Internet Category Archives
мой инвентарь
16 July 2010 | Apple, Facebook, Google, Internet, Lifeform, The Great Game | No Comments
несмотря на то, что Google Buzz, кажется, начинает в конце концов работать[1], понятно все же, что ничего, кроме очередного провала, он создателям не принес. как и все предыдущие социальные проекты Google. как и Lively. как и Orkut. как и Wave. как и что-нибудь еще.
скорее всего, случилось это по целому ряду причин, зачастую, возможно, даже противоложных друг другу. интересны, впрочем, не отдельные какие-то аспекты, но срез вцелом: почему большие игроки провалились на рынке социальных услуг?
What’s the main difference between successful Google applications (search, maps, news, email) and a successful social applications? With Google applications we return to the app to do something specific and then go on to something else, whereas great social applications are designed to lure us back and make us never want to leave.
натурально, так оно и есть:
Consider this example: Google Answers focused on answers and failed; Yahoo! Answers focused on social and succeeded. The primary purpose of a social application is connecting with others, seeing what they’re up to, and maybe even having some small, fun interactions that though not utilitarian are entertaining and help us connect with our own humanity. Google apps are for working and getting things done; social apps are for interacting and having fun.
хорошая статья, в общем. собственно, во многом именно поэтому я и не использую Facebook. а количество тех, за кем пытаюсь следить в Twitter, застряло на 12 — и никакой социальной цепи мы не создаем, поскольку вращаемся по разным орбитам, и, следовательно, непрерывно свободны.
но кроме разницы в целях, налицо, как пишет Адам Рифкин, так же разница в подходах:
Social apps are whimsical and fun; Google apps are whittled and functional.
и вот как раз отголоски этих различий можно увидеть не только на примере социальных задач, но куда шире. скажем, прошлогоднее наблюдение о дизайне:
Without a person at (or near) the helm who thoroughly understands the principles and elements of Design, a company eventually runs out of reasons for design decisions. With every new design decision, critics cry foul. Without conviction, doubt creeps in. Instincts fail. “Is this the right move?” When a company is filled with engineers, it turns to engineering to solve problems. Reduce each decision to a simple logic problem. Remove all subjectivity and just look at the data. Data in your favor? Ok, launch it. Data shows negative effects? Back to the drawing board. And that data eventually becomes a crutch for every decision, paralyzing the company and preventing it from making any daring design decisions.
или свежевыпущенный App Inventor для Android:
I won’t even begin to argue about whether App Inventor’s UI components are as elegant as Cocoa’s. They aren’t. But Google has taken another direction altogether: the user’s experience isn’t going to be perfect, but the user’s experience will be the experience he or she wants.
замечательная платформа — там же, сразу в рекламном ролике и видно, что на самом деле хочет пользователь. но как бы ни было, Google в самом деле старается решать пользовательские задачи.
однако, многие ли понимают разницу между обычным молтоком, киянкой и скальным? да что там, хотя бы между столярным и геологическим? кто знает об инструментах и разбирается в них, кроме специалистов? хочет ли корпорация и дальше оставаться зажатой в своей нише? или все-таки стремится стать чем-то еще?
им решать.
–
[1] — как выяснилось, я погорячился. он все так же с пятого на десятое, как и раньше.
все то, что ниже подбородка, — Рим
12 July 2010 | Internet, Lifeform | 1 Comment
читаю одновременно @KermlinRussia и @KremlinRussia — и разницы почти нет, если честно. плюс, @Николай II тоже хорошо смотрится в этой компании.
а вообще, конечно, надо еще цезарей. жаль только, что @королева-мать фактически больше не пишет, и в ленте поэтому теперь совсем уныло.
непутевые заметки
23 June 2010 | Facebook, Geography, Google, Internet, Privacy, Security, Software | No Comments
уже писал мельком о Google Latitude, и жизнь, как оказалось, не стоит на месте:
Right now, what people share on Facebook is usually pretty tame: a status update, photo, a link, a video, an action in an app. The ones with the greatest potential to creep people out are the geo-specific ones, which probably explains why Facebook is taking its sweet time to roll out its own geo features like geo-tagged updates and photos. If you think the current uproar over Facebook privacy is bad, wait until Facebook embraces location-based apps in a big way.
на любой вкус и цвет:
When it comes to geo-privacy there are two extremes. Foursquare makes you explicitly check into each place where you want to share your location. That is good for privacy—you only have yourself to blame if you broadcast your location from the strip club—but it makes using the application a bit of a chore.
<...>
On the other end of the spectrum is Google Latitude, which constantly broadcasts your location everywhere you go, but only to people you allow to see it and only at the level of detail you are comfortable with (by city or general neighborhood, for instance). Latitude is a set it and forget it model.
хотелось бы, однако, чуть иначе:
Somewhere in between the concept of the explicit check-in and constant geo-tracking is the notion of geo-fences. The idea is that you would basically draw fences around neighborhoods or other locations from where you want to broadcast where you are and places where you don’t. So maybe anytime you travel a certain distance from your home or office, the geo-sharing could begin.
или вот так:
Drawing geo-fences is still a lot of work. What would be more helpful, perhaps, would be the ability to tell an application to broadcast your location anytime you are in a public space—a restaurant, a park, a bar, a conference.
как бы там ни было, потенциал в любом случае огромен, игрушки получились замечательные. но вот что делать с безопастностью?
отпечатки мозга
19 June 2010 | Internet, Politics | 1 Comment
еще один сторонник всеобщей каталогизации:
He [Tiziano Motti] is eager to bring their message. And finally lands it in a conclusion, what he calls the overall aim of the initiative: “There will be no way to surf anonymously on the Internet. I want to introduce the so-called protected anonymity”, he says, drawing out the two terms.
According Tiziano Motti must find a balance on the net, and it shall be done by the “protected identity”. For anyone to access the network, he or she must identify themselves by submitting information to Internet service provider.
After each upload of text, images or video clips be traced by the authorities.
редкая мразь, судя по-всему, этот Тициано Мотти — как и Анна Заборская, скорее всего: потому что если сегодня они раздувают истерию и якобы “бьются” с ветрянными мельницами преступности, то завтра обязательно начнут читать и ваш интернет тоже — ведь для этого, как раз, все и затевается: для ужесточения тотального контроля за любым отдельно взятым гражданином.
характерна, кстати, схожесть мер, проводимых в разных странах под разными лозунгами — не питайте иллюзий, они идут не защишать вас, но управлять вами.
via.
получился человечек
27 May 2010 | Facebook, Internet, Lifeform | No Comments
в одном былом фильме мелькала очевидная мысль:
When deep space exploration ramps up, it’ll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.
на самом деле все иначе — мы будем так называть не звезды или галактики, но самих себя:
So read recent updates on Blippy, a sort of Twitter for shopping that allows users to automatically broadcast what they bought using credit and debit cards to the rest of the world.
The founders of the network and rival site Swipely say the purpose is to reveal the stories behind America’s stuff and explore how much our purchases reflect our personalities. Are we Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts, Target or Wal-Mart, Payless or Prada?
“Part of it, for a lot of people, is simply: ‘I shop; therefore I am,’ ” said Paco Underhill, a consumer researcher and author of the books “What Women Want” and “Why We Buy.” “The ability to consume is part of what their identities are based on.”
определенно, еще одна часть личности, как ее видит Марк Зукерберг:
Five months after Blippy was publicly launched, its users share $1.5 million in transactions every week, and the company says that amount is growing rapidly. Members can give Blippy access to their credit and debit card accounts as well as 15 other online accounts, such as iTunes, Netflix or Amazon. The site compiles a history of purchases, some dating back several years, and automatically records new ones. Members can choose which purchases to make public on their profiles, but the site’s default setting is to share them all with the world.
Blippy co-founder Philip Kaplan calls this “passive sharing” because members don’t have to sign in to use the site; Blippy already knows what you’re doing with every swipe. And friends, or strangers, can join your network and watch your money leave your wallet.
тем более неудивительно, что именно Facebook когда-то нечто подобное уже пробовал:
Three years ago, Facebook experimented with a similar concept called Beacon. When members visited Web sites such as Blockbuster, Zappos and Overstock.com, it published alerts that sometimes ran alongside ads or a person’s photo. The move sparked outrage among users, prompting a petition drive by MoveOn.org and a class-action lawsuit. Facebook eventually axed the program and settled the suit for $9.5 million, which it promised to use to create a foundation to study privacy issues.
многообразие
23 May 2010 | Facebook, Internet, Lifeform | 1 Comment
еще одна пресыщенная цитатами запись об информации, что создает нас — недавно Марк Зукерберг сказал буквально следующее:
You have one identity. The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly. Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.
он целеустремленно смотрит вперед:
To get people to this point where there’s more openness — that’s a big challenge. But I think we’ll do it. I just think it will take time. The concept that the world will be better if you share more is something that’s pretty foreign to a lot of people and it runs into all these privacy concerns.
и вот почему:
Let me paint the two scenarios for you. They correspond to two companies in the Valley. It’s not completely this extreme, but they are on different sides of the spectrum. On the one hand you have Google, which primarily gets information by tracking stuff that’s going on. They call it crawling. They crawl the web and get information and bring it into their systems. They want to build maps, so they send around vans which literally go and take pictures of your home for their Street View system. And the way they collect and build profiles on people to do advertising is by tracking where you go on the Web, through cookies with DoubleClick and AdSense. That’s how they build a profile about what you’re interested in. Google is a great company, but you can see that taken to a logical extreme that’s a little scary.
On the other hand, we started the company saying there should be another way. If you allow people to share what they want and give them good tools to control what they’re sharing, you can get even more information shared. But think of all the things you share on Facebook that you wouldn’t want to share with everyone, right? You wouldn’t want these things to be crawled or indexed–like pictures from family vacations, your phone number, anything that happens on an intranet inside a company, or any kind of private message or e-mail. So a lot of stuff is getting more and more open, but there’s a lot of stuff that’s not open to everyone.
This is one of the most important problems for the next ten to twenty years. Given that the world is moving toward more sharing of information, making sure that it happens in a bottom-up way, with people inputting the information themselves and having control over how their information interacts with the system, as opposed to a centralized way, through it being tracked in some surveillance system. I think that’s critical for the world. That’s just a really important part of my personality, and what I care about.
однако, разве не меняем мы постоянно отображаение своей личности в той или иной ситуации? как и ситуации, в свою очередь, меняются непрерывно вокруг нас, подчеркивая или создавая те или иные (как открытые, так и закрытые) аспекты наших личностей:
Zuckerberg must have skipped that class where Jung and Goffman were discussed. Individuals are constantly managing and restricting flows of information based on the context they are in, switching between identities and persona. I present myself differently when I’m lecturing in the classroom compared to when I’m have a beer with friends. I might present a slightly different identity when I’m at a church meeting compared to when I’m at a football game. This is how we navigate the multiple and increasingly complex spheres of our lives. It is not that you pretend to be someone that you are not; rather, you turn the volume up on some aspects of your identity, and tone down others, all based on the particular context you find yourself.
кто ищет, тот найдет
18 May 2010 | Copyright, Google, Internet | No Comments
о том, как можно поплатиться за просто ссылки и, например, за торрент-файлы (которые тоже суть ссылки) уже было слишком много.
что ж, вот еще один взгляд на проблему:
In what seems like a role reversal, Google has filed a lawsuit against Blue Destiny Records in an attempt to assert that it has not infringed the record label’s copyrights.
<...>
Blue Destiny Records first sued Google for copyright infringment in December 2009 over links to copyrighted content hosted on Rapidshare. According to the new lawsuit (PDF) by Google, Blue Destiny Records intended to hold Google liable “for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link”.
According to a Hollywood Reporter article by Eriq Gardner, that original suit cliamed that Rapidshare was running “‘a distribution center for unlawful copies of copyrighted works’ and that Google (and Microsoft’s Bing search engine) were helping to prop up the company.” Google states in this latest suit that it responded “expiditiously” to the record label’s Digital Millenium Copyright Act complaints “by removing, or disabling access to, links leading to webpages allegedly containing material infringing BDR’s copyrights” and that it should be protected by DMCA safe harbor.
<...>
It seems that Google wants to preserve its way of doing business, wherein its search engine can index without regard for copyright and only needs to act when a DMCA take-down notice is issued. A decision holding Google responsible for copyrighted content, which it pulled down after the notice, would mean that the company would need to be much more discriminatory in its indexing of content
т.е., ссылки на противоправно распространяемые материалы, охраняемые авторским правом, Гугл все-таки будет убирать. но при этом хочет, чтобы сам факт их существования не вменяли ему в вину.
иными словами, незаконность подобных ссылок поисковой гигант все-таки признает. и оспаривать этот факт не собирается.
а между тем как раз в этом и заключаются основные, на мой взгляд, ограничения, которые пытаются навязать нам так называемые правообладатели:
Should links be criminalized? Or should this sort of copyright infringement claim be reserved for actual hosting of content? And as we asked when we looked at the case of DMCA take-downs and Twitter, how many degrees of separation must there be before a link is no longer a criminal act? If we link to Google, which links to Rapidshare, which is hosting the content, should we also be held accountable for infringing copyright?
вот именно.
то спишь, то не спишь
16 May 2010 | Copyright, Internet, Music | No Comments
сэр Мик Джаггер в интревью:
Q: Things have obviously changed a great deal since those sessions. What’s your feeling on technology and music?
A: Technology and music have been together since the beginning of recording.
Q: I’m talking about the internet.
A: But that’s just one facet of the technology of music. Music has been aligned with technology for a long time. The model of records and record selling is a very complex subject and quite boring, to be honest.
Q: But your view is valid because you have a huge catalogue, which is worth a lot of money, and you’ve been in the business a long time, so you have perspective.
A: Well, it’s all changed in the last couple of years. We’ve gone through a period where everyone downloaded everything for nothing and we’ve gone into a grey period it’s much easier to pay for things – assuming you’ve got any money.
Q: Are you quite relaxed about it?
I am quite relaxed about it. But, you know, it is a massive change and it does alter the fact that people don’t make as much money out of records.
But I have a take on that – people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone!
Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.
So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t.
необъятные рынки
6 May 2010 | Apple, Facebook, Internet, Technology | No Comments
то есть, очевидно, что используя, например, свежепредставленный Open Graph (или — при достаточной смелости и амбициозности — некий собственный пока еще не существующий механизм), этот книжный клуб может, во-первых, дать Apple значительное преимущество в противостоянии с Amazon, а во-вторых, вывести обыденную продажу книг на качественно другой уровень (где пока все складывается в пользу, наоборот, бесплатных книг, из запасников проекта “Гуттенберг”).
однако, судя по-всему, Apple сегодня это просто не нужно:
They have great social graph assets in the form of user address books, email stores, and instant messaging friend networks, but they show little sign of understanding how to turn those assets into next generation applications or services. But most strikingly, they don’t really seem to understand some key aspects of the game that is afoot.
If they did, MobileMe would be free to every user, not a $99 add-on. Web 2.0 companies know that systems that get better the more people use them are the key to marketplace dominance in the network era. The social graph is one such system, for which Facebook is currently the market leader. Companies that want to dominate the Internet Operating System either need to make a deal with Facebook to integrate their platforms, or have a compelling strategy for building out their own social graph assets. Unless Apple is planning a deal with Facebook, their current MobileMe strategy seems only to indicate that they don’t understand the stakes.
ну да, у них, конечно, другие задачи:
It’s like a country club. Apple isn’t saying you can’t play golf with your pit-stained t-shirt and denim cutoffs. They’re just saying you can’t do it at their club. Apple wants to run the most profitable country club in the world, with millions of members, but they don’t want everybody.
и все же такой союз с Facebook мог бы существенно изменить мир — а судя по востребованности подобного работающего сервиса — скорее всего, даже к лучшему. более того, где одно, там и другое: музыка и фильмы из iTunes Store, приложения из App Store, и так далее, и тому подобное. настоящие молочные реки — для тех, кто знает, куда они текут.
will be facebooked
28 April 2010 | Facebook, Internet, Privacy | No Comments
еще одна точка зрения:
There is something interesting about Facebook’s announcement of the (not really open) Open Graph that has received less press; the fact that Facebook is a private company. No one knows for sure how much of the company Zuckerberg and others own, but it wouldn’t likely be difficult for him to put together 51% of the company. What that means is that a private individual (or small group of individuals) own virtually everyone’s online identities. The difference between a private company and a public company owning these identities, is that a private one is under no legal obligation to try to make a profit with them. This makes a private company’s actions very difficult to predict/understand. I’m not saying Zuckerberg isn’t a good guy, I’m saying its too much responsibility for one 25 year old.