Is AppJet the next big web framework?

I just got a tip from AppJet front-end developer, Aaron Iba, about plans for self-hosted AppJet instances. "We're thinking about releasing this soon." This was also just added to the FAQs page. What this means is that one could download the backend that runs the apps and install it locally, on servers, or even Amazon Web Services. Why would someone want to do this when everything is already hosted by default for free? The answer is that it allows an app to use more resources, namely storage space and processing time. An avenue for intensive apps, such as Agglodex, is desperately needed. Some people also get a kick out of DIY projects. The self hosting option appeals to experienced techies, whereas the recent beginner's programming tutorial was an outreach to fledgling or even non-techies. This suggests either a lack of targetted focus or a quest for ubiquitous dominance for the AppJet team.

The prospect of achieving a serious foothold in the web framework space is intriguing. The prejudice against JavaScript might be just too much, in which case it will never gain traction. Although, AppJet is not the only company toting a JavaScript web framework. Aptana Jaxer has an interesting approach that blurs the line between client and server code even further. With over 2 million downloads, the market is clearly there.

To explore the degree of success the AppJet platform can achieve, we need to consider the business style of the team. We know they are Y Combinator funded, which historically seems to take a less bottom-line focus (although the latest round seemed much more commercial). Note that AppJet has been public for over three quarters with an apparent revenue stream of zero, with only polls about desired premium features. It would almost seem that they aren't interested in money at all! This is a very good sign for driving adoption, as long as they stay in business. (The one thing that worries me is the coddling of beginning programmers. This is good for PR, but wasting valuable time for the 3 employees. The point of a framework is to coddle the application structure. Syntax help and programming theory is a job for the community.)

Let's face it: web platforms have to be free and open. LAMP is the reigning king. Ruby on Rails and Django are the up-and-coming challengers. All three are open source and 100% free. Microsoft's ASP.NET--not so much. So to have any chance at all, AppJet needs to be open too. Luckily, the FAQs indicate that exact plan.

Or maybe not? Maybe AppJet is part of the new-wave sandbox hosting, such as Google's AppEngine, that doesn't directly compete against traditional web frameworks. It's analogous to Reddit vs. Slinkset. Do you want to DIY or get up and running right away? As time rolls on, it is clear that the level of abstraction increases. It is even getting to a point where dealing with virtual instances of computers on Amazon Web Services is too much work, if code can just run on one huge platform. The cowboy era is ending and the mesh is beginning.

And this is where AppJet comes in. If they have the business sense, they will host the runtime on AWS and charge a slight premium over Amazon's rates. All of the server configuration can be handled with zero human interaction. This simplifies hosting for app authors just as now, the difference being that it is now scalable. Also, using AWS plays to the current paradigm of having all data cached in RAM.

So, is AppJet the next web framework? Could it be something bigger?

Please Solve Comment Fragmentation

Friendfeed is a leap in communication. Using RSS and proprietary activity stream APIs, you can track what people are doing across the web instead of just on one site. Facebook has some inklings of this as well. Whoisi adds wiki functionality which is parallel to imaginary friends on Friendfeed, where you can follow an activity stream of someone who didn't sign up or import a certain stream. XMPP will make the stream real-time and less intensive on networks.

This is all well and good, but there is still a problem. Comments. For one, Friendfeed doesn't thread the comments, which makes it too hard to have a conversation. But even worse is the fragmentation. Other sites, such as Reddit, will maintain a single page of comments for any particular URL. But Friendfeed can create several, and there is no way to find them all. There could be the original import of the item (maybe a blog post or image on Flickr) from the content creator, followed by any number of others' links to that item from Google Reader, Twitter, Digg, and the rest. And when those actions appear on Friendfeed, they all have the potential to create yet another silo of comments. You may see something interesting and be completely oblivious to a huge discussion happening around it. An app built on top of Friendfeed, Noiseriver, is trying to fix this. But Friendfeed is just a microcosm of a data siloing problem that the entire web faces. We're seeing a huge movement for something called "data portability", but this seems to have nothing to do with comments and everything to do with profile information and friends lists.

This is important too, but not the same goal. Sure, it's great to meet up with your friends on a completely different site, but does nothing for helping you connect with complete strangers. The real key to connecting people digitally is unifying the conversation. The argument against this is wanting to talk exclusively with one's friends, but this is unfounded since the program could easily bubble friends' comments to the top and only display other comments upon request. So I'm asking for a solution to comment fragmentation. We need an open API for posting threaded comments across the web. Any site choosing to accept open comments should accept a POST request stating,

"I am commenting on this URL in reply to that comment, and here is the text or URL of my comment".

And then of course you could GET for the current set of comments. Now anyone or any app involved in the discussion around a URL will be on equal footing and have access to all that is being said about it, because the silo now has a series of tubes running through it. Perhaps we can't realistically expect arbitrary sites to handle this kind of load, so some kind of glue, such as Gnip, may need to get involved. But this is the solution, and it will kick ass when it is created and people start using it. There is so much that the internet makes possible, so there is no reason to believe that what we have now is as good as it gets.

Friendfeed Awesomeness

Friendfeed is getting a lot of attention. I find the site quite interesting, but actually using it bores me to tears. Maybe I'm using it wrong, not using the "hide" feature enough or simply having the wrong friends. Although the site is innovative, there is a lot of work to be done to bring parts of it up to par with other sites, namely the commenting system and categorization. It is not too much to ask for threaded discussion that allows line breaks. Grouping the discussions in some way would reduce repetition. But few are too worried about these minor annoyances which will be amended soon enough. Bare bones functionality is fine for now, with fine-tuning on the way.

The Staff
They're freaking ex-Googlers. What could possibly stop these rockstar developers? The designer of Friendfeed was behind Gmail and Google Reader. The simplicity of the interface just puts me at ease. Plus, there's knowledge of scaling and search. Friendfeed is the envy of Google, the social network they pine after with the Friend Connect initiative. I wouldn't be surprised if an acquisition happens. Wouldn't it be strange to get bought buy your former employer?

Competition
Some see it as the Twitter-killer, or at least want it to be. Sure, why not? Twitter was important historically because it opened our eyes to an on-demand worldwide conversation but it did not invent status updates nor could it expect to have a lock on them. Friendfeed is sneaky, because its gaining popularity from indirect posts makes it an increasingly attractive place to post on directly.

Digg-killer?
Digg is one of those silly sites that requires the extra step of submitting a link, completely ignoring the marvel of feeds in a hope to get better quality content. It doesn't work, because people race to manually submit every story from the major sources. Friendfeed is much more passive, even throwing out the CAPTCHA. Minding their own business around the web, Friendfeed users are streaming all of their links and posts effortlessly. Laziness is king.

Clones
With the web turning to soup, clones and parasites are sure to emerge. I don't know if Friendfeed can fend them off long enough to reach a state of dominance. Foreign-language clones are always a stickler. But if Friendfeed is open enough, with their API, feeds and widgets, potential competitors would be more inclined to work with it rather than actually compete.

Summary
Friendfeed is awesome. The development team has done most everything right, yielding a clean, efficient experience. Friendfeed takes up where Twitter left off in aggregating a global conversation. It is looking more and more like the end-all social network, at least for this week.

the web is turning to soup

I am finally starting to see the mesh of innovative web sites that are allowing data to slosh around freely and expose people to more conversation. I must admit that I'm a little late getting onto the RSS bandwagon, but this is still a vital part of the equation not only for humans but for machines. There are a number of efforts to allow you to use the same profile on different sites, allowing you to connect with friends you may not have even known used these other sites. APIs allow third-party applications and other sites to send and receive messages and multimedia from not just computers, but also mobile devices. And these services will begin to truly become efficient as add the ability to push data (XMPP) in addition to pulling data (HTTP, RSS).

As many have pointed out, the noise level becomes a problem with so much text sloshing around. Duplicates are pretty easy to filter. The solution here is the same as personalized news. You rate items based on their relevance to you, and some algorithm figures out similarities between items you rated highly. There are several factors that could potentially be important to this kind of algorithm: keywords, length, author or originating source, ratings by users with similar tastes. That last one is enormously powerful. In fact, Netflix is running a contest to see who can do it the best.

I don't know if it will ever be possible to have completely synchronized discussions. But there are various hacks for now, such as tracking keywords on Twitter.