Cloud Four Blog

Archive for the ‘Emerging Technology’ Category

Who Owns Your Retweet?

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

When you retweet something, do you expect someone else to be able to delete it?

Previously, if you retweeted something, your retweet was your own. Only you had the ability to delete it.

But with Twitter’s new retweet feature, your retweet is tied to the original author’s tweet. And if the original author deletes the tweet, your retweet is deleted from your timeline.

I’m not sure what the proper way to handle this is.

On the one hand, if the original author shared something they wished to retract, it would be nice to honor that.

On the other hand, the tweet didn’t happen in a vacuum. More importantly, the act of retweeting should be tied to the timeline of the person who retweeted it. Someone else shouldn’t be able to scrub that history.

What do you think?

Twitter’s New Retweet is Broken and How to Fix it

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

When Twitter announced their new retweet feature, I read Twitter founder Ev William’s reasons for the design of the new feature with interest. I understood his points. I didn’t agree with the solution, but was comforted by his closing note that “there’s nothing stopping you from simply quoting another tweet if that’s what you want to do. Also, old-school retweets are still allowed, as well.”

My plan was simply to ignore the new retweet feature until they fixed its shortcomings. However, Loren Brichter released a new version of my favorite Twitter client for the iPhone, Tweetie, that incorporates the new retweet feature and “deprecates” the old way of retweeting.

After spending some time with the new version of Tweetie, it became clear that the new retweet feature and all of its warts are here to stay. Instead of ignoring it, it was more important to document the ways it is broken and try to get Twitter and the developers of Twitter clients to fix it.

What Ev Got Wrong

Ev’s post does an excellent job of outlining the perceived shortcomings of the old way of retweeting. I’m grateful for his explanation. Not only is it helpful to understand the design decisions they made, but it also helps me understand where Ev missed important uses of retweets.

Attribution Confusion vs. Credibility and Reputation

One of the main things that Twitter was trying to solve with the new retweet feature is attribution confusion. “Most notably, the text of the tweet is not written by the person whose picture you’re seeing, nor the username that’s at the beginning.”

The solution to this in the new retweet feature is to show the name and picture of the original person who wrote the tweet and annotate below the tweet the name of the person you are following who retweeted the post.

The problem with this solution to attribution confusion is that it eliminates one of the main values of retweets: the credibility and reputation of the person who is retweeting.

By removing the picture of the person who retweeted and making the name much smaller, it becomes much harder to tell quickly which of the people you are following retweeted the post.

The person who retweeted a link to an article matters a lot. We place different value on the people we follow and the information they share.

In the example above, it is more important to me to know that Dave Winer was the source of the retweet than it is to know that jenny8lee—someone I don’t know—wrote the original tweet.

Tim O’Reilly is someone who I find to have very intelligent takes on technology. When I see his picture in my twitter stream, I stop scanning and pay closer attention. His credibility and reputation is what makes me pay attention to what he tweets or retweets.

This is something that the independent Twitter clients have done a better job of addressing than Twitter itself. Both Tweetie and Tweetdeck have included both the picture of the person who originated the tweet as well as the person who retweeted.

I much prefer the way Tweetie handles the retweet in the screenshot above to the way Twitter handles it. I see both Dave Winer’s name and picture. My only complaint is that the picture of the person retweeting is often too small to recognize quickly.

Redundancy vs. Dipping in the Stream

Another point that Ev makes is that “if five people you follow retweet the same thing, you get five copies, which can be useful but is a lot of noise.”

Ev is right that if you are reading every single tweet having redundant retweets can be a bit of noise. That said, it isn’t something that has ever bothered me.

The multiple retweets has however been something that has alerted me to important information. When you think of Twitter as a stream that you dip your toes into when you have time, important information can be missed if it only shows up in your stream one time. However, the more people retweet it, the more likely you are to encounter it whenever you decide to dip your toes in your Twitter stream.

I have to look no further than this past weekend to see the importance of this. On Saturday, the City of Portland announced that e-coli had been found in some of its water supply.

I happened to be out with the family in one of the affected areas. While waiting in line, I checked Twitter. By the time I checked, it had been several hours since the announcement. Yet, I saw one of the many retweets about the outbreak and was able to advise the people around me what water to avoid.

Let me repeat, the only reason I learned about the e-coli outbreak was because I received multiple retweets.

Another reason multiple retweets are valuable is because of reputation and credibility. A retweet from someone I follow whose opinion I value more highly than others is more likely to catch my eye.

There is value in multiple retweets. I’d love to have this be an option to see all retweets or only the first one.

Problems with the Current Implementations

Aside from the two viewpoints about credibility and the value of multiple retweets, there are things lacking in the current retweet implementations. As my friend Peter Whooly pointed out, it’s hard to tell if these are problems with the Twitter clients or Twitter’s API.

No Way to See Who Has Retweeted Your Tweets

In Tweetie, when you go under your profile and look at the retweets, there is no way to tell who retweeted your tweet. This is possible on Twitter’s web interface.

No Notification of Retweets

One of the nice aspects of the old style of retweeting was that retweets also contained the @reply syntax. This meant that you could not only could see the retweets easily, but if your Twitter client offered notifications for replies, you would be prompted when someone retweeted you.

Knowing when someone retweets you is important so that you can participate in the conversation.

Retweets Don’t Show Up in Lists

This again is an issue of credibility and reputation. Say you create a list of people whose opinions and thoughts you highly value. It is a very select list and you read every tweet these people write. When you look at that list, you will miss any retweets using the new feature.

Being able to see retweets in Twitter lists is a big deal.

Ability to Annotate Retweets

This is already on the Twitter team’s radar. Ev says they have some ideas on how they might implement it. This isn’t a show stopper for me, but it is for a lot of other people.

Vocal Minority or Silent Majority?

One of the things that got me worked up about this was seeing Loren Brichter’s take on the new retweet feature. He said, “vocal minority have problem with change – no doubt once they try it they’ll realize how awesome it is.”

Because Loren is the developer of Tweetie, the iPhone client I prefer to use, his opinion about the retweet feature matters. The fact that he thinks that:

  1. it is only a vocal minority that has problems with it and
  2. that we simply have a problem with change

frustrated me. From the conversations I’ve had with other users, that isn’t an accurate description.

Many of the same people who have problems with the new retweet feature embraced the new lists feature. Discounting opinions by saying people simply have a problem with change is a way of marginalizing contrary opinions without having to address them. There are legitimate issues with the retweet feature as I’ve outlined above.

And I’m not convinced that it is a minority of people who have problems with the new retweet feature. So far, I haven’t seen a single person who thinks the new retweet feature is complete.

Unlike lists which a majority of people raved about and immediately started using, the new retweet feature is something that most people seem to be at best accepting with hopes that Twitter will address its issues and at worst, so strongly opposed to the new feature that they are taking actions like refusing to upgrade Tweetie to avoid it.

How to Fix Retweets

I don’t disagree with most of what Ev said were the reasons for the new retweet feature. I also think formalizing retweets can lead to some really interesting information and features.

That said, the new feature has significant shortcomings that need to be addressed before we should consider the old way of retweeting deprecated.

I’m thankful that Loren implemented the new feature in Tweetie. It made me recognize that the feature wasn’t going away and was already impacting me even if I choose to use the old style retweet because others may use the new feature and I won’t see their retweets.

Therefore, the most important thing we can do to fix the situation is provide feedback to Twitter and Twitter client developers.

My hope is that if enough people provide feedback to Twitter (they are asking for feedback on the feature) that we can have a new retweet feature that we embrace as enthusiastically as we did Twitter lists.

Freedom Time: Google Voice Letter to the FCC, iPhone App Store & Mobile Gatekeepers

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Friday is the day to release news you want people to forget. No surprise then that Friday was when Google released the unredacted version of its letter to the FCC about Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application.

In case you missed it, the FCC sent letters to Apple, Google, and AT&T asking them about Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone application and what role each company played.

Apple and AT&T released the full content of their responses to the FCC. Google asked for portions of its response to be redacted. However, a Freedom of Information Act request prompted Google to divulge the full content of their response.

And yet despite this latest revelation, the he said, she said nature of the follow ups, and word that Google may even have a screenshot proving that Apple is lying, Google Voice is nowhere near the most important App Store rejection.

That distinction belongs to Freedom Time.

Why Freedom Time Matters More than Google Voice

Freedom Application ScreenshotLike many iPhone applications, Freedom Time was a frivolous application. The application displayed a cartoon character of George Bush with arms like a Mickey Mouse watch. But instead of telling time, the application counted down the days until Inauguration Day.

Freedom Time wasn’t one of the more high-profile iPhone App Store rejections. Unlike Google Voice, people barely noticed when the application was rejected.

What is important is the reason why Freedom Time was rejected. Apple’s response to the developer was:

Upon review of your application, Freedom Time cannot be posted to the App Store because it contains content that does not comply with Community Standards. Usage of such materials, as outlined in the iPhone SDK Agreement section 3.3.12, is prohibited:

“Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.”

Defaming, demeaning, or attacking political figures is not considered appropriate content for the App Store.

Can you imagine political discourse of any significance that doesn’t include demeaning or attacking political figures? Like it or not, that’s part of the exchange of ideas that form a democracy.

This policy essentially bans any editorial cartoons—cartoons that have been part of America’s history since its inception.

The idea that political discourse might be rejected from the App Store as a matter of policy surely must be a mistake, right?

Think Different? What’s the Point?

Unfortunately, it isn’t a mistake. The developer of Freedom Time emailed Steve Jobs, and he actually got a reply. Steve wrote:

Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?

Steve

I’ve often wondered what the Steve Jobs who attended Reed College during the early days of the Watergate scandal would think of that quote.

Steve Jobs, George Bush, Richard Nixon, and Scott Ritter

These four people—two that I admire and two that broke our trust—have become linked in my mind because of the Freedom Time rejection.

Freedom of speech is easy to defend when the speech is popular, but the real test comes when you have to defend unpopular speech or things that you don’t agree with.

In Fall 2008, George Bush had the worst approval ratings since Nixon. At a time in which we had one of the most unpopular Presidents in American history, Apple didn’t have the courage to approve a simple, stupid application like Freedom Time.

What is the likelihood that Apple would approve a truly controversial and unpopular application during a time when popular opinion makes it difficult to stand up for what’s right?

I find myself wondering what would have happened if former marine and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter had tried to release an application in 2002 talking about how there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

When Ritter did speak up in 2002 and told the world that he had been in Iraq and that there were no weapons of mass destruction, popular opinion was so high in favor of Bush policies that despite being known as a patriot, conservative, and a hawk, Ritter was called a traitor by some.

What if the only means Scott Ritter had to share what he knew with the rest of the world had been through an App Store?

Flickr Censorship Pales in Comparison

Censored Obama imageRecently Flickr received a lot of scrutiny and pressure because of perceived censorship of a political image. The image showed a modified version of Obama on the cover of Time Magazine where Obama was made to look like the Joker from the most recent Batman movie.

Yahoo, the parent company for Flickr, later explained that they removed the image from Flickr because they had received a copyright infringement claim.

I don’t care to debate the Flickr censorship case. Instead, I want to ask simply why Flickr got a lot of grief for censoring a single image that they say they removed because of a copyright claim, but Apple has thus far escaped scrutiny for a standing policy that rejects any applications that attack political figures.

The image that Flickr removed would have never made it through the iPhone app review process in the first place.

The Mobile Proposition: Trade Liberty for Security

Apple has good reasons for why it has an App Store review process. It told the FCC that:

We created an approval process that reviews every application submitted to Apple for the App Store in order to protect consumer privacy, safeguard children from inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone.

This is a very similar argument that carriers and handset manufacturers have been making for years now. The argument is that mobile phones contain so much personal, sensitive information that applications need to be vetted to ensure that consumers are protected.

This is the same argument that Ben Franklin famously warned us about when he said:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

And despite the fact that we would not accept similar arguments from our government, we seem willing to give up our freedoms to mobile companies for the sake of our own security.

It’s Not About Apple. It’s About Gatekeepers

While I’ve spent most of my time focusing on Apple, please don’t mistake this as a tirade against Apple. Apple just happens to be leading the way in this area of mobile as well.

The reality is that if mobile is going to live up to its promise, we need a future without gatekeepers.

It isn’t hard to conceive of a future where more people have smartphones than have PCs. In some countries, people get more news from their mobile phones than they do from their desktop computers.

Before we get to the point where mobile phones have become the primary way that people get their news and information, we need to ensure that we have the freedom to publish what we want without restrictions.

For these reasons, I’m encouraged by the work of organizations like the Open Mobile Consortium. They are tackling the difficult work of providing truly open mobile solutions that allow people in repressive regimes to communicate freely.

The Moral Imperative of the Mobile Web

In addition to the Open Mobile Consortium, we need to make sure that there are alternatives to app stores and their gatekeepers. The best alternative is web technology.

This is why I’ve gone from thinking about mobile web technology as a smart business decision for some applications to thinking of it as a moral imperative.

Even if you are an Objective-C programmer who has had a lot of success on the iPhone App Store, it is in your best interest that the mobile web develop into a viable alternative to app stores. It is in society’s best interest.

To get to that point, we need to solve the short-coming of the mobile web. We need the technology to stabilize. We need real browsers on all phones. And we need a reliable and easy way to accept payment for our mobile web applications and services.

I cannot state this strongly enough: we need an open and free mobile web to be a viable alternative to the mobile gatekeepers to ensure that we have the freedom to say what must be said and the ability to have our voices heard by others.

Reflections on Foo Camp 09

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

Last month I had a unique opportunity to attend Foo Camp at the O’Reilly campus in Sebastopol, CA. This weekend’s WordCamp Portland reminded me that I had yet to write about my Foo Camp experience.

Foo Camp is a free, invitation only event organized by O’Reilly. Foo stands for Friend of O’Reilly as well as being a play on words on a popular term used in programming documentation.

While resembling a conference in many ways (there is a schedule with multiple sessions at any given time), Foo Camp is most often called an unconference because the sessions are suggested by the attendees on the first night of the conference. It is also truly a camp as many people, myself included, pitched tents on the O’Reilly campus.

Many tents on the O'Reilly Campus during Foo Camp '09

Photo courtesy laughingsquid (thanks Scott!)

While the format is unique and fun, that’s not why people go to Foo Camp. The reason people attend and rave about their experiences is because Foo Camp brings together many of the smartest and most creative people working with technology.

Bring 300 brilliant people together for the weekend, then step back and watch the ideas and connections take off.

Part of the reason I’ve had so much trouble writing this summary of my experience is because there were so many amazing experiences and people that I met that I find it difficult to convey to other people. The simplest way I’ve explained it is that I didn’t want the weekend to end.

There are some other observations that I made during the weekend:

  • People were not just smart, but genuinely nice and helpful. Going into Foo Camp can be a bit intimidating “How did I get an invitation? I’m not worthy.” The warmth of the people I met is probably the thing I will remember the most.
  • That first point bears repeating. The people were amazing and wonderful.
  • I found myself gravitating to sessions on the economy, politics and health care despite the fact that there were many technology sessions. Some of the really good ones were:
    • Bill Janeway of Warburg Pincus led a great session on the current recession and the parallels/differences to the great depression. BTW, Mark Sigal has a great extended summary of this session on his Foo Camp recap.
    • Susan Crawford and Andrew McLaughlin from the White House talked about ways to help the government and what types of data the government could open up that would help the public the most.
    • Mitch Kapor and Jay Parkinson shared how they are each attempting to change Health Care and in particular Health Care IT.

    I realized that I’ve been spending so much time on the day-to-day things that we need to do to build our business and deliver for our customers that I’ve track of what is going on in the world. One of the things that motivated me to start working on mobile was the fact that it can be a transformative technology—something that can make people’s lives better in substantial ways. I need to find ways to make more of that happen.

  • I find the idea that Tim O’Reilly has been promoting of government as a platform to be intriguing and there were a lot of sessions at Foo Camp talking about what is currently being done with the data the government provides. I didn’t realize how much was already happening in this space. Really nice to see.
  • I had a great time leading a session with Andre Charland from Nitobi on building applications using mobile web technology. The folks at Nitobi are the lead developers of the PhoneGap framework. Good discussion and ideas during the session.
  • It was really, really hot. Many people chose to stay inside where it was air conditioned which meant we didn’t get that many people for our session. I didn’t feel too bad because every other outdoor session had low turnout during the same mid-afternoon time slot. But what did happen was many people who wanted to attend the session, but didn’t, later asked me for a summary. I had more than one person ask me if this information was written down anywhere. It has been a big incentive to start blogging more. Posts like The Five Most Common Arguments for Native iPhone Development are direct responses to comments from people like Mok Oh who rightly said, “What’s the url for that blog post? I’d like to read it.” :-)
  • B.J. Fogg is working on peace in 30 years. He says peace has a bad brand. He is looking to change that and make peace happen. Yes, please.
  • Werewolf rocks. We played into the wee hours of the morning. What a blast!

There were many, many other conversations that made it a wonderful experience. I cannot thank everyone at O’Reilly enough for the invitation and for hosting me. I wish there was some way I could repay their generosity. Tim, Sara and the rest of the team, you have an open invitation to dinner at our house any time you are in Portland. For that matter, if you need a place to crash (or pitch a tent), mi casa es su casa.

I left the weekend inspired and reminded again of the great things that individuals can accomplish. I turned 35 the week after Foo Camp. Being around people working on world-changing things has me thinking again about my legacy and about how the work that I do and the life that I lead can help make the world that my daughter is going to grow up into a better place.

I’m not yet sure what I’m going to do with this renewed perspective, but I’m thankful to Foo Camp for the reminder to think and dream big.

Webkit: The Dominant Smartphone Platform

Monday, August 24th, 2009

Based on Q2 sales of smartphones, Webkit-based browsers may soon ship on 85% of all smartphones sold.

Pie chart showing market share for webkit based on smart phone OS

Please keep in mind, this is not the reality right now. This number assumes RIM’s purchase of Torch Mobile really means that future Blackberry Browsers will based on Webkit.

There are some other caveats as well:

  • This understates Opera’s mobile market position. Opera has a large installed base of users.
  • It assumes market percentages will stay the same. We know this won’t be true.
  • It assumes that all of the “other” smartphone OS browsers are not using Webkit currently.
  • Mobile Firefox is just getting started. It is unclear how that will change the landscape.
  • Just because it is Webkit, doesn’t mean that it is the latest version of Webkit.

Caveats aside, you would be hard pressed to find another smartphone development platform with any where close to Webkit’s market share.

More importantly, this means that HTML5 for mobile is looking great. If Blackberry joins the ranks of Webkit-based browsers, that will means Symbian, iPhone, Android, Palm and Blackberry will all be on the path to HTML5 support.

The only laggard will be Mobile Internet Explorer, and even for Windows Mobile there are options like Google Gears which adds some HTML5 support to IE or installing other browsers like Opera or Firefox.