Some Random Website

A big downside of open source software is how it clashes with patent issues. Installing a Linux operating system is very easy– the slightly more complicated part comes afterwards, when you usually have to install additional components, ranging from graphics card drivers to media codecs. Companies like Canonical (who distribute the Ubuntu Linux operating system) have to be very careful about what they do and don't include with their packages. While they might not be troubled by issues like patents, there is the risk that a partner down the line will be.

In short, owning a patent for a particular idea gives you either the exclusive right to use it, or a way to make money by licensing other companies to use it. Or to swap patents, where two companies agree to let each other use their patented ideas. (Which makes it difficult for a startup entering a big competitive business like the mobile phone industry to get a foothold.)

However, if you're a software company like Apple, it's a different game. So it's interesting to see that after Apple are filing a suit against HTC over mobile phone software patents.

The facts;

• Apple's iPhone led the pack of the current range of touchscreen smartphones.
• The iPhone was the first mobile phone to feature a multitouch touch screen. Along with the Apps Store, it's a major USP of the iPhone– especially "pinch to zoom."
• Although Android phones have had multitouch hardware, it hasn't been properly supported in the software-– so far.
• A recent software update enabled multitouch features for the Nexus One Android phone– manufactured by HTC, but de-branded and sold via http://google.com/phone. These include pinch-to-zoom in the web browser, Google maps and the photo application– just like the iPhone.
• Apple have 20 patents that they are claiming HTC are in breach of. Many of these relate to technical issues unrelated to the pinch-to-zoom aspect– which will probably be raising questions for other handset manufacturers using the Android operating system.

So ultimate

This is a snippet- read the full post.

As he warmed up before unveiling the iPad a few weeks ago, Steve Jobs made the point that if you look at the Macbook range as "mobile devices", then Apple is the largest manufacturer of mobile devices in the world. Which is an impressive feat on it's own– especially considering the premium nature of most of Apple's product line. But potentially a little worrying if you pause to consider the domination that Apple has over the development of the growing mobile platform.

A post I came across via Daring Fireball over on quirksmode by PPK that argues that we're looking at a similar position in the mobile web to where we were with Internet Explorer on the desktop back in 2000.

It's a passionate argument, clearly put together to prompt the debate, and I certainly don't disagree with the principle that it espouses; a single web, independent of devices, operating systems and browsers. (Well, it actually talks of a single "mobile web", but I'm going to assume that's a simple oversight.)

Put simply, I don't believe that there's such a thing as a good mobile web developer. There are simply good web developers.

This is a snippet- read the full post.

Sometimes, you can take a great and insightful idea or discovery and distil it to it's simplest form, and it tells a great story. Other times, in distilling it down to a simple form (often a newspaper headline), it becomes something different.

A story that's currently going through the "report, recycle, repeat" process of what we call "news" is the story about how your brain can't handle all your Facebook friends; any more than 150 "friends" is just a meaningless figure, because our brains can't handle that many.

That's the short version of the story: OMG: Brains can't handle our Facebook friends.

A slightly longer version (less headline-friendly) would explain that Robin Dunbar came up with a theory some years ago, based on observations of social units of primates and the relationship between the size of the social groups and a particular area of the brain, concluding that the human brain is suited to groups no bigger than 150 people. Later this year, he plans to publish the results of some newer research which will show that social networks like Facebook don't affect this number; even if you have 1,500 friends, an analysis of traffic shows that you maintain the same inner circle of about 150 people.

Two big questions come to my mind about those findings. Firstly, how does something like Facebook change those relationships? My own Facebook friends who post regular updates get more of my attention, and I know more about what's happening in their lives than those who post less frequently. Some who post incessantly will get ignored or even "defriended." Then there are the friends who either aren't using Facebook, or aren't very active— who miss updates, event invitations and other activity that's happening on the site. I simply can't believe that Facebook hasn't changed the way that friendships— even within those inner circles of 150— are functioning.

But a different spin on the same story (and I think a more interesting one) is that the fact that our brains "can't handle it" is the point.

This is a snippet- read the full post.

It's Apple season again. The time when the technology world is ablaze with rumours, speculation and predictions about the Next Big Thing that Apple are about to unveil next week. By now, everyone has written up their thoughts on what it will be, how it will work, how it will cope without a keyboard, what it will be great for, or not so great for. (I'm no exception.)

So we're already starting to see the "I'm bored of Tablet talk" posts. And it's going to get a lot worse over the next couple of weeks. We've got the increasing amount of speculation, the "Apple are about to announce…" stories, and the "Today, Apple unveiled…" stories.

Afterwards, we'll have a round of "it's incredible, and I can't wait", along with a dose of "so what— my [insert manufacturer] device can do that already", and a fair amount of "this isn't the Second Coming— I'm disappointed and let down" from people who confused the rumours and guesses of the last month or two with actual Apple announcements.

This is a snippet- read the full post.

One of the reasons I put my own website together was a kind of reaction to Facebook. I figured that if I was going to have all my "stuff" online collected in one place, I'd rather it was in my own place than someone else's, and I knew enough about website design to be able to do it myself.

There has been a lot of fuss about Facebook's privacy changes at the end of last year. Without going into all the details, they declared that they were making it easier for people to control their privacy and the way they shared things and were encouraging people to review their settings, but looking into what they were doing (rather than what they were saying) it was pretty clear that what it was really about was trying to get more people to make more of their "stuff" public.

One of the changes that was made is that users no longer have control over who can see their "friends" lists, and some other settings (if they hadn't already been set) would default to being public.

To me, this is breaking the unwritten rules, or the "social contract" that they have with their users. I'm sure that there's nothing illegal about the changes (after all, those lengthy terms and conditions that you click through without reading aren't there to protect the users.) But it seems to me that there's an ethical violation that's taken place.

But does it really matter? If you haven't changed your privacy settings in the first place, then should you care if the default changes?

This is a snippet- read the full post.