Motives to be For or Against Adobe's Open Screen Project

The promise of the Open Screen Project to developers is the age-old dream of being able to write an application once and deploy it anywhere across any device. [...] Notably absent from Adobe’s list of partners is Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Each has its own ideas on how this cross-device compatibility will work.

I'll admit that Adobe Flash is a very useful implement for a broad range of applications. But I don't think it will have much relevance a few years from now because all of Adobe's openness will catch up to them. You see, the upcoming JavaScript 2 is based largely off of the language used in Flash called ActionScript 3. Adobe has also open sourced the virtual machine that currently allows Flash to run so much faster than normal JavaScript manipulating the DOM or a canvas element. The folks at Mozilla are busy integrating this into Firefox 4, though I think it may find its way into other browsers soon afterward. (Mozilla is already known to be making an IE plugin.)

Anyway, about those notably absent companies--what are their motives? This is assuming they have some other idea of what paradigm applications will take on next. Microsoft is easy; they are directly competing against Flash with Silverlight. Apple is almost as simple; IIRC they invented the canvas tag for their web browser, Safari, and it was later implemented in Firefox and Opera. So supporting canvas and web standards in general may be a factor. But Apple is most focused on its mobile hardware business. For some reason, Apple doesn't want Flash on the iPhone. Why oh why, Steve? (Maybe FSJ can tell me...) My guess is that they want anything not running inside Safari to be a good ol' Objective-C--or what have you--app. Google's absence is perhaps the most mysterious of all. A long time ago, google.com was a kickass search engine and nothing else. Their second runaway hit was Gmail. Its awesomeness was only made possible by the invention of Ajax, reloading only the part of the page you need! There is dispute over who created Ajax, but I think it is safe to say that Google created Ajax as we know it today. Now, it is possible to use Ajax and Flash together, but Google isn't terribly interested in that. If they were, then the majority of their apps--Gmail, Reader, News, Docs, et al.--would be based on Flash instead of pure HTML and JavaScript.

But Adobe may not need the support of the #1 and #3 browser vendors and the #1 and #3 search engines to retain dominance. Superior graphics are huge asset for Flash. Although the potential is there, I still have yet to see a solution to making games and animations using SVG or canvas that truly rivals the ease with which (I assume) you can in Flash Studio. These are mostly uncharted waters. Sure, I've seen lots of demos, but nothing seriously popular uses them. Internet Explorer's only having VML has a large part in hampering anything like that.

But the Open Screen initiative may be the ace in the hole for Adobe. Flash's continued success stems from its ubiquity, nearly 100% browser penetration already. And now it's coming soon to any previously untapped platform. So Adobe can probably hold off most challenges to Flash as the new software platform for everything. Because that's what it is or what Adobe wants it to be. There is another option, but I don't see much chance of it happening. Adobe could essentially throw out Flash and fully adopt some kind of JavaScript and SVG alternative. This actually has a fairly good chance of occuring gradually over time, as crossover increases. Consider Google Gears, which compiles Java into JavaScript; it is not hard to imagine compilers that go back and forth between Flash and alternatives.

So if you are a freetard, as I am, don't get discouraged if you are working on something that might be better done in Flash. And if you are a flashboy or adoboy--yes, I just made those up--don't necessarily come over to the light side if it would terribly inconvenience you. Both sides have bright futures and we'll all be on to something entirely different in 10 years anyway.

Poll: Jeremiah Wright's effect on Obama

You've no doubt heard about the controversy surrounding Obama over the leader at his church. I was curious whether or not this is an important issue to voters.

one more poster

innovating merchandise

A simple way to increase profits on any popular brand is to sell merchandise. It may in fact be your main revenue source if your brand is not directly sold, such as art or writing. A recognizable mascot can occupy the surface area of T-shirts, toys, lunch boxes, almost anything. The likes of Hello Kitty and Krusty the Clown have gone to town with this concept. But I believe this method has gone stale and needs spicing up.

My favorite is a more subtle form which has been gaining traction. Bring a fictional product into the real world. It is easiest to piggyback on an existing product. Last summer, 7-11 turned some of their stores temporarily into Kwik-E-Marts and rebranded their Slurpees as "Squishees" after the Simpsons spoof. The 8-bit tie also comes to mind, originally an April fool's joke and now up for sale.

It is often easier to stick with T-shirts since there are so many sites that do all the work for you. If you cater to more of a sophisticated crowd, consider stressing an idea rather than a character. The web comic XKCD offers an anti-velociraptor shirt. ThinkGeek offers a red shirt with the word "Expendable", a throwback to doomed crew members on the original Star Trek.

OK, what if absolutely have to merchandise a character? Try one with a smaller role, such as weighted companion cube plushies from Portal. One of the most beloved minor characters on Futurama, the Robot Devil, would make for a great refridgerator magnet.

There is a reason that trying different techniques with merchandise can be more profitable. It can be such a delightful surprise that it will make headlines and spread by word of mouth, becoming a meme.

attention-based real estate values for ads in a virtual world

Advertisers want their ad to be seen by the most people with the most likelihood to spend money on their products. The brute force approach is to make sure as many as possible see the ad, hoping the actual buyers will be among them. So, barring demographics, the value of any ad space is proportional to the number of people who see it.

So, picture a 2-dimensional ad space, such as the million dollar home page, except that it is not constrained in size, so that scrolling is needed to see all of the ads. Make it a video game (think old Zelda in the top-down view), so that the scrolling speed is very slow. Reason would lead us to believe that the ads closest to the point of origin would be seen the most often and thus be worth the most to advertisers. The value would theoretically decrease in an inverse relationship to the distance from the point of origin, as the number of players thinned out. Of course, this could be eliminated by spreading players out equally.

What really strikes me is the implications of moving the ad-space into the 3rd dimension. For one, the ads start blocking each other. If the player began with a view outside of the known ad-verse, then the most valuable ad-space would be on the outside! Say the ads are solid objects that cannot be passed through; they might be designed to try to trap the player so that he stays longer.

These ads do not necessarily have to be for real products. In an MMORPG, other players may be advertising their virtual items or services, and propaganda may be an important tool used to maintain alliances.

God, I love Futurama.

New Song: Suxorz

Succinct, straightforward, feel-good dance song.

Vezquex relaunched on MySpace

I ran up the stairway to Heaven to enjoy the silence
I don't know why I'm losing my religion on a stormy monday

Do you feel like we do?
Insomnia at last, in the purple haze of a sandstorm

Whether you're Billie Jean walkin' on the sun
Or a secret agent man runnin' with the devil
Or even an American idiot wanting money for nothing,
You're still alive, so shine on you crazy diamond.
Don't worry; be happy. You won't get fooled again.
I'm never gonna give you up.

Now get busy, child.
Get back, back in black.
Play that funky music,
And let the good times roll.

the device has been modified

ad in the wild

logo, 1st (public) try