It's Rishi

One of the most prolific symbols of the “Web 2.0″ generation has been the tag cloud (if you’re not sure what a tag cloud is, the top of the sidebar on the right of this blog is an example). Well, eat your hearts out tag clouds. I came across this at thebeststuffintheworld.com.

I’m not sure if these guys were the first to do it but it’s a very cool idea. This actually reminds me of the milliondollarhomepage.com.

Is a photo tag cloud more useful than a regular tag cloud? Not really. But then again, I often wonder if traditional tag clouds are really all that useful either. One thing’s for sure, photos are a helluva lot slicker looking than words.

Yesterday, Google announced a limited availability of their new web-based spreadsheet application aptly named Google Spreadsheets. Is it nicely-designed and does it deliver basic spreadsheet functionality? Absolutely. Is this the first web-based spreadsheet application? No. Is this the best web-based spreadsheet application? Possibly. Is this going to disrupt the MS Excel-dominated spreadsheet market? Not anytime soon. Let’s face it folks, barring some special circumstances, I can’t think of anyone who would prefer to use a web-based application instead of a locally-installed application. While Web UI technologies have improved to the point where a web-based spreadsheet is feasible, it still pales in comparison to the rich UI libraries available in any modern OS.

So does this mean that Google has failed? Not at all. Every large R&D organization has tons of development projects going on at any given time. However, in just about every other industry, the majority of those projects never see the light of day. Many projects are done just to gain internal expertise, others are skunkwork projects that never had a clear market driver, and other projects are simply cut by management for all kinds of reasons. The unique thing about the web software industry is that the cost of manufacturing is nil. If you have a piece of software, you can basically flip a switch and it’s live to the public. Google probably knows full well that many of its projects aren’t revolutionary in their present form, but there is little reason not to make it publicly available. Part of the research and design process is receiving feedback and I think that’s what Google Labs is all about. Kind of like “here’s a cool project some of us (engineers) have been hacking at…we wanna see what you think and how you guys use it”.

The problem which Google runs into is that they’ve built a brand like no other. A brand that screams innovation. Because of this brand, people expect awesomely innovative products from Google. Those of us in the tech community who follow the bleeding edge of innovation are often less than satisfied with the innovation we see from Google.

As I say time and time again, I think a lot of people in the community need to get a breath of fresh air – from outside the Silicon Valley bubble – and realize that a simple web-based spreadsheet from Google is not going to challenge Microsoft in any meaningful way for a long, long time.

Some bloggers have commented that this lack of innovation is starting to hurt Google’s brand and reputation for innovation. I don’t really think so. If you were to demo Google Spreadsheets to the average Web user, they’re likely to be wowed and comment on Google’s brilliance. However, it’s also a safe bet that they’ll still use Excel the next time they need a spreadsheet.

Note: I’m not anti web-apps. I think they will be very much be a part of computing within the next 5-10 years. Read some of my vision

I didn’t get the laptop of my dreams for my birthday a couple weeks ago. Why you ask? The answer is simple. It doesn’t exist yet. In fact, what I want – if it is to ever be produced – may not even really be called a “laptop”. I think I’ll call it a “lifetop”, short for lifestyle laptop. The purpose of the lifetop is to be a device for performing the simple, everyday computing tasks that you and I do in our daily lives. Tasks such as browsing the web, e-mail, RSS reading, text/voice/video messaging, and light desktop publishing. It does rely on the constant availability of a broadband connection. The lifetop is also not designed for intensive tasks like gaming, searching for extra-terrestial life, nor for mission critical work. However, I will emphasize again that this is a serious computing device. (Note that this is starkly different than, say, Microsoft’s recent unveiling of their Ultra Mobile PC, code-named Origami, which might be best described as the big brother to a Windows Mobile PDA)

Okay. So now that I have described what the lifetop can and cannot be used for, let me jump into an overview of exactly I envision it to be.

First and foremost, the purpose of the lifetop stems from its utter simplicity. After all, every day our digital lives are becoming more and more complicated. As fast access to information is becoming all but ubiquitous, our brains are being bombarded with constant streams of data. The last thing we want or need is our computing devices dictating our digital lives. The role of computers is only to provide us humans with effective, reliable, and secure means to access and manipulate the information in our lives. Nothing more. And this is where the typical PC fails. Why should you have to wait even a minute for your laptop to “wake up” so you can check your e-mail? Why should you have to waste time troubleshooting why there’s no sound coming out of your speakers? Why should you have to worry about whether you’re going to be a victim to the latest nasty virus? The answer is you shouldn’t. But, right now, you are.

Highlights:

Physical Design: Thin. Since there’s no hard disk or optical drive and not much requirement for air flow, the device can be absurdly thin. Combine that with the latest-generation LED-backlit LCD panels which are substantially thinner and I can’t see why a ¼” to ½” thickness wouldn’t be possible without trying very hard. Light. Less than 2lb. The only main source of weight is the case and the battery. The case can be made out of a carbon composite and the battery can be small because the power consumption of the device is very low. Durable. Because there are no moving parts and its light-weight, the lifteop can be handled roughly without worry.

OS: This is what really makes the lifetop. What I envision is a browser-centric UI. It’s not so much that the browser is the only application. Instead, it’s more like the browser is the OS. You press the power button and within a second or two you see a browser. Since the browser is the focal point of the UI, many of the UI elements that normally clutter up one’s screen are nonexistent. No taskbars and browser buttons (such as back, forward, stop) are conveniently located on the keyboard. So why a web browser?

The direction of software is towards being Web-based. Actually I don’t really want to say Web-based. What does Web-based really mean anyways? I mean yes a sophisticated AJAX application which provides a near-native feel is still a Web-based application in the sense that the UI is still delivered via HTML and currently that means you access it via a Web browser. But I like to think of it as rich terminal computing. If that makes sense.

The reality is that more and more of our computing tasks happen online. Think back 10 years. All computing tasks were done via local software installed on your PC. Nowdays, that’s changing very fast. The first big example was webmail. Already, in the latter half of this year we’ve seen the launch of several bonafide Web-based applications: Writely (word processing), NumSum (spreadsheet), Meebo (IM), I have to believe that we’re really just scraping the surface of what’s possible (ok uh that sounded eerily like Bill Gates in that Nasdaq commercial a few years back…I digress). Some people talk like the future is online Office. I’m not sure that’s necessarily the direction. Again, the lifetop, and the web-based applications that it will be used for, are meant for light-computing tasks. Writely has maybe 10% of the functionality in Word. It’s sufficient for 80+% of the users out there, and probably 99% of home users. However, it’s intent is not send Word into oblivion. Anyways, it seems like just about any software you want, there is a web-based equivalent that is under development whether it’s word processing, photo editing, or project management. So why deal with software license fees, install/uninstall hassles, crashes, etc?

The entire OS resides on the only permanent storage mechanism that the lifetop would have, which is a 1GB Flash ROM. A compact Linux kernel would be a good choice. There are standard releases of the OS which are automatically delivered like a 1-click firmware update. There are fixed revisions and the files in the OS are 100% read-only. At no point can any user operation make any modifications. No configuration files stored locally. And certainly no registry. Because the OS is small and stored on fast flash memory, loading is lightning quick.

Storage: There is none. Well, let’s say you have an SD card slot. The point though is that no user software nor user files are stored on the lifetop itself. Instead, they are stored on online file systems like Amazon’s recently announced S3 or Openomy. Storing files locally on your PC is inconvenient and really almost irresponsible. There’s so many ways you can incur data loss. It’s almost absurd that the average user needs to worry about whether his files are going to be intact the next time he needs them. Furthermore, online storage means access from anywhere. With the advent of online storage systems with full API’s, Web-based apps will surely be offering users the ability to store the files using them.

Multimedia: Since there is no local storage, the lifetop relies exclusively on streamed media. Which is fine because the lifetop essentially relies on a broadband connection. Streaming music has been around for what seems like ages now and video has arrived as well. Right now, streaming video generally means YouTube which is lo-def 320×240 400kbps. Soon, we’ll have DVD-quality 1500kbps XVid or maybe H.264 streams. Moreover, with software like Orb, you can easily stream media from any PC. So, if you’ve got massive music and movie collections from torrents you downloaded over the years, you can easily stream it, even over the web.

Ports/Interfaces: Ethernet to connect to LAN. 802.11 for WLAN. Bluetooth for communicating/sync’ing with your other lifestyle devices such as your phone, PDA, PC, and in some cases your car! Also it would support a Bluetooth remote. A remote for what you ask? Well, there’s a DVI out and typical audio in/out for hooking up to an a/v system for the purpose of home theater or presentations. Maybe even offer a nice little dock for this purpose. Another possibility is EVDO for broadband cellular access. There are no USB2.0 or FireWire ports since the lifetop will not support any third-party peripherals. Remember, we’re keeping things simple so no excess drivers or software to screw things up.

Price: Because the lifetop is light on hardware and doesn’t need expensive software licenses, it can and must be priced cheaply. I’m thinking $300-400 is the target. In the beginning, it would be marketed as a luxury device because for various reasons it would not be ready to be a primary computing device for low-cost users. However, as time passes, I could definitely see it taking large chunks of the home computing market.

So who’s going to build this lifetop? Well, remarkably, on the software side, I don’t think building at least a first iteration would be too difficult. Assuming you stick with a very low speed Pentium M processor, you could grab your basic x86 Linux kernel. Build some custom drivers and updating tools, add a customized version of Firefox and you should be ready to go. You would then need a nice AJAX desktop application (one can likely be acquired for relatively cheap since there’s about 10 companies which have relatively similar offerings). On the hardware side, the components are generally off-the-shelf stuff. You would need some snazzy designers to cook up a slick design for the device.

The real question is who has the marketing muscle to push such a revolutionary device. What the lifetop aims to do is nothing less than change the face of personal computing. Even if it is a great idea, you got to convince consumers to ditch their current PC’s, laptops, software, etc. that they paid good money for. Not only that, you’re asking users to leave their computing comfort zone. The one computing company that always seems to understand what people want and make it cool is Apple. However, Apple would be cannibalizing their own home-PC business (both hardware and software) so it wouldn’t be a realistic move for them. Sun is a big proponent of thin-client computing but they don’t know much about the consumer market. Motorola…hmmm…maybe. Nah. I think the best candidates would be the consumer electronics giants like Sony and Samsung. They have the money to influence markets, they understand the simplicity that people expect from their expertise in consumer electronics, they already know how to build portable computers and they have the brand image.

With the advent of Internet-based computing, The lifetop will be an amazingly simple, flexible and powerful device which will meet the needs of just about everyone. For light-computing consumers, the lifetop will be an absolute godsend and will be their primary computing device. For heavy-computing users, it’s the perfect device for when you’re not working on your primary computing rig. Best of all, though, it will be the cheapest, most reliable, serious computing device I will have ever used.

Take this quiz and find out. I scored a 33 and I don’t know jack about Star Wars. Scary.

E27 extraordinaire Noah Kagan stumbled upon wankr.com. OK fine it’s a joke BUT nowdays it’s getting pretty hard to figure out what’s real and what’s not. Check out Fleck:

Fleck is: patent pending, world changing, paradigm shifting and user experience enhancing technology. Tagging, search, blog, AJAX and social networking, every WEB2.0 hype is covered.

WTF? Believe it or not, I’m pretty sure Fleck is a bonafide company. Of course, like any proper Web 2.0 company does, they’re developing in stealth-mode but you can leave your e-mail address to sign up for an exclusive private beta. These guys clearly have been drinking the Web2.0 crazy juice. I’ll admit, I do kinda like their logo though.

And I can’t finish this rant without mentioning TagWorld (MySpace clone) who proudly proclaims on their homepage that their site is “complete with powerful Web2.0 tools!” As if naming the site TagWorld wasn’t Web2.0-cliche enough.

/rant

I’ve spent the last year writing an enormous amount of PHP code for Dontbuyjunk and Turf. Before we started the project, I would have labelled myself as a server engineer. Even though I had worked on extremely large-scale web applications at my former employer, Ariba, I was on the server team and rarely dealt with any code components that were client-facing. I would have labelled myself also as an advanced Perl programmer. Perl was the only scripting language I had exposure to, so when I jumped into PHP for this project, I immediately loved it. It was leaps and bounds more convenient to code web apps with PHP over Perl. Many of the functions one would need were already there and the developer community, while not as mature as Perl, was certainly rich with depth.

Fast forward a year and my view of PHP has changed quite a bit. I still think its a very convenient way to code web apps that are very view-centric (or page-centric, whatever), such as WordPress where you have the main page, the post page, the archive page, etc. However, for building more complex web applications where there are several components, PHP just doesn’t feel well-suited for the job. Even though it is quite full-featured from a language perspective, it sometimes feels clooged together. Like, for example, the object-oriented support, which again, while being decently feature rich, it feels kind of forced when I’m writing OO code in PHP. It’s like yeah I can write decent OO code but I’m only doing it to follow my own coding convention, PHP doesn’t really give a crap and moreover other programmers working on the project will do their own thing and soon enough you start to get a mess.

This is really where Java shines. It’s a pure, from-the-ground-up object-oriented language and everything from how code is physically organized to the linking to the VM to the language itself is sensical, refined and heck even fascinating sometimes. I sometimes look back to some of the Java projects I’ve worked on, even the gigantic messy Ariba ones, and smile. For me, programming is not just about writing code sufficient to meet the task, it’s about designing elegant, efficient code that you enjoy re-reading – like a good book – can’t wait to have your peers look at. (Granted, there are plenty of times when I’m working on an insignficant task where I do just need something that works.)

I spent the past couple of days learning about and playing around with Ruby on Rails. I’m not going to go into detail about the background of RoR as there are plenty of other sites which describe it better than I can. Basically though, Ruby is an object-oriented programming language created by Yukihiro Matsumoto. One of the design philosophies of Ruby is the “principle of least surprise”:

I believe people want to express themselves when they program. They don’t want to fight with the language. Programming languages must feel natural to programmers. I tried to make people enjoy programming and concentrate on the fun and creative part of programming when they use Ruby.

Sounds good to me. And if you start poking around with Ruby I think you’ll generally agree. What really has brought Ruby into the limelight is the Rails MVC (Model-View-Controller) framework which was created by David Heinemeier Hansson (founder of 37Signals). I’ve played around with MVC frameworks, namely Struts, before and to be honest I never quite felt comfortable with them. That could also be because before when I experimented with MVC concepts, I hadn’t done much full-circle application development. Like I said, I was mainly just a server/back-end guy. But now that I’ve worked on all aspects of application development for the web, I have learned how development does sort of gravitate towards the MVC model. For Revunity, even though we never planned it, we ended up with controllers, models, and views, except that it’s somewhat of a mess. =) As I dug deeper, I was thoroughly impressed with Rails. RoR doesn’t, of course, do anything that you could not do with other languages/frameworks. But, so far, what it does seem to do is make me as a developer more efficient. Much of the tedious stuff is taken care of. I can focus on the meat of the application.

I had a couple conversations with friends about RoR and the question came up about scalability. I started to wonder the same thing and did a lot of digging. It seems like RoR apps do compare well in terms of performance with other platforms. However, I came across this post by David Hansson himself, It’s boring to scale with Ruby on Rails that re-focused my perspective on RoR. Particularly this quote:

The point is that the cost per request is plummeting, but the cost of programming is not. Thus, we have to find ways to trade efficiency in the runtime for efficiency in the “thought time” in order to make the development of applications cheaper. I believed we’ve long since entered an age where simplicity of development and maintenance is where the real value lies.

I very much agree with this. CPU cycles, storage, bandwidth, etc. are all commodities which are getting cheaper by the day. The cost of developers, and I’m talking about the passionate engineers/innovators not just dime-a-dozen coders, remains a very expensive and scarce resource. So, if RoR makes developers more efficient and happy about building applications, then it’s value is truly gargantuous.

I’m looking forward to getting involved in a project, whether for serious or for fun, where RoR will be the right tool for the job. I’m curious to see what issues (other than the obvious ones like relatively limited developer community) I will find with RoR and whether my feelings toward it will change once I have some real experience with it.

Last night, I went to SuperHappyDevHouse, which is basically an all-night party/hack-a-thon graciously hosted by David Weekly at his own house. This particular SHDH was actually the 7th such event. I found out about SHDH last week at a BBQ thrown by the Meetro guys and decided that I would definitely drop by at this weekend’s event. The event runs from 7PM-7AM and unfortunately I arrived really late, around 1AM. I didn’t get a chance to participate in any of the interesting projects people were hacking on, but I did get a chance to meet some cool people including the man himself David Weekly (who’s working on PBWiki with another young entrepreneur I met recently, Ramit Sethi), Neil Kumar (an engineer at Yelp…Neil if you’re reading this come on bro hook me up with an invite to the next elite Yelpers party!), David Kadavy and Ben Yee from WorkMetro and David Quiec from Rrove.

All in all, I was happy I made it to the event and I’m looking forward to making it on time to the next SHDH so I can participate more.