? And sorry Mike, they've always - ALWAYS - provided me what I both wanted and desired. Don't put words in my mouth - it only makes you look defensive. Like a newbie who really doesn't have anything to offer me. Do you?

Second, exactly what do YOU get from this?

"StubHub is a marketplace where sellers list tickets, buyers can purchase, and StubHub coordinates the money and logistics. In contrast, FanSnap is a search engine, like Google, only we show tickets rather than URLs in our results. We are not a broker or marketplace, we do not take credit cards. StubHub, and all of our partners, use FanSnap as a channel for fans to find their tickets."

Huh? That is so wrong - in so many ways. Look StubHub is a broker. We all know it up front. What's YOUR game? You certainly aren't in this for me... you're in this for $$$. Make it worth my while and I'm there. That's all.

But no. You prefer to make it sound like StubHub is - and by lack of anything else - has always benn a "partner" with you. You prefer to have a shill like Robert make it sound like you offer something unique.

Robert hasn't had a single unique thing to offer since 2002.

And you sir, are way too defensive. Give me something - aything - to make me want to use you directly. Search engine? Bah.

"Facebook is exploding, seeing 700,000 new users per day."

I call BS. So, in a matter of 3 months Facebook will have new membership double the size of the United States?

I'd love to see a link supporting this Robert.

Oh, and congrats on the new job!

I personally use StubHub for most everything. And from what little you describe Robert this isn't nearly as good.

Someone's always finding a new angle to make money. Sorry, but this reeks of greed from this Mr. Toeman. Why should I pass any of my money over to him?

Is he an experienced lawyer? If so, in what line? And if I have my estate in order already - you know, that will thing I drew up with my hired attorney who practices in the state and country I live in... why shouldn't I simply do it through him.

SOunds to me like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I haven't read the "graphic novel"... not one bit. Nor have I seen the "movie".

My question - a sincere one - is when did "comic book" turn into "graphic novel"? Even serialized... why this insistance on "graphic novel"?

I've been wondering this ever since hearing about this movie. And since you decided to use this term four times in a single post I thought this would be a good place to ask it.

Look, I understand some need to qualify that this serialized "comic book" hit on topics a bit more mature or dark than others. I can see where you would want to re-image the term into something because the target audience is most adult.

But this insistance on call a serialized one time run mini-series of comic books a "graphic novel" just doesn't... compute with me.

It's not just you - there have been several Gen-X or younger bloggers who seem to love to describe this story this way. And from all accounts it's a great story. But so were many serial comic books from the late 1950s and early 1960s. Except we didn't call them "graphic novels".

Am I making sense?

Mixed feelings about this clip.

First off, like hardaway I agree - best rant by John in a long time.

But let's not overlook how slanted the piece is. Just about half of those clips were simply quotes from Bank CEOs - and if CNBC "reported" it differently than John's clips were somebody would be yelling about newsreporting bias. All CNBC was guilty of was objectively reporting business news. In half the clips.

Dave, I could argue that bailing out home owners with my tax money is wrong- and yes, it is. I don't blame them 100% for taking out loans they couldn't repay, but sure, if one is either part of the problem or part of the solution, then delinquent mortgage holders are part of the problem.

But if John Stewart is willing to overlook that fact - that home owners are part of the problem - I'm not willing to overlook that banks BY FAR are part of it too. As is government - BOTH Democrat and Republican. Nor am I willing to suggest that if we let millionaire and billionaire CEOs off the hook (and we are) then we should not also let home owners off too.

I'm fortunate. Own a home and worked my way down to a 5% fixed rate for 10 years - and am 4 years into the load. No other debts. Does that make me a millionaire/billionaire CEO? ROFL. Am I close to being a delinquent mortgage holder? Not for now. (There's no guarantee I'll be in my 10+ year job with this economy.)

Again, mixed feelings.

I'd rather my taxes go to gullable home owners who were allowed to get mortgages they knew they never could repay than millionaire CEOs. I'd rather my taxes go to helping out insolvent banks ease credit than keeping 35,000-50,000 troops in Iraq come September 2011. I'd rather my taxes help blue-collar citizens have a decent paying job to be able to pay their mortgages than try to prosecute dishonest mutual fund managers (I think that equates to wanting to help out Main Street more than Wall Street).

Sorry for the length. But this issue is important! I know you know that Dave. And as bad as CNBC is, trying to make this complicated mess into an 8 minute comedy rant just won't work. It works only as well as believing that Obama will have this thing sorted out by July. Guess again - it's too complex, and too broad to do that.

There's only one thing IMHO that could make it worse - trying to fit my thoughts into 1400 characters or whatever Twitter requires. (Can you tell I hate Twitter?) Some things just need more. Much more....

Reactions to a couple of your items:

#3 - Two wars? If you're talking Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. IMO both places we are fighting the same enemy (if that's the right word to use) and thus should be called one war in two countries. World War II had multiple enemies.

#4 - You pretty much summed up where I disagree with you on the entire Warren thing. Look, I do agree with much of what I think you said yesterday - he shouldn't be part of the inauguration. But this is most certainly not a Rove-style wedge issue. Whether it's ill-conceived or not, the intent was something close to 180 degrees opposite of Carl Rove's style. I hope I made sense here.

#6 - I actually believe you since I've been reading this blog since early 2000. If I may offer an outside opinion? In early 2008 you weren't a liberal - but you did become a major Obama fan. You began to believe he could really make a major difference. You began to believe he was totally different than any candidate out there. You did have an awakening of sorts this summer to certain realities - forgive me, I can't remember why. But even then you believed deeply that Obama was not the same as every other politician out there.

He isn't the same. And you, sir, are not liberal. You do seem to be a bit disappointed though. I wish I could help you there.

I'm one to feel that political changes usually happens over years, not days. It takes comprimise, not confrontation. Unfortunately Obama is walking into a firestorm that - other than Iraq - wasn't on anyone's horizon 14 months ago. He doesn't have the luxury of time.

The best I can say is that having Warren give the invocation is a... bold move. It could well backfire. But maybe it won't. You have a right to say "fuck you Obama". But let me ask you this - was there ever a better alternative out there over the last 14 months?

I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I voted for Obama in 2008. Warren, like many on all sides of the political spectrum, has said things and has stances I simply cannot agree with. But he also has a right to say things too. I'll judge Obama on many more important things than his coice for the inauguration invocation. I think history will too.

JMHO. Have a happy! :-)

Dave, double-check what you typed:

$7,700,000,000,000.00 is much more than 7.7 trillion:

$7,700,000,000.00

At least I think. :-) That said, $7.7 trillion *is* a jaw-dropping amount.

Whoa! After warning us that a 4 star movie isn't worth watching if you view the trailer prior to it, you... include a YouTube link to it? Look, even if it isn't the trailer, I sure ain't clicking the play button. :-)

Damned if they do, damned if they don't in your eyes I guess.

The reason FOR the "rpoblematic iPhone 3G software and MobileMe fiasco" was just that - they released by their self-imposed deadline, whether it was ready or not. So that's what you think they should have done with Push Notifications?

Why is it that every Windows netbook only comes with a HDD instead of a SSD? For me the coolness factor decreases dramatically because of that.

Sure, the SSD netbooks run Linux and increases the geekness factor, but my preferences on a netbook OS are pretty stratified - OS X, then XP, and only if forced to Linux. Sorry, but I wish to spend my "geek" time coding web apps and not tweaking some OS to work the way I want it to.

I actually think this is a good thing. Transparency, right?

We Americans don't own sole rights to having asses run our lives. Nor do we own sole rights to be able to fling putrid crap at each other.

In fact, for the latter I think most human beings would agree that it's better to live in a country where such crap can be thrown on the internet out in front of everyone instead of living in a country where you can't do that - *ahem* China.

Truth is Dave, I think the rest of the world is MORE worried when the internet is NOT filled with this crap during an election. Wasn't that 2004? (And yes, I voted for Bush.)

You have a point about other issues being more important - but even there I wonder if you are just a bit off. To re-use a phrase from Bush the First - "It's the economy stupid." I really think most non-Americans wouldn't mind if we Americans simply stayed out of things like Russia and Pakistan after the last 8 years.

Walmart's not in the wrong as long as you can still sell your product through Amazon, KMart, and Target.

Apple's very wrong here. On three separate counts:

(1) They control 100% of the process of putting software on the iPhone legally, and they rejected this app for supposedly duplicating functionality of one of their products. Nothing in their iPhone Developer rules prohibits this.

(2) They are operating very inconsistent and arbitrarily. There are other apps on the store that duplicate functionality of their apps.

(3) But the worst of it all is the lack of communication. They wait weeks before rejecting a submitted app. They allow no appeal method. They've been operating in a manner that not only displays a lack of communication, it displays a lack of interest to communicate.

Dave, I know what you are saying.

I'm one who was working on a Cocoa Touch app since April. Applied for the program the day after they announced it - only to be put on hold until July 11. I participate in a SDK mailing list with other NDA coders, and started having doubts about releasing my app (I'm not looking to quit my well-paying day job) when I started hearing about the issues everyone was having with getting upgrades approved and with App Store comments.

This was the tipping point for me. The iTunes exposure and lack of needing to set up credit card urchases simply do not outweigh the arbitrary and overbearing control Apple wants. I'll probably continue working on Cocoa apps because Objective-C is a fun language and the Frameworks on the Mac are really good. But I'll also consider moving into something a bit less... controlled.

If Palin is such a weak VP pick (and I'm not yet ready to agree with that) then here's the Democrats secret weapon - October 2. Biden debates Palin.

Again, if she's a weak candidate then Biden exposes it all and does it with 4+ weeks to go. Until then just keep repeating "72-year-old heartbeat away". No more is needed.

I'm sorry. Are you really implying that *anyone* - you specifically mention Obama and his wife - have "working class roots"?

Let's be serious Regis. Nobody - NOBODY - at this level of politics has "working class roots". Period. The sooner you, me, and everyone else rid themselves of this simplistic and naive assumption, the better.

DISCLAIMER: I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I could never bring myself to vote for Clinton. Really wanted to vote for Hillary this year but foudn myself realizing that Obama actually is the right person for this election.

And yet all of that doesn't add up to me - son of a lower middle-class father and a part-time working mom (we're talking mid 1970s) - to say even my vote is going for someone with "working class roots".

I gave up on THAT kind of dream about 25 years ago.

I think you gave SJ the proper amount of credit, but you need to keep in mind two other things:

(1) In regards to design, Steve was helped in large portions by Avie Tevanian (software) and Jonathan Ive (hardware design). Sure, these two are no longer with Apple - could this be why we haven't seen much form factor change in the computer lines lately? - but that only means that maybe you should already be concerned!

(2) Like you said, Steve brought a vision and focus back to Apple. He simplified their product lines. But that was 10 years ago. At this point in time Apple doesn't specifically need a Steve Jobs to maintain that kind of focus. It's not that anybody can do it, but I'm sure a handful of "insiders" can.

JMHO.

How exactly can cable "lose" this battle when they hold the biggest trump card of all - bandwidth control? They already have begun instituting download caps.

No discussion of video distribution over the internet is complete without acknowledging this reality.

This wasn't the right thing for him to o, but it might have been a good thing for him to do.

(1) The bill passed 69-28-2. One vote was not going to matter.

(2) While Obama changes his vote, he did vote for an amendment (that didn't pass) that would have stripped the immunity provisions in the bill.

Look, I want change too. But a good leader needs to be effective. Knows when to pick their fights - and also knows when to, well, play politics. Let's get the guy in office and see what changes he can enact. I'll guarantee one thing - Obama (nor any other human being capable of getting elected President in the near future) can enact change *alone*.

If the Democrats gain enough Senate seats - and it's actually beginning to look realistically possible - to mute any GOP filibusters this November, then a President Obama can sign a bill that will totally negate FISA.

Take your pick of cliches... know when to pick your fight... live to fight another day... hold your friends close and your enemies closer... politics is about building consensus... change doesn't happen overnight....

Again, it might not have the "right" thing for Obama to do, but it could be a "good" thing.

Nope. The nearest 3G coverage is over 100 miles away. So I'm sticking with my v1.0 iPhone for another year.

There's NO simple analogies or explanations for this. Nada. None. Period.

Robert - the epitome of web soundbytes - cannot reduce this to a single image or message. Neither can any of the commenters including Hash or Anon.

Buinesses fail, others move into the void, yet others grow old and become insignificant.... so on and so forth. It's life.

Robert - don't feel sorry for Yahoo. I just hope it isn't because you really think the individuals a few levels below the top at Yahoo would have been in for something good if Yahoo took the bait from Microsoft. Not likely.

There was nothing THAT good that would have come from that hostile offer. No way. And yet - there's nothing TAT good that is coming because Yahoo defended itself.

There's times one has to remove themselves from the politics. Just code away. This would be one of them Robert. Even though you never meant to say this, you did come aross as though MSFT's hostile - read: UNWANTED - takeover offer was a good thing. As the comments above already pointed out - you should have kept your opinion to yourself.

The question is how I've changed my habits due to rising gasoline prices? I in a very small minority in that I can honestly say - not at all.

I live in a small county (250,000), in a suburb of a small city (130,000) in northwest PA. So first off - I live 2 miles, 1 traffic light and three stop signs from work in a small- to middle-sized company (2800 globally). Another words while I live 4 minutes away from work drive time, I liv in the suburbs. Yet everything I also need to live *is* within minutes. And yeah, by "minutes" I mean tha a 20 minute drive is "long" for me.

My Didge Neon runs through a full tank (12 gallons) every 3-4 weeks. Please, not bragging, just saying I realize how small of a minority I'm in.

I'm thinking about moving further away... there's this one place with 250 acres that is about 10 miles away from everything. Back in 2003-2005 I used to regularly drive 100 miles (200 miles roundtrip) into Cleveland for baseball games at like 70 per season. Back then I could treat a ballgame as though it would be $25 - $10 for gas, $15 for two beers (I always tip). By 2005 I was noticing two things - an easy 20 cent difference of gasoline prices on my way to/from games and how I needed to mentally increase my budget from $10 per game (@1.20 gallon) to $15 per ($1.90 gallon).

I simply cannot imagine what prices today would mean. And yeah - that sort of thing... routines that involve groceries and commuting to work... how those would impact my budget if the commute was 12 miles one way instead of two. Let's just say that this move is on hold this year. No sense in it.

But the other thing asked was about online buying. Here I just don't see where I'm in the minority. Let's take three things - a DVD or book, groceries, and a new computer.

I purchase DVDs and books via whatever is convenient. Always have. If I have time to wait a calendar week to get it then it'll always be Amazon and if not it'll be my local grocery store or iTunes. I see gasoline prices changing nothing there. The dependent factor is how much of an impulse purchase is it - not gasoline, drive time, or shipping costs.

Groceries? Answer is obvious - I'm driving to where I always do. Sure, for the last 10 years it's been that Giant Eagle about 4 minutes away, but even when I lived in Cleveland it was drive to the nearest grocery store. I could see gasoline prices changing my habits in terms of WHAT/HOW my routines are - but that ain't the same as purchasing groceries online.

Which brings us to computers. Or any "big ticket" item (over $200, $500, whatever). There's a Best Buy and Circuit City within 5 minutes of me. An Apple Store? Nearest is in the Cleveland suburbs about 120 miles away. Funny thing on these things - I'll only pay those high shipping prices if (a) there's nothing available in town or (b) I desire to wait for ground shipping which is - and HAS been for years - free. You do the math... how is this affected by the fact that gasoline has doubled in price over the last 2 years? It hasn't.

And I don't think that one changes for those who live within 25, 125, or 325 miles from such stores. Shipping prices reflect gasoline prices. And when shopping online you either pay nothing and wait, or pay something more than it would cost to drive to wherever because you don't want ot waste the drive time (not the drive cost). Online shopping is about the convenience - be it drive time, weather, whatever. Nobody shops online because gasoline prices doubled in 2 years.

Dave, I think you're being just a bit too... black and white here. Two thoughts:

(1) I honestly don't care if *any* candidate knows "the price of gas". It's much more important that the candidate knows that it's at an all-time high, that it is likely going even higher, and that it is damaging the economy in many ways.

(2) Do you have any direct quotes where Obama shows that he knows the price of gas? Until you do, I'd be careful.

(3) But most importantly - let's focus on solutions. Or at least what each candidate is proposing for solutions. Really Dave, if you simply stick to that point you'll convince more people that Obama *is* the better candidate.

@William:

"Robert, they already have a “Friend Connect”. It’s called Windows Live ID Delegated Authentication and they are way ahead of the curve on it."

I know absolutely nothing about the product, but from the catchy and descriptive name I can already be sure it's a Microsoft product!

@Robert:

The biggest obstacle facing Microsoft in regards to Hotmail is reputation. When your average semi-geek hears "Gmail" they probably think of the early 2000s, but "Hotmail" conjures up visions of the late 1990s... and not good visions either.

That said, even this non-MS fan and GOOG stock holder hopes that MS succeeds - competition always makes for a better consumer product.