Interesting reads from 10-plus years ago at theobvious.com http://www.theobvious.com Open Question: What would you do with RSS http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2002/09/20.html Stories and Tools http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2002/04/15.html A MetaFilter Proposal http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2001/10/26.html September 11, 2001 http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2001/09/11.html The Next Usenet http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2001/03/02.html q. The way I see it, we already have about half of the solution implemented. First, there seems to be an almost endless supply of content creators. Webloggers, personal home page publishers, professional journalists, community participants are creating millions of words of new content. Second, we have the protocol: simple HTTP, and addressable URLs. Third, we have (at least the beginnings of) a common data format in RSS. We're missing the other half, which consists of two elements -- a common semantic space (i.e. "categories of content"), and the client- and server-side tools to easily create and distribute content. The tools will come, and will come in multiple colors and flavors. Whether it's Blogger, or Radio Userland, or Microsoft Word, or EMACS, or a server-side tool provided by Geocities, there will be tools for reading, writing, commenting on, and publishing, RSS-based content (ed. note -- there you go again). Imagine a series of webservers that exchange RSS feeds in a similar way. Since RSS 1.0 is extensible via XML namespaces, it would be easy to add one or more categorization elements to each and every item posted, in addition to a categorization for a whole channel. Additionally, RSS could be extended to describe types of publishers, so custom syndication servers could have their own rulesets to enable them to redistribute RSS feeds matching particular channels, created by particular publishers, or classes of publishers. Thus, theobvious could become a syndicator of RSS feeds of indie tech pundit types, while Google becomes the syndicator of record for everything it could get its hands on. q.. Hacking the City http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2000/11/07.html The Beginning of Web Design http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2000/07/24.html **Pyra's Killer App** http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2000/05/01.html **Just One Question for Dick Costolo** http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1999/12/27.html My Ass is a Weblog http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1999/11/22.html A major miss-fire prediction from 1999 by Greg Knauss, but it's still an interesting read. q. Say what you want about the Web, it's got its enthusiasms. Twice a year or so, like clock-work, a new technology or paradigm sweeps over the face of the Internet, promising to transform not only the medium, but the very fabric of our lives. "It's revolutionary!" proponents shout. "It's amazing! It's the next New Thing!" Which makes the tumult that currently surrounds weblogs all that much more amusing. It's easy to be cynical, of course, but how can anyone not giggle into their sleeve when lists of links to the iBrator are described in terms that usually accompany the overthrow of a government? Weblogs are a "revolution." They're "journalism." They're "art." They're, again and again, the next New Thing. To which the only possible response can be: come on, people. This is not to say that weblogs aren't useful or fun. I read several every day, and have profited from the experience. I just love that Mahir guy. But how can you not boggle at the level of self-delusion, of self-infatuation, it takes to declare that weblogs are going kill off traditional journalism? *That the concept will be alive and well a decade from now? That weblog readership will increase a hundred-fold in that time?* That they're an art form? The only consolation a naysayer can find in all the current hubbub is that, inside of a year, the inevitable winnowing will be complete, and the weblog community will have matured into something efficient, useful and blessedly quiet. The remaining webloggers will go about their business, providing links and commentary, without all the noisy hoo-ha of revolution. q.. The Truly Personal Web http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1999/08/03.html A Standard for Site Organization http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1998/11/02.html An Open Letter to Old Media Another humorous, major, miss-fire prediction http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1998/10/14.html q. You were always better than that, Old Media. Don't let "New Media":http://www.theobvious.com/network/ convince you otherwise. That punk is headed for a fall, anyway. Look, somebody has to be the adult here and *it's sure as hell isn't going to be the* "Web.":http://www.drudgereport.com/ Why not you? You've been pretty good at it so far. Please, Old Media -- come back. We miss you. q.. ^ Holy hell. Talk about a whiff. Review: Unleashing the Killer App http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1998/07/07.html More Life Beyond the Browser http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1997/06/02.html The Killer of Websites http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1997/01/27.html Questions for Jeff Bezos http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/10/14.html Information Overload http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/09/16.html Collaboration: Working Alone Together http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/09/09.html q. The wonderful thing about the Eames room is that it encouraged people to work together, as a team. Where is the equivalent on the net? Why does it seem that all for all the talk of this wonderful enabling technology, we still are sitting at our individual machines, tap tap tapping away by ourselves? I'm involved in a multitude of group projects this semester. It's exciting, but will be a logistical nightmare. Different people populate different groups. Everyone is stretched for time. Coordinating face-to-face meetings is difficult, and there is plenty of group work to be done. The obvious question: why can't we be using the net as a tool? I would love to have a cross-platform collaboration product that combines combines the ease-of-use of email with the publishing capabilities of the web. I work with folks who live lives both on- and off-line, on PCs and Macs. The only thing we have in common is a UNIX machine hosting our web sites and running our POP server. We're not interested in building online communities, we're just interested in getting some work done. Asynchronously, easily, and cheaply. Oh, and a dose of security would be nice. Regardless of what the admissions department tells you, business school is competitive. Everyone and their mother, it seems, is pushing an Intranet based product to help solve these issues. But nothing has gone beyond the firewall. Lotus Notes? For the individual? Ha. Netscape's LiveWire? Do you think we're actually in control of the server we use? Microsoft's NT and IIS? See above. Meanwhile, can someone remind me why Netscape bought Collabra? Did I miss something, or were we not promised browser-based collaboration for the masses? I, of course, want the impossible. I want a set of tools which turn my machine into the equivalent of the Eames conference room. But I won't get it, because it's an impossible dream. The beauty of the Eames room is that it's a room, a physical place, for physical (not virtual) collaboration. Working face to face is, of course, better -- a machine can't replace the inimitable buzz of a group working on a caffeine induced high. But when we're apart, and have work to do, when schedules dictate that things have to be done alone, then why can't we work alone together? q.. Global v. Local http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/08/05.html The Road to Xanadu http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/07/08.html q. As Gary Wolf wrote in his Wired history of the project, "Xanadu was meant to be a universal library, a worldwide hypertext publishing tool, a system to resolve copyright disputes, and a meritocratic forum for discussion and debate.... And, on the very hackerish assumption that global catastrophes are caused by ignorance, stupidity, and communication failures, Xanadu was supposed to save the world." q.. Simplify My Life http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/07/01.html q. Furthermore, will somone please explain to me why we need Java chat rooms and Java navigation bars and Java news tickers? Aren't IRC, image maps and plain old ASCII good enough? Dave Winer, who knows a thing or two about content heavy web-sites, recently advised DaveNet readers that "the next time someone says they have the fastest justin-time Java byte-code garbage collector, be sure to ask them what you should use Java for. I haven't heard a good answer to this question, and I've been asking." Of course, this piece came before Dave went off the deep end (as he usually does) and started screaming about how Java will connect the world and bring universal peace through Remote Procedure Calls. The obvious advice to the browser-builders: make things easier, not harder. Simpler, not more complex. Remember that the vast majority of users are connecting at trickle speeds, and appreciate simplicity. A browser should be lean, mean and fast. It should load text before images. Static images before animated GIFs. And anything before a Java applet. It should not include an email client (takes up room), nor a news client (takes up room, and is there anyone left that actually reads Usenet?). And don't even think about a net.telephone, collaboration tools or a QuickTime plugin. That's what real phones, white boards and VCRs are for. Netscape and Sun need to wake up to the fact that the market for web products is not going to be driven by the power user connected to the corporate T1. It's going to be driven by the masses. The masses who will buy a Sony PC or a Sega "net cartridge," connect at 28.8k if they're lucky, and drive the advertising dollars which will fund the websites which will keep this medium viable into the next decade. Pay attention to the masses, and they'll pay attention to you. q.. 1996. The Year Ahead http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/01/01.html 1995. The obligatory list. http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1995/12/25.html q. Dave Winer. Sure, he whines. But his DaveNet pieces have opened my mind to the possibilities of fully scripted web publishing and (more importantly) connecting with people. q.. Look Junior! A "Network Computer!" http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1995/12/18.html q. Next year's holiday landscape could be completely different, if Larry Ellison or Lou Gerstner have their way. The big guns from Oracle and IBM are hoping that their "Network Computer" ideas will take the world by storm, and that we'll all find $500 diskless terminals under our trees next year. If all goes according to plan, we'll unwrap the gifts, recycle the box and the wrapping paper, plug 'em in, hook 'em up to the phone line, and BOOM! Look junior -- we're surfing the Web, just like on TV! We're sending email to your Aunt June! We're playing tic-tac-toe against the computer!! It'll all be great, until.... "Hey, Aunt Jill. Is there anything else on the Web besides shopping and recycled magazine articles?" "Ah, not really." A network computer would make sense, if the content that would feed it were more compelling. I'm not sure if reading Pathfinder on the TV screen or playing games written in Java are enough to make a $500 investment in what is essentially a dumb terminal. Not to mention the fact that the bandwidth needed to make these things really hum (like ISDN or cable modems) are a long way away for the majority of American households. But beyond these mundane issues, which I'm sure Larry and Lou have answers for, I have a fundamental problem with the NC. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the "Three C's of Computing" -- Creating, Consuming and Connecting. The problem with the NC is that it will be very good at only one of those C's. Without any real processing or storage, our kids aren't going to be creating much. And with a TV display, we're sure not going to be connecting with anyone (since long bouts of email or usenet will make everyone cross-eyed). Which only leaves one thing -- consuming. The NC will be just another television, dressed up in the web's clothing. The NC will help us consume, just like TV. But instead of consuming episodes of Seinfeld (like we do with TV), we'll consume web sites with pictures of the cast of Seinfeld. Recycled magazine articles about the producers of Seinfeld. And we'll be able to shop (on-line!) for Seinfeld sweatshirts. The Network Computer won't bring us any closer to the utopian hive-mind society described by Howard Rheingold or Kevin Kelly. In that world, we'd all have equal power to create, connect AND consume. Everyone would have the bandwidth, storage and processing power to create and host our own personal Pathfinder. Instead, we'll all be sitting on our asses, consuming whatever Time Warner throws our way. q.. The first iPad was released in April 2010. The tablet and the smartphones are Internet-ready computers. The modern day equivalent to the Network Computer idea of the mid-1990s. And today's mobile devices combined with a myriad of Web services and native apps allow for Creating, Consuming, and Connecting. It took a decade longer, but the NC idea got realized. If you build it, will they come? http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1995/12/04.html #history - #web - #programming - #rss - #forums - #design