Member since: May 23rd, 2006
Sep 25th 2008 1:56PM The story you link to about the German government has nothing to do with the user ID issue. The German government quite simply didn't think people should use beta software (apparently, the German government doesn't know much about the web) and that it didn't think people should use a browser that's from Google because somehow that would magically add more of their information to Google. Of course, I don't think they issued a similar warning not to use the IE8 beta from Microsoft, to which all the same exact arguments against Google could be applied.
Jun 17th 2008 3:15PM Been loving Hulu, but reality check, Mark.First, I'm at it last night to catch up on Battlestar. Except only the last three episodes are out there. Why? Crap if I know. It's not like I can buy them on iTunes or on DVD. There's not particular reason to offer them free online and then four weeks later remove them. It's a bad user experience and one that made me think hmm, maybe I should go looking for an alternative way to get them.Second, I'm over here in the UK. Hitting Hulu and getting that annoying "sorry, we only work for those in the US" says dinosaur media in a big way. But hell, I fired up a way to fake my IP address and was golden, at least if they'd had Battlestar.Now third, where you're all like oh no Google, you can't make money. Let's get this straight. People are paying the TV networks absurd amounts of money to put fairly untargeted ads in front of them on broadcast. And now they're putting all this stuff up online, so fair to say fewer of us are going to be sitting around waiting for it to show up on TV? So yeah, big whoop -- Hulu makes lots of new online ad revenue at probably lower prices than the broadcast side. Nice job TV dinosaurs, you're robbed from your rich and given to your poor.Don't get me wrong. I think TV is long overdue to see ad revenues adjust to reality, and Hulu is way smart to understand people want it on demand through the web, just like they'll pay for DVDs or Tivo/Sky Plus to watch when they want.As for Google, Mark -- they've got oodles of cash. They are the top video site on the web. They'll figure out something and more important, it's not like they have to right now.
Apr 29th 2007 6:54PM Jason, where's the love?Is Jason Calacanis Great Or The Greatest?http://daggle.com/070427-234036.html
Mar 1st 2007 8:59AM 10%ers, heh, I love it!None is Squidoo's fault? C'mon Jason.Squidoo was clearly designed from the ground-up to get traffic from other search engines. Those nice neat URLs ranking in Google like you point out, http://www.squidoo.com/laptopbag/, that's self-evident.So now people are tapping into Squidoo? Am I mistaken, or those mortgage pages -- they are carrying Google AdSense that Squidoo profits off of over on the right hand side, right?Put the blame first and foremost on Squidoo itself. Let anyone in to make anything? Exercise some control. Improve your ranking. Use nofollow. And don't leave the doors open like that in the beginning.
Jun 28th 2006 4:35PM Bang on times two! Very well said and explained, wrapping all this stuff up nicely.
Jun 20th 2006 4:34AM Didn't hear word one from your PR company nor AOL's internal communication department about the launch on my end, Jason -- frankly, pretty suprising. So scratch us off the list as a result of their work.
May 24th 2006 4:14AM > I think if they opened up there books you would find about 99% of the feeds they host do not use that service. And I'm sure if I go to Blogger or Six Apart or WordPress, I'd find the vast majority of users there don't use their own domains even though with the first two, there is that option, to my understanding. The blame resides on content owners not understanding the need to start off correctly and go with their own domains, rather than the hosting providers.> In the meantime Feedburner will continue to serve those that want to use it and those of us that are looking for a solution that we can deploy on our own sites under our own domains will keep looking.With respect, Todd, then you simply don't understand how the MyBrand service works. I put out feeds under my own domain. No redirects are required. Since it's my own domain, I completely control it. It is the solution you are looking for. Honestly, you should try it, if this is something you are seeking.> Danny, FeedBurner added the option after I wrote about their lock-in last time, so I wouldn't give them too many points -- they weren't proactive.Dave, it looks like you wrote about this issue as best I can tell back in June 2005, here I'm guessing:http://www.scripting.com/2005/06/09.html#When:12:55:44PMThat's the same month they started the precursor to the MyBrand service, http://blogs.feedburner.com/feedburner/archives/001270.html. Looks like they did it pretty much right after you raised it, same month. That's responsive, in my book. That's a heck of a lot more responsive than WordPress. Robert's asked them publicly a couple of times now about letting people have their own domains -- that still hasn't happened. Would have been great if FeedBurner offered it before you asked, definitely. But to roll it out so quickly when raised -- I still give them kudos for that. Of course, if you raised it even early and found there was some kicking and streaming, then I understand that concern.Basically, I'm on the same page as you and Todd. People should avoid lock-in and be masters of their own domains. But my experience with FeedBurner's been extremely positive, and I see them providing anyone who cares to avoid lock-in an easy solution to get out. If anything, rather than FeedBurner being dinged, people ought to be highlighting the options they offer to have the best of both worlds. And as for pressuring competitors to offer similar services and features -- hey, I'm for that. Keeps everyone honest.
May 23rd 2006 2:39PM Dave, sorry on the "complaining" part. Perhaps concern would have been the better word to use. And it's a valid concern for anyone to have. You must have control over your own domain.Backups of what you have on the WordPress site mean little. You don't control the links to content on that site. If you have a great post over there -- on that site -- that everyone is linking to, you have no way to automatically point to the new location if you leave WordPress and they don't want to cooperate. I wish deeply that WordPress would offer something similar to MyBrand from FeedBurner. It's pretty easy to do. And if putting all the feeds on one domain is risky, putting all these blogs on one subdomain is risky as well.So coming back to feeds. FeedBurner does the DNS for my feeds using the feeds.searchenginewatch.com domain we use at SEW (or feeds.daggle.com on my personal blog). If they went down, you just switch the resolution to point back to your own site or somewhere else. Bang, you're back up within a few hours to a day at most.Overall, FeedBurner is pretty much offering exactly what you suggest that a competitor should offer, and they deserve major kudos for having this option for a very cheap price.The problem is that relatively few people know about the program. It's not hidden. Instead, to me, the bigger issue is that relatively few people even think about the need to own control over their domains (from mail to web to blog to feeds) in the first place. If you aren't concerned, you don't then think to ask. If you think to ask, well, FeedBurner's got the option.
May 23rd 2006 1:05PM I don't know what Dave is complaining about. I use Feedburner. They don't own my domain. They don't own anyone's domain that uses the MyBrand service they offer, http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/publishers/mybrand. At $3 per month, I find it cheap insurance that anyone can afford. People should definitely be masters of their own domains. That's why I remain amazed anyone is using WordPress, in the way Dave does here on his Scripting News Annex, http://scripting.wordpress.com/. WordPress controls that domain -- not him. If they do evil or disappear tomorrow, he's out of luck. No one should build anything off of anyone else's domain. Those that do frankly have only themselves to blame.
Apr 7th 2006 2:31PM C'mon Jason -- so when AOL ask me to cover them and has a PR team help out, do I ignore that because AOL didn't contact me personally? And if it's the AOL PR team, do I discount that because the AOL product manager didn't contact me directly? If you're doing something, do you personally oversee every single aspect of your marketing?I don't care who asks me for coverage -- which is what the person above asked you for, not a link -- as long as the request is relevant.If you think being alerted to this show is off-topic, fair game to ding for a PR message you didn't want. The "Hi, Jason" has a feel of you getting hit off a list rather than a personal request, so I could see some concern there. But then again, maybe you and your readers are interested in it. Don't dismiss the message because of who delivered it. Judge the message based on what it's telling you.
Save your tabs and Panorama tab groups in Firefox 4
Amazon Appstore for Android hands-on review: Android Market is in trouble