manalang

Latest Updates: internet RSS

• 

  manalang 07:48:04 pm on April 18, 2007 | Comments | # |
  Tags: internet

  I spent this past Monday attending the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco.  I got a good taste of the Web 2.0 entrepreneur’s fervor for this business.  It’s pretty wild to see so many passionate billionaire wannabes under one roof.  One of my colleagues (Paul) nails the essence of Web 2.0 in this post:
  

  “Having spent the last three days at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco, I have seen  lot of companies. There are some great ideas and some rather foolish ones, but what has struck me is the power of simplicity.

  I am not talking about simplicity in the usual context of User Experience (UI). We are all well aware that simple design is a maxim of Web 2.0, but I am more interested, and frankly impressed, by simplicity on the dimension of idea. The real question you need to ask is, how simple is my idea?

  The power of simple ideas as they relate to Web 2.0 is critical and truly drive the success or failure of a business. Again, in stark contrast to the quality of UI driving success. Now, I am a huge fan of elegant UI and I really don’t enjoy ugly applications, but it is not a key principle to a successful on-line business. For all who doubt that, go to eBay and post a product for sale. Now imagine that interface when they launched. Yes, it’s better now. No, it’s not a great experience. Yet, here they are.”

  To me the user experience is a central component to the Web 2.0 success.  There are other aspects, but nothing encapsulates all of those ideas better than, “Simple.”  Most companies who experienced success at one point, did so because they either had a simple product, idea, or service that their customers were passionate about.  If a company is lucky, they can continue to capitalize on simplicity of their business, but often times they become complex and unwieldy… like most big organizations.

  In a Web 2.0 world, simplicity is key.

  Technorati Tags: web2.0, entrepreneurship, startuping

   

• manalang 05:17:50 pm on June 24, 2005 | Comments | # |
  Tags: internet, programming, technology

  Over the past week, I’ve been spending some time learning Python. My real interest is in Jython, the Python interpreter for Java, but there’s no difference in language semantics so it’s just like learning Python. Earlier this week, I ran into the “Google Map Hack for Large Maps” in my del.icio.us/popular feed. This is a great way to build poster sized maps using Google’s map images. Noah Vawter, the original author of the hack wrote a Perl based script that downloads Google Maps’ tile images based on a location you feed then stitches them together to make a giant image. I decided to take his Perl script and rewrite it as a Jython script. It’ll actually work in Python with some minor modifications to the code. If you want to use this script, you’ll need Jython and ImageMagick. Noah’s Perl script relies on wget… my script uses Python’s urllib to grab the images and save them… so no need for wget. Enjoy!

   

• manalang 01:21:45 pm on June 15, 2004 | Comments | # |
  Tags: internet

  
  When I checked my Yahoo! Mail this morning, I got a surprise email from Yahoo! saying that my email account has been improved:

  * Increased storage capacity – from your current level to 100MB
  * Increase in total message size to 10MB
  * A streamlined interface that’s even easier to use

  That’s not all. I use SBC Yahoo! for broadband, so instead of a 100MB upgrade, I get a whopping 2GBs! What the hell am I going to do with 2GBs of mail storage. I’m the type who likes to clean my email out regularly — just a habit. Surely, this is Yahoo!’s response to Google’s Gmail 1GB email service.

  I also have Gmail account which I really have no use for at this point. I’ve had my Yahoo! Mail account since 1994. To switch now, doesn’t make a lot of sense.

  Anyway, I’ve got three Gmail invites available. If you want one, put in a comment.

   

• manalang 02:08:50 am on April 30, 2004 | Comments | # |
  Tags: internet

  After reading the Google S1 a bit, I was particularly intrigued by Larry Page’s letter to potential shareholders of Google. John Battelle has a great summary on his site.

  [via John Battelle's Searchblog]
  The letter states, among other things, that 1. We don’t need to do this for the money; 2. We have no plans to run our business to satisfy Wall Street’s need for smooth earnings predictability; 3. We plan to give no earnings guidance, not at least as it’s understood on Wall St.; 4. Don’t ask us to do so, we’ll simply decline the request; 5. We’ll do odd things that you won’ t understand; 6. We will make big bets on things that may not work out; 7. We run the company as a triumvirate, so there will not be clear leadership from one person like most other companies; 8. We bridge the media and tech industries (interesting), which are in flux, so we’ve chosen a two-class stock structure similar to the NYT, WashPost, and WSJ that helps us avoid being taken over by those forces; 9. We plan using an auction model, as it feels fairer and we understand auctions from AdWords; 10. Don’t invest in us if this scares you at all, or the price feels too high; 11. Don’t even think about asking us to cut expenses with regard to our employees; 12. We believe in the idea of Don’t Be Evil; 13. It’s evil to pay for placement or inclusion (a swipe at Yahoo); 14. We hope to bridge the digital divide through Gmail type free services and a foundation with at least 1% of profits and equity to help make the world a better place; 17. Betting on Google is a bet on Sergey and Larry (this was said multiple times, making me wonder if there wasn’t some odd future blame being assigned here by the VCs or bankers); 18. This letter is our way of answering the questions we can’t answer in the coming months due to the IPO quiet period.

  As edgy as Larry’s letter sounds (particularly to those on Wall Street who it partially addresses), I appreciate the founders’ rosy idea of how the publicly owned Google will operate. I just hope they can survive on these principles without succumbing to the pressures of Wall Street like most companies.

  Here’s some more commentary from John Battelle:

  While my summary of the letter may sound negative, it’s my honest and initial response: to me, the letter comes off pretty strong, and likely will anger many on Wall Street. But I have to commend the founders for sticking to their beliefs, and using the IPO as something of a megaphone/soapbox. It is brave, unique, and rather commendable to very publicly state that the founders are controlling the company, and the founders will decide what is best for Google, not Wall Street. They’ve set themselves a very high long-term bar, claiming they will best the system, in essence. I think it will be very interesting to see how Wall Street responds. There is a chance, in the end, that the Street will feel slighted, and turn its back on the company.