As the mayor of New York (Michael Bloomberg) vowed to start coding along with 352 000+ other people, there is another trend brewing.

That trend is the decline of the need for technical proficiency due to increasingly cheap and powerful infrastructure. I am not saying that you will still need computer scientists solving difficult algorithmic problems. Millions of records in a database and the difficulty of scaling is still an issue. Serving fast pages and responsive designs is a big part of a great user experience and you can’t do that without having a technical person on your team.

The thing is, at some point, serving a website with bad quadratic algorithms will be equally fast (or negligibly so). With the current cheap architecture available such as Amazon’s EC2, AWS and Heroku, a lot of developers in the past can now run services that would’ve taken considerable effort a few years ago. The point has been surpassed where a developer can make a livelihood for themselves without the need for incredible technical knowledge and this trend is going to continue.

You can do more with less. Just look at Instagram. They are close to about 11 people (about 4 were hired during the past month) and have 15 million users. This is impressive and they are mainly using Amazon’s architecture.

(more…)

Disclaimer: I am the founder of Tweekly.fm, a service that automatically sends an update of your top artists for the week to Twitter and Facebook.

Recently, Spotify (with Sean Parker’s help) got engaged to Facebook. In short, if your Facebook and Spotify accounts are connected, you will see your friends listening to music in the new ‘ticker’ as they are listening to it. A lot of people have wondered, ‘Is this useful?’, ‘Why would I want to see John listening to Backstreet Boys?’.

Before I answer that. A little background. I started Tweekly.fm in Januray of 2009. The goal was simple. I wanted to make a twitter app. I was (and still am) an avid last.fm user, so I thought it would be great to automatically share your music tastes from last.fm to twitter. At that time #musicmonday was still big. People were sharing their music tastes on Twitter every monday. It was great! Where is it now? And what happened?

The biggest culprit is Twitter’s trending algorithm. They changed it to display only novel topics. In other words, because #mm was trending every monday, it wasn’t exactly novel each time. But why didn’t people continue sharing their music tastes despite this? There was no real return. During 2009 there was also quite a rise in websites that offered the ability to tweet your songs to Twitter. I wrote a blog post on this quite a while ago in April of 2010. It was an exciting arena, one in which Tweekly.fm was competing in as well. Of those sites in that blogpost (besides Tweekly.fm), only tweetmysong are above 450 000 in alexa rankings, and blip.fm remaining at the top (because of its built-in network effects). In short, the small ‘sector’ kinda died. Nobody took the effort to tweet a song they are listening to, because not a lot of people took the effort to listen to it. In other words, little return for both people. If someone shares a song with me, it works better if there is context. For me to like the song, there are two big prerequisites: If it is a good friend, who knows my music tastes, I will absorb the effort to listen to the song. However if it is an artist (and genre) I’ve never heard of, I still have to make up my mind about, because my friend shared it with me, and expects some return. In other words, I have to make an effort to form an opinion on the song. “Hey Simon! What did you think of Portugal. The Man?”, “Uh. It is great. I kinda liked the jazzy sections in the song New Orleans”.

If it is from a ‘musical’ stranger, the only context I have is if the person elaborates on the song. “Listen to Nero – Innocence. Epic dubstep in every way”. Now I know it is dubstep and if I am a fan, I would be more willing to accept the opportunity cost of taking the time to listen to it. However, for the person who shared the song, they still need a return. If I liked the song, I must still do more effort to tell the person that I liked it, and once again the interaction rate drops off heavily.

Why is Tweekly.fm still growing? It is automatic and it has context. There is no effort on part of the listener. They just have to consume their music and it will be shared each week to Twitter. The second factor that Tweekly.fm does to a certain degree is context. 3 artists are shared in the update. This means that if people see one artist they like in the tweet, they will be more inclined to click on it. If there are 2 known artists and one unknown artist, they will be even more likely to click on it.

So why is Spotify and Facebook on the right track? Music sharing works best when it is automatic, because it takes no effort on behalf of person sharing the music. They thus expect little, if nothing in return. Any comments on the artists you  listened to is as they would say in marketing terms: a satisfying experience. Same goes for the consumer. They have no expectation to comment on the artists you share, but will be delighted if they find they share music tastes in common.

However, where their system fails, is music discovery. The only context being employed is the user listening to the music. If you know him to listen to cool electronic music tracks, you will be inclined to find out more AS they are listening to it. If you follow what they are listening to, you might pick up a pattern and then be inclined to look up the tracks yourself (“ooh, I know that song! oooh, I know that one as well! Oooh, I better check this one out, I don’t know it”)… But this I feel, is perhaps way too much effort. It beats the purpose of automatic sharing.

Automatic sharing allows serendipitous behaviour to arise, because of the non-effort to share it. In Facebook’s case, it doesn’t clog up the stream, because it occurs in the ticker. That is great. However, if they really want to ramp up music discovery, they need to use music recommendations to explain the context of songs that people are sharing. If Robert Scoble is listening to bluegrass band that I’ve haven’t heard, the system should preferably show context while he is listening to it. Like when Last.fm recommends new artists, they recommend it based on your current library of artists. In other words, it should preferably match up the closest artist I have listened, while also providing other information (such as genre and current position in world charts for example). This way, I can immediately discern context when music is automatically shared.

Who should be doing this? Last.fm. They have the resources and data available to do this. I can already see what my ‘friends’ on there are listening to, but there is no context. They know what I’ve listened to, they should just bring it together. I wrote a script the other day to test this. Of my 87 friends on last.fm, it returned to me the following dataset:

Of my friends who listened to music the current week and based on last.fm’s current music recommendations to me, I should listen to:

[Beirut] => 4 [Skrillex] => 2 [Björk] => 2 [Gold Panda] => 1 [The Wombats] => 1 [Band of Skulls] => 1 [Cut Copy] => 1 [Röyksopp] => 1 [St. Vincent] => 1 [Cults] => 1

It is very slow, because I have to make several API calls, so it is not available for testing (I might upload it github later). So in other words, what the above code says: “Of the artists we recommend you listen to, your friends listened to Beirut, Skrillex, Bjork, Gold Panda, Wombats, Band of Skulls, Cut Copy, Royksopp, St Vincent and the Cults this week”.

So: What it boils down to. Facebook and Spotify are on the right track. Music sharing works best when it is done ‘frictionlessly’, but now it just needs more context. I hope Last.fm gets there before them, but maybe it is just because I am a bit biased.

Get out your tinfoil hats, for a speculative ride into the future of Apple!

No, that is not a rollercoaster.

As you might already know, Mac OS X Lion launched recently with a lot of the new features taken straight from Apple’s mobile operating system, iOS. The Launchpad looks like the iPad, application state-saving, inverted (natural?) scrolling, full-screen apps and an app store amongst other features. There are subtle interface changes that give hints to what Apple are planning.

Scrolling

When you turn on Lion for the first time, you will be faced with inverted scrolling. Scroll up on the trackpad and the scrollbar goes down. Why Apple why? Why break something that is not broken? Let me tell you why. Imagine you have a long piece of paper in front of  you. As you start reading, at some point you need to move the paper to read the bottom part. How do you do it? You do it, by moving the paper… up: think Star Wars intro text. Apple is telling you: forget about the screen, just look at the data: that is what is important. As Rian vd Merwe puts it: “Apple wants us to remove the current abstraction from our data (the file system and the ‘window’), and instead focus on and interact with the data itself”. With iOS, this came naturally, as there was only a touch interface. You directly interacted with your data. On tablets and smartphones, this is how you scroll: you move the data around, not the viewport/window.

Colour

Pic from Macstories.net

Snow Leopard vs Lion

An interesting design choice was removing colour on interface elements and going for a monochrome feel. While Lion’s monochrome feel (gone is the aqua bars as well) seems dull, there seems to be a good reason for it. Apple claimed that its goal is to de-emphasize irrelevant (surrounding user interface) parts and through that, emphasise your content which is more important. This makes sense in addition to the change in scrolling: your data is what is important. They are going even a step further and introduced full-screen applications. Gone is the dock and top bar: it doesn’t matter.

What is with the skeuomorphs?

Skeumorphs are designs that aim to look their previous counterparts in order to create a familiar environment for new users. On the iPad, Apple introduced a calendar that looks like it’s real life counterpart.

iPad iCal

Lion iCal

As you can see, Lion’s iCal took tips from iPad‘s iCal. It also has a skeuomorphic design. Why include a skeuomorphic design only now? Everyone who has used iCal on previous OS X versions are familiar with iCal’s design. Why change what does not need to be changed? Is it to further emphasise the idea of working with your ‘content’ instead of a screen and your application? Maybe, but I think there might be another reason, answered by asking:

So, why all the iOS?

Apple is betting on changing the way we look at our computers. With the success of iOS, Apple wants us to think anew; changing the user interface that hasn’t changed for more than a decade. Are they trying to be that bold, or is there another part to the story? There might be some clues in the numbers.

Apple’s best-selling products for 2010 was the iPhone and iPad. This wonderful visualisation gives you the best clue. Almost 50% of Apple’s revenue for 2010 came from the iPhone. This is all very well, except the massive Android gorilla looming above the iPhone. Android is now serving almost 50% of the smartphone market and shows no sign of stopping. Now you know why Apple are suing HTC, they are protecting their most valuable asset.

This seems like an unsustainable strategy (even more so with Google’s recent buyout of Motorola Mobility), which leads to the most speculative conclusion: Apple wants to move iPhone (iOS) users to their other products. An iOS user will be familiar with an app store, resuming of apps, the scrolling, the launchpad look and the skeuomorphic designs of the native apps. This idea is further cemented with the addition of iCloud. This way, when you buy Apple, you buy into the ecosystem. Now that Apple has sold so many iPhones, they want them onto the other platforms before Android does too much damage.

What do you think? Do you think Lion‘s interface changes are justified? Do you think iOS’ movement to OS X (and desktop/laptop operating systems) is revolutionary: a breath of fresh air to the decade old interface?

Greplin, a company making waves for “tackling the other half of search”, launched a competition to redesign wikipedia’s search experience: “everything from the behaviors on the search page, to the layout of content, to the details of typography, color, animations. Today, many people use Google to search Wikipedia, but imagine a whole new experience that makes using Google to search Wikipedia feel outdated.”

It is a novel and positive initiative that might yield some interesting results, but I am wondering if it is possible or needed. Let me explain:

How do you search wikipedia? If you are like the rest of us, you mainly go through Google, then click on the wikipedia link if it exists. When do I only use wikipedia’s search? It is when I am sure there will be content available (something broad like France or Gears) and even then I usually use the Google Chrome’s autocomplete search function.

I feel this is an important point, because it shows the difference between Google and Wikipedia. When searching for information related to the keyword that I am not knowledgeable about, I use wikipedia. When travelling to another country (say Singapore), you want information on that country, you don’t want something specific (not until you are more knowledgeable about the subject). Here Wikipedia crowns king. However this beats the purpose of searching (or trying to improve a search experience): when I know what to find and how to find it. (I don’t know, but I know where to find information so that I can know more).

More often that not, I use Google to search for answers (or when I don’t know where to go look for information). (I don’t know, and I don’t know where and how to find information that I want). Of course you can’t extrapolate one user’s habits to the whole population. Let’s assume I am searching for information (not answers) on something that I am unsure of whether it will be in Wikipedia (random small suburb in a backwater town). Should I use Wikipedia or Google? Google of course. If it is on Wikipedia, it should be in the top few links. If not, then I can find relevant information on other websites. If I went the Wikipedia avenue, I would’ve been presented with nothing and then had to go Google anyway.

In other words, Google will always be more useful when searching answers and information. It boils down to the fact that not all information is for the purpose of being encyclopaedic.

I do think there are perhaps areas where Wikipedia’s search can be made more useful:

> This is a big suggestion, but maybe Wikipedia shouldn’t have 2 frontpages. I like the globe, but if it wants to improve search, the bar has to be made more prominent.

> The second ‘frontpage’ is language specific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). Once you are on there, there is no (obvious) link back to the ‘globe’ page and you are stuck with the search in the right top corner.

> Increase the speed. Wikipedia’s search is slower than Google. If I do choose to use Wikipedia and I mistook my perception that there will be information on it, I don’t want to feel as if I wasted time that I could’ve spent by just using Google instead.

What if Wikipedia’s search wasn’t primarily about finding information, but an experience in itself?

A fancy, shiny minorty report whizzing and whistles experience (for example), could make Wikipedia’s search fun to use, but maybe that would just turn into qwiki?

In the end to me, the nature of the information on Wikipedia doesn’t lend itself to being about ‘search’. There isn’t much to find: either there is an article about, or there is not. The middle way is vague, and then I have to resort to Google to find what I am looking for.

What do you think? Can Wikipedia’s search experience be improved? Can it be improved enough so that when searching for information, users would go to Wikipedia first, instead of Google? If I am wrong, I am looking forward to the results of the competition. I am open to being pleasantly surprised!

I can hear the collective scratching of heads across the world as people are pondering whether they should use Google+. Your tech/web friends have all loudly blabbered about it on Facebook or Twitter and now you are wondering what the fuss is all about? Bandwidthblog has a write-up here to educate yourself on what Google+ brings to the table.

Should you jump ship, abandon your farms and party photos to a new social network? Not yet. Google+ is experimenting with a new model of online interaction, called ‘Circles’ (which is similar to Diaspora’s ‘aspects’).

Facebook’s interaction is simple. If we accept, we both see each other’s information: a simple handshake if you will. Twitter’s interaction is asynchronous: I follow you what you say, but it is not necessary to reciprocate and follow back.

Google+’s interaction is a bit more complicated. On the get-go you add individuals to certain circles of your life (‘work’,'friends’,'music buddies’, etc). When you share something, you share it with whatever circles you choose. Once that funny cat video is shared, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the people whom you intended it for will actually see it. If they don’t add you to a circle, it will appear in the ‘incoming’ stream (incoming stream? what?). Another important thing to note, is that ‘circles’ are known only to you. If you add “Rob Bikeperson” to “Biker Mice from Bars”, they will only know that they have been added to “a” circle, but not which specific one. In other words, you have your own context about the certain circles of your life and another person has their own context.

Are you lost?

Exactly. Here is a graph to make it easier to understand. Click to enlarge:

Still lost? Exactly.

Some web enthusiasts are claiming the downfall of Facebook (and Twitter). To me Google+ just works differently. It is a new and interesting experiment around the idea of putting different facets of your life front and center. Putting it online comes with its own territory.

Google+ as it stands now is for users who are information consumers. The majority of users on Facebook aren’t facing this problem to such an extent that they would take the effort to understand a new model such as Google+. It’s an important iteration, but not the killer social network that it wants to be.

Graph: By Lee S. translated and reposted by Axel Aigret, Cyril Galliné and Nathalie Gilson. You can view it here.