Not Found

Sometime in 2005 I discovered a website that I quickly fell in love with, it was called digg.com. At the time it was a relativity small website, known only to a small portion of the public, specifically those interested in technology. Almost every time you visited the home page you were guaranteed to find at least one or two interesting stories. Things have changed, digg.com has out grown its original community of tech lovers.

I think digg’s problem is the size and diversity of it’s community. Digg’s entire goal is to be a news site that instead of being edited by a staff, is edited by the users. Great idea, simply brilliant. It worked very well at the beginning because it was a site about technology, frequented by technology lovers. Since the users were passionate about technology a great portion of the stories were great, because the people editing them knew what they were talking about. They knew what was good and what was not.

Today on digg there are a great number of categories other than technology. People interested in all sorts of things can visit the site and potentially find something that peaks their interest. This sounds good and all, but dilution is now a problem. Since stories from all the categories float by on the main homepage users who have no passion for a certain topic see a story, digg it, bury it, comment on it, etc. This means that people who do now know a lot about a certain topic have a say in what is good and what is not, they can ruin a comment thread, and can make it harder for a good story to come up. Digg does provide customized settings to hide certain categories but I would wager that most people do not use them.

The bottom line is that digg’s community is no longer a passionate and focused group of editors, it is a hodge-podge of fanboys, preteens, idiots, and know-it-alls. All in all this has created chaos, something not even worth checking anymore.

P.S. Even though this post is obviously negative I do have to say that the changes digg made do make good business sense, all good things come to an end eventually. I wish all at digg the best of luck.

I’m puzzled, almost 2 months after submitting an inquiry to Amazon I get a response. You see, the problem is that I want to leverage Amazon’s Associates Web Service (AAWS) in a mobile app I am creating. Unfortunately, in section 5.1.5 of the Amazon Web Services™ Customer Agreement it states:

5.1.5. Unless we have provided you our express written consent in advance, you are not permitted to use Amazon Associates Web Service in connection with any handheld, mobile or mobile phone application.

Continued »

Saturday night Twitter was buzzing with a rumor about Revision3 getting bought by CNET for $58 million. Just as quickly as the rumor spread, it was found to be untrue. Both CEO Jim Louderback, and Chairman Jay Adleson denied the rumor.
Continued »

Let’s face it, sometimes the stories on digg can be annoying, lame, old, or just plain pointless. I started using digg in 2005 before all the youngsters, fanboys, and crazies found the site. It was a great place. It was easy to find a good article or story to read, anymore though I have to say I’m disappointed more often than not. Not to worry though the great thing about the internet is that there is something for everyone. Here is a list of 5 places to get high quality tech news.
Continued »

Ever since its June 2007 release iPhone users have been longing for flash support in the iPhone’s browser Safari. In the past Apple has blamed poor performance on the absence of Flash from Mobile Safari, but I think it goes beyond that.

Adobe, the owner of Flash, provides a mobile version of Flash targeted specifically for mobile devices. There is no technical reason why this version of Flash could not run on the iPhone. The reason it is missing is because Apple has marketed heavily on the fact that Mobile Safari renders websites precisely how a desktop based browser would render it. If a crippled version of Flash was provided, that claim may not be kosher.

The fact of the matter is that the millions that have coughed up $400 (including myself) for their iPhone would rather have a minimally function flash player than none at all. This puts Jobs and the good folks at Apple in a bind. They are clearly committed to providing the best experience possible, to the point of sacrificing features that don’t work properly. This one of the things that has given Apple the reputation they have.

Time and time again Apple has chosen their principles over their customers. They know best, or so they think. Rumors keep cropping up that Flash support will be here any day now, I wouldn’t get your hopes up. I can confidently say that until Adobe releases a fuller featured mobile version of Flash we won’t be seeing it on our Multi-Touch screens anytime soon.

joshua