Ripping mobility from the clutches of telecom
Archive for February, 2008
Microb Spellcheck Extension
Feb 20th
Some of the comments to my previous posts about Firefox mobile pointed me toward the packaged extensions to the Microb browser, which is the default browser on the N810. One of the extensions is a spellcheck extension that underlines misspelled words right in a text area. Fantastic! Now I can blog from my device without fear of looking like a complete eediot cause I spell worse than a 4th grader. Now if I can just find extensions to correct grammar, poor sentence structure, and boneheaded predictions and market analysis.
Random Mobile Web Stuff
Feb 19th
Riding Caltrain home earlier I had a hankering for some new fiction, so I thought “this would be a perfect chance to poke at the Amazon mobile site and get Singularity Sky.” Geeky huh? I have to say I don’t like it. There’s just one item staring me at the face when I visit, not something I’m interested in. So I think maybe it’s some quirk of mobile user behavior, that they’re getting way better conversion rates with just one item on that page. SO I sign in with my account and nothing really changes. There’s no real exposure of all the magic that makes Amazon interesting on the mobile web side. Too bad. And then to top it off, after I just searched out the book I wanted:
Aww man!
On the other hand, I was fooling around with the sharing features that Taptu just released. You can suck in your contacts from Gmail or setup your Twitter account, and when you find a page of Taptu results you like you can send it to someone. Yay! Now that I do like! The UI is slightly funky though. To actually post the twit you click on myTwitter, which is probably something that was defaulted somewhere but I missed it. Would be nice to have a “post” or “send” button that looks more like an action on that form. I like it though, great job!
The Effects of Unbundling Mobile Distribution
Feb 18th
Sounds like there’s some interesting discussion going on at GDC. I liked the summary from MocoNews about the end of carrier control in gaming. It’s an excellent example of one of the positive benefits that comes out of having the mobile web look more like a web than a bunch of standalone content silos. I wanted to call attention to this bit in particular:
Who says you have to support 1,000 handsets from the start? How about 10 and see what the uptake is? Suddenly, you have all the options that weren’t available previously.
First of all cause the idea itself is worth pointing out – that distribution through the carrier often came with a required list of porting targets and you had to hit all of them. It was a pretty cumbersome requirement to go along with distribution. The ability of the developer to pick and choose targets as they go along is great news. But it also means that niche use spread across large areas also becomes possible. An application that appeals to 5% of mobile users was something that any single carrier would never go for unless the return per user was astronomical. Even if the worldwide number of users was large (5% of the worldwide mobile using public is a lot), there was no way for the app developer to reach that user base through carrier deals. Unbundling access to mobile users by hitting them via other distribution and discovery mechanisms makes those kinds of applications realistic again. I like it!
However, the flip side to this is thinking about why the carriers put those porting requirements in there in the first place. They didn’t do it to be jerks, they did it cause they wanted to deliver a consistent experience to as many of their users as they could while not bearing high support overhead. I don’t agree that was a great way to handle that problem, but it does point out an interesting area. What’s going to happen to customer support and consistent user experience in a post-carrier-dominated world? Who do I call or what do I do when an application I downloaded yesterday starts behaving badly or I can’t figure out how to configure it?
I think long term the answers to those questions should mimic the way these things are handled for PCs. The attempt to try to control the whole system of mobility from network to handset to user application resulted in the system we have now, and the whole thing needs to be supplanted with something more expansive. There’s a few things that probably go into that. There’s probably some degree of communal mobile user knowledge that needs to evolve. It exists for desktop systems, though for lots of us it’s so ingrained by now that we don’t see it. Users know what an email address is, they understand that when they install an application they should look for it in the start menu if they want to use it, that when they want to save a web page to use it later they add it to favorites, etc. Common user experience, frequency of tasks, shared understanding, and common sense all combine to make the stuff that people do frequently seem simple. And I don’t just mean “user education” here. I mean application provider and handset manufacturer education as well, cause it’s a two way street.
For an example take a look at the way that iPhone usage has pushed mobile to a different level. What happened with the iPhone was that the market potential for the device wasn’t set by how well the carrier could push services out to the end users. Instead, Apple decided what they wanted the phone to do, designed it the way they wanted it to work, and then marketed those functions directly to end users. Compare the iPhone commercials to the kind of stuff that Nokia makes to describe their products. Very different stances. But it’s not just the marketing, it delivers on what it says. Using the web on an iPhone is simple and intuitive, using the maps app is the same. It wasn’t designed by a committee, which is how a lot of the current phones on the market feel. It was designed with a strong and consistent hand guided by the practicality of the end user, not a reduction in support call costs. And the difference is obvious top to bottom.
I’m curious what else is going to come around and what else changes in this version of mobile. Are the rest of the device manufacturers going to follow suit and rethink their devices now that Apple has shown that it can be done different? I think so, which leaves the door wide open to get more open platforms into the mix. When I bring up OpenMoko frequently I hear responses from people that are tied to the “accepted knowledge” from that old environment. But I think it’s been proven that a single vendor with a strong vision, consistent implementation, and messaging to the end user can make a difference. So really all the arguments against a major disruption in the mobile devices market are pretty well voided at this point. And we have so many efforts lowering the bar for getting a new device out in the market. That could get really interesting really soon.
Linux Router
Feb 18th
I have a problem with wifi routers. I don’t know why it is, maybe I abuse them too much. But I’ve gone through a few routers over the last year. At AdMob we had the same kinds of problems, wifi routers would just do odd things. They would just stop routing, or slow down to a crawl after a while. This one that I had at home last started “stuttering” when I connected to IM. It would stop routing packets for about 70 seconds when I connected to IM. I verified that I wasn’t crazy by running a ping to an external site from another machine while I connected to IM from this one. Sure enough there were a bunch of dropped packets right when I connected. Why? No idea.
Russ jokes that I have inverse technical ability – the more complex something is the more likely it is that I’ll get it working. And for some reason, the less complex it is, the more likely it is to cause problems for me. So naturally it would seem the right way to solve this simple technical issue of getting a base networking component to just route packets for me would be to make it more complex. So I was going to dig out one of my old Linux systems, put two network cards in it, and configure it as my router.
However, I also noticed that Linksys WRT54GL routers are on sale. The Linksys WRT54G was the router that folks hacked to run Linux, but then Linksys changed the design so that they could run VxWorks instead. The WRT54GL version is the old version, brought back by Linksys cause there was a lot of vocal support for the design from the hackers.
What’s this? A way to run Linux on my router using a platform and distribution system I’ve never even touched before? Well that’s sure to work! I just tried it out today, and it did:
Actually took less time to get this router working than it did to get the last commercial router swap working last time I decided to try a new bit of kit. Looks like Russ’s theory might have some legs.
Poking Around in the Minefield
Feb 17th
After getting an initial version of mobile Firefox (currently called minefield) compiled and running on the Maemo SDK, I compiled a version for ARM and put it on my n810:
It’s definitely a very early effort, like all of the pages say. It’s not even a release yet, just a hint of things to come and an attempt to start the effort rolling along. I’m actually impressed that it worked out so well. I was able to build the code for both targets, get it installed, and poke around some. It loads pages, settings work, extensions work, tabs, session saving, etc. All told, fantastic for what is effectively a rough port of the desktop version with few tweaks made.
I installed Greasemonkey to poke around some. I’m just really interested in there being a user contributed set of hacks to get existing web content to work on mobile devices. This seems to provide an excellent way to fool around with that concept. I tried out a few user scripts and they do work, although I had a few crashes here and there while fooling around. It’s still an early effort, so no surprise there.
This whole thing has me really excited. I wasn’t sure what to make of the announcement that there was going to be a mobile Firefox somewhere down the line. With so much momentum behind the Webkit based browsers I wasn’t sure if Firefox was going to be able to make a dent. I’m happy to see working code and an early demo, nothing gets interest for an open source more than a working set of code. Fantastic, this just might work out yet.
One of the aspects that I think is a huge deal is that Firefox is actually open source. When you look at the Nokia open source browser (like that included in the N95) and the Safari browser in the iPhone they’re both based on the open source WebKit project. However, they are not themselves open source. WebKit includes the guts of the web browser (HTML parsing, CSS, rendering engine, JavaScript, DOM interface, etc) but that’s not all that goes into a browser. So there are proprietary bits of code that go in with WebKit in order to make up the browser on my N95. The result being, I can’t decide I don’t like the way my N95 works and get in there and hack up a new version of the browser that suits my taste. With the mobile Firefox browser that will be the case. And I’m hoping that a genuine open source browser on the mobile end will catalyze innovation in the client the same way that having an open source desktop browser has kept things interesting in that arena.
Now if only I could get the browser compiled for a device with a cellular interface in it, or get a Maemo device with a cellular interface.
Walk Through Minefields
Feb 16th
I got networking going in my scratchbox install and was able to build my own minefield 1.9 Mozilla and get it talking to the intarwebs:
Pimp, I know, you’re jealous. Turns out Brad is way more pimp, and actually had debs packaged that I could play with and all.
I actually found his stuff before I did this, but I wanted to figure out how to build my own so that I could hack on it a bit. Unfortunately the extension developers extension didn’t install cause it doesn’t “provide secure updates”.. whatever that means. But Greasemonkey did:
I know, it’s hard to comprehend. I’ll give you a bit of time to catch your breath, I’m getting all excited myself.
Why I Don’t Care About LiMo
Feb 15th
There’s a whole bunch of noise about the LiMo Foundation and comparisons to the Google Android project and the Open Handset Alliance. That’s cool, I’m happy there are people taking a look at both and poking around and trying to figure out how to make things better. But right now I don’t really care.
I don’t care because LiMo doesn’t seem to be an open source project at all. It’s a consortium meant to steward communal intellectual property and license rights. Just a quick glance over the open source definition and then the LiMo website should spark thoughts like “Hey, where’s the source code?” and “What’s with all this talk about membership?”
I’m not saying that LiMo isn’t a great effort. It might drive down the cost of manufacturing handsets and drive significant innovation back into Linux. But the project is really aimed at device manufacturers. They’re trying to bill it as a savior for consumer application developers as well because it supposedly standardizes Linux, but until the devices are out in market and I see some numbers that’s going to be a really hard case to make to me. Show me the code or show me the install base. Don’t claim open source without any public code and claim an end to device fragmentation without significant units in the market. I’m going to assume you’re just bullshitting.
BarCamp Bank SF – Mobile Payments?
Feb 14th
I just signed up for the BarCamp Bank event in Berkeley next month. Not my normal venue, but I would really like to get a conversation going around mobile payments. In short, they don’t work. There’s point solutions here and there that allow a limited number of merchants to interact with a geographically segmented group of users, but nothing that works at the scale of the web. If 2008 is going to be the year of the mobile web we need a way for people doing stuff on it to be able to pay other people providing stuff. And it can’t be based on what carrier you’re on, and which handset you have, or if you happen to be in the United States. We need a global infrastructure for payments on mobile that works for everyone everywhere.
I’m hoping that with folks there looking at issues like social money, risk management and fraud prevention, and online operations maybe they can help us figure out how to crack the nut and get at something better than what we have.
The Taste of Progress
Feb 13th
Apparently the technology now exists to tell good espresso from bad, so I have some subjective measure to go on when I complain about these kinds of things. I don’t want it built into the coffee machine though, I want it built into my phone. So that when I got a horrid cup I can take the reading right then. “See, the bitterness is right off the scale here, you’re going to have to find me a new barista.”
Mobile Search, Blended Indexes, Content Ranking
Feb 13th
I’ve been wondering a lot lately about search indexes and mobile content, and the reinforcing effect an established web index can have on the growth of any new channels. I’ve been paying particular attention since Google changed to a unified index for web and mobile searches a few weeks ago. It used to be that as a publisher providing both web and mobile content the only way to really make sure that my stuff would get indexed properly was to create a mobile sitemap for my mobile pages and inform Google of it as an explicit set of mobile pages. Now I’m not sure what to do.
My initial interpretation of the decision was that I should rely on the handheld media type alternate link to let Google know about the mobile version of pages, and rely on Google just indexing the main web version in order to find the mobile version. Makes sense, but what do I do about not having the mobile sitemap there to inform Google about the structure of my site? For instance normally there’s an indexing penalty associated with having duplicate content. Well, my web version and my mobile version are duplicate content. How much does Google use the linking from main web version to mobile version? Should I deny the Googlebot access to the mobile version in order to make sure that the web version doesn’t get penalized?
And of course there’s the problem of mobile only content. While folks can use the loopback handheld media type link hack to keep Google from transcoding their pages, how does that affect their indexing? Say that my statement from the paragraph above is true and Google uses the handheld media link to determine when duplicate content is actually a valid duplication. What does it do when the page points to itself? On our pages at Mowser we have a web version and a mobile version. The web version points to the mobile version as an alternate. The mobile version points to itself. That’s so that if the mobile version ends up in outside search indexes the page won’t get double transcoded. However I don’t have a good understanding of what that does to index ranking.
The layout really seems to encourage Google’s position of dominance with respect to search on the whole. By smacking their index together and refocusing people on increasing the ranking of their web content and relying on media linking to find the mobile version it really makes it hard for upstarts focused on making better mobile search to get any attention at all out of content owners. And with all the uncertainty around the behavior of Google’s index some of us are actually trying to hide away portions of our mobile content in order to figure out how to get the Google index to behave the way we expect it to. While Google controls the lions share of searches online, who would muck around with their content and endanger their position in the Google index in order to increase their ranking in the much lower utilization mobile specific indexes? Besides Russ and I at least. Although I love what the Google folks are doing for mobile in terms of GMail, and Gmaps, and Android – this whole issue around mobile search and advertising gives me the creeps.
Let me give a concrete example of something we just haven’t figured out yet. We have a directory of feeds at Mowser, organized by topics, rendering summaries and providing an adapted version of the full site if the user clicks through. We figured it would be a nice way to introduce mobile users to existing content without having to go to each of the publishers. We give mobile users content, give blog owners new readers, yay! Right? The problem is Google isn’t picking up the pages for some reason.
Take for instance our mobile technology blogs page, a page very near and dear to me cause it includes the greatest website in the entire world (this one). Now do a search for “mobile technology blogs” site restricted to mowser.com. It’s not in there for some reason. It’s not even very link deep from the pages we directly expose in our sitemap. Why does that page not get picked up? Is the sitemap we have there in some way affecting the normal behavior of the Googlebot? It’s not like it isn’t pounding on the site all the time, it’s just not finding stuff. I thought that’s what it was supposed to do.
Obviously, it’s Google’s site and Google’s index and Google’s users so they’re free to do whatever they want. For once I’m not going to bitch and tell them what they should do. But I do think a little extra transparency here would go a long way toward helping us figure out what we should be doing. Even just going through and whacking anything that’s old and outdated from the Google support section might help. Is the mobile sitemap even supposed to be used any more now that the index is unified? The information available for webmasters seems to be really conflicted now.





