As I arrived at work this morning, I noted the lead article on Slashdot. It discussed the impending battle between two feed/syndication protocols. Specifically, there is much speculation that Atom 1.0 has a number of compelling features over RSS 2.0.
As I considered the premise of the article, it made me think of the Betamax v. VHS debate several decades ago. Like that debate, the “winner” (if one must be found) will be the protocol that gains widest adoption. Given the recent Microsoft statements (as well as native support Mozilla Firefox), RSS has gained a formidable foothold. In fact, even Apple has hopped on the RSS 2.0 (w/enclosures) bandwagon with its iTunes 4.9 product. So Atom will need to have some fairly substantial advantages or it will be lost in the groundswell that is RSS incorporation into almost everything.
And speaking of gaining a foothold, the Slashdot article refers to a wiki where the two protocols are discussed. Unfortunately, that wiki has been “owned” by a bunch of haXorz (i.e., WILLY ON WHEELS). Some folks need to get a life! This should be a good debate. And demonstrating thoughtful consideration of issues is one of the hallmarks of open computing. Too bad that some folks think lively debate is equivalent to trivial tomfoolery.
-CyclingRoo-
Update: I wanted to see the differences between the two specs so I started fishing @ Technorati and ran across Randy Charles Morin’s great RSS site. Randy posted a very good quote from Jon Udell. Jon said, “Because today’s blogging infrastructure delivers those benefits sufficiently well, I don’t see a pressing need for most people (or rather, for the blogging tools that most people use) to replace RSS with Atom. But if things evolve in the direction I hope they will — towards richer payloads when content is syndicated among people (“publishing”) and machines (“data exchange”) — then Atom will really start to shine. To the many folks who labored over this specification: thanks for a job well done!” Jon’s full comments can be found here.

After several weeks of working to squash some nagging bugs, Aaron Boodman and the Greasemonkey team have decided to release Greasemonkey 0.4 for beta testing. I got word of this early this morning via the Greasemonkey mailing list. I’ve installed this version on a couple of machines and found it to be both stable and worthwhile. I can’t wait to see the production version released to the countless hordes of Firefox users – especially the Deer Park Alpha testers who have had to go w/o Greasemonkey (or who’ve had to use the CVS version instead). Great work, team.
-CyclingRoo-

Earlier this week, Forbes had a very good article about how hard it is to switch high-speed ISP providers. The premise of the article is simple: customers aren’t flocking back to the telcos (from cable ISP’s) despite big pricing incentives. The author notes that “A lot of people can’t tell the difference [in download speeds].”
So why would people stay with their cable providers – especially when it costs more?
There are lots of reasons. But two or three come to mind.
>> It is a non-trivial exercise to migrate all online references to your existing online identity.
Changing email addresses sounds simple enough. But it is never as simple as it sounds. Everyone knows my email address – even the spammers. I hate to send all the emails to all my friends and family. I hate to update all of my email subscriptions (list servers in my case). I hate to update every profile on every e-commerce website I utilize. And I hate to update all the web pages that have mailto: tags that refer to my email address.
I have minimized the effort by using a “generic” email address (not provided by my ISP) that doesn’t change. Of course, having a stable email address has its disadvantages. If I am indiscrete, spammers will have a static target for a long time. I have been able to “hide” from a lot of spam by changing email addresses on an annual basis. But I guess I have to nurture a persistent online persona. So for everyone who really wants to reach me (regardless of who my ISP is), then you should send all correspondence to cyclingroo@gmail.com. At worst, Gmail provides space to cover at least a week’s worth of spam! 😉
>> Many services I like to use depend upon a relatively static IP address.
For example, I use RDP to manage my personal system while I am out of the house. I have configured my firewall/router to allow RDP. Moreover, I like to use IPSec to create more secure tunnels into my household infrastructure. So as long as I have a relatively stable IP, this is simple. Of course, I could have a static IP address. But that would cost too much. And I could utilize dynamic DNS (like DynDNS). But while I do use DynDNS, there are times when it is nice to have a reasonably stable, numerical IP address. Cable has provided that for me. DSL never provided that.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything against DSL. Indeed, I use DSL for a number of commercial ventures. But I have found that cable provides a much more manageable experience for remote management of my personal systems.
>> Both cable and telco ISP services are similar. Indeed, these services are a commodity.
People get connections from every kind of provider. People get IP addresses. People get relatively high-speed service. And support from both providers is similar. And everyone provides email hosting as well as a few megabytes of website hosting. And even AOL provides filtering and parental controls.
So the real question is why would people switch for just a couple of bucks a month?
I contend that most people will pay a couple of extra bucks a month in order to avoid the hassles of minor reconfigurations. For me, I would stay put for a couple of bucks a month difference. Of course, if you annualize that difference, it makes more sense to switch. But most folks don’t annualize the line items in their telco expense. So a couple of bucks means one less Starbucks a week.
So why did I recently switch my provider?
First, the costs (of switching) are not as burdensome on me. I minimize the email impact by not using my ISP email as my only email address. And I can rapidly make any and all changes needed. In my case, the biggest burden of such changes is my wife and the people who send her email messages.
Second, I switched providers because of content. My previous supplier was a cable competitior. I loved their service. And they really forced Time Warner to be more nimble – at least in our neighborhood. But Time Warner brought some local sports programming to the table. Their Metro Sports coverage will allow me to see my daughter play a number of “away” games that I would otherwise miss during the season. Also, I will be able to use someone else’s video footage even on home games.
So I switched because of differentiated services. And this may be the way that many customers look at the subject. Everyone can provide commodity ISP services – at least in the suburban world I live in. Therefore, my allegiance can’t be bought solely for “filthy lucre” – especially in miniscule quantitites. My allegiance will have to come from other “stickier” issues. Today, the “sticky” issue is content. Tomorrow, it may be the quality of service and/or support. But my personal experience is illustrative of one clear point: most people don’t switch for price alone. To get customers back, telcos will need to offer something more compelling altogether.
I sure hope they come up with something.
-CyclingRoo-

Earlier this week, Forbes had a very good article about how hard it is to switch high-speed ISP providers. The premise of the article is simple: customers aren’t flocking back to the telcos (from cable ISP’s) despite big pricing incentives. The author notes that “A lot of people can’t tell the difference [in download speeds].”

So why would people stay with their cable providers – especially when it costs more?

There are lots of reasons. But two or three come to mind.

>> It is a non-trivial exercise to migrate all online references to your existing online identity.

Changing email addresses sounds simple enough. But it is never as simple as it sounds. Everyone knows my email address – even the spammers. I hate to send all the emails to all my friends and family. I hate to update all of my email subscriptions (list servers in my case). I hate to update every profile on every e-commerce website I utilize. And I hate to update all the web pages that have mailto: tags that refer to my email address.

I have minimized the effort by using a “generic” email address (not provided by my ISP) that doesn’t change. Of course, having a stable email address has its disadvantages. If I am indiscrete, spammers will have a static target for a long time. I have been able to “hide” from a lot of spam by changing email addresses on an annual basis. But I guess I have to nurture a persistent online persona. So for everyone who really wants to reach me (regardless of who my ISP is), then you should send all correspondence to cyclingroo@gmail.com. At worst, Gmail provides space to cover at least a week’s worth of spam! 😉

>> Many services I like to use depend upon a relatively static IP address.

For example, I use RDP to manage my personal system while I am out of the house. I have configured my firewall/router to allow RDP. Moreover, I like to use IPSec to create more secure tunnels into my household infrastructure. So as long as I have a relatively stable IP, this is simple. Of course, I could have a static IP address. But that would cost too much. And I could utilize dynamic DNS (like DynDNS). But while I do use DynDNS, there are times when it is nice to have a reasonably stable, numerical IP address. Cable has provided that for me. DSL never provided that.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything against DSL. Indeed, I use DSL for a number of commercial ventures. But I have found that cable provides a much more manageable experience for remote management of my personal systems.

>> Both cable and telco ISP services are similar. Indeed, these services are a commodity.

People get connections from every kind of provider. People get IP addresses. People get relatively high-speed service. And support from both providers is similar. And everyone provides email hosting as well as a few megabytes of website hosting. And even AOL provides filtering and parental controls.

So the real question is why would people switch for just a couple of bucks a month?

I contend that most people will pay a couple of extra bucks a month in order to avoid the hassles of minor reconfigurations. For me, I would stay put for a couple of bucks a month difference. Of course, if you annualize that difference, it makes more sense to switch. But most folks don’t annualize the line items in their telco expense. So a couple of bucks means one less Starbucks a week.

So why did I recently switch my provider?

First, the costs (of switching) are not as burdensome on me. I minimize the email impact by not using my ISP email as my only email address. And I can rapidly make any and all changes needed. In my case, the biggest burden of such changes is my wife and the people who send her email messages.

Second, I switched providers because of content. My previous supplier was a cable competitior. I loved their service. And they really forced Time Warner to be more nimble – at least in our neighborhood. But Time Warner brought some local sports programming to the table. Their Metro Sports coverage will allow me to see my daughter play a number of “away” games that I would otherwise miss during the season. Also, I will be able to use someone else’s video footage even on home games.

So I switched because of differentiated services. And this may be the way that many customers look at the subject. Everyone can provide commodity ISP services – at least in the suburban world I live in. Therefore, my allegiance can’t be bought solely for “filthy lucre” – especially in miniscule quantitites. My allegiance will have to come from other “stickier” issues. Today, the “sticky” issue is content. Tomorrow, it may be the quality of service and/or support. But my personal experience is illustrative of one clear point: most people don’t switch for price alone. To get customers back, telcos will need to offer something more compelling altogether.

I sure hope they come up with something.

-CyclingRoo-

Juliette Wallack has written a very interesting (and soft) piece about what it takes to be a good podcaster. Her subtitle says it all: “Podcasting Easy Enough for Everyone to Use, but You Must Have Something to Say.”
Juliette has some very excellent observations:

• “I’m 22, just out of college, and don’t expect to be the next Garrison Keillor. But I was intrigued by the idea and sampled the menu of podcasts out there. Some sounded as if they’d been recorded on a walkie-talkie, others like they came out of professional studios.” Juliette coundn’t be more right. Quality varies so broadly. But that is some of the “wonder” and mystery of podcasting. It really does have that early FM feel.
• “Podcast topics range from the latest in gadgets to fine wines. There’s some incredibly polished scripted entertainment and storytelling, and traditional media is now jumping in on the genre.” I hope that the low cost of creating content and feeds will continue to promote the diversity of content that exists today. I love the fact that I can find content that meets my peculiar listening needs. I fear that the “one guy with a message” mystique may soon be lost in the commercialization of the medium. But I hold out hope that content diversity will continue.
• Juliette spent $13 to build a two-minute podcast. OK, that was the cost of her mike. But she was able to say something and get it distributed onto the Internet. And it cost her next to nothing. That is the kind of price point we need.

Freedom of speech demands that your voice can be heard in “the marketplace of ideas.” And podcasting can give almost anyone a voice – provided you have a computer and a broadband connection. In Juliette’s test case, her ability to speak freely had very few impediments.
But I wonder how many people in depressed economic areas have the necessary infrastructure required to express their thoughts across the Internet. Recent numbers show that broadband is available nearly everywhere. But that doesn’t make it affordable everywhere. For middle-class Americans, podcasting is within easy reach. But in some urban (or rural) neighborhoods, the only place where this can be done is in the schools – and sometimes, not even there.
The Gates Foundation is actively involved in getting high-speed connectivity into schools throughout the nation. Bill Gates has said, “Our high schools were designed fifty years ago to meet the needs of another age. Until we design them to meet the needs of the 21st century, we will keep limiting – even ruining – the lives of millions of Americans every year.” Mr. Gates is right. Make sure that wherever you live, you are actively supporting efforts to modernize schools in your community. It will help your community and your world.
-CyclingRoo-