“Flash apps are bloated, HTML/JavaScript apps are not”
This seems to be one of the most common concerns/comments people have against Flash applications. So I did a quick little test to see exactly how big or bloated some popular sites/RIAs actually are… The test shows that HTML/JavaScript apps can be equally as “bloated” as Flash based apps. Sure… You can build apps that are as small as a couple of kilobytes with HTML/JavaScript but you can do the same with Flash based apps.
HTML/JAVASCRIPT BASED APPS
Google Mail: 2.433MB
Mobile Me: 2.546MB
Facebook: 2.62MB
FLASH BASED APPS
SumoPaint: 1.105MB
Hobnox AudioTool: 2.358MB (but you did load more than a halve music studio)
VW Used Car Locater: 1.578MB
Rant alert: The world is bigger than the US alone
I was just reading the live blogs coming from the Amazon press conference and felt kind of disappointed… again… I was hoping that Amazon would announce the European launch of the Kindle. But sadly… no.
I’m pretty sure it is yet another copyright issue that is preventing Amazon from launching Kindle worldwide. And that is exactly something that needs to change. With the Internet being this widespread and content accessible worldwide, old school copyrights and release tactics just don’t work any more. And in my opinion, they also make no sense at all.
Sadly… It’s not just Amazon. Apple’s iTunes is another good example. iTunes TV shows and movies are still only available in 1 or 2 countries in Europe. Or what about other online video providers like Netflix and Hulu? Even though it is perfectly possible to access these sites outside the US, copyright laws prevent you from using their service. Why is that?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to release books, movies, music, games, … on the same day worldwide? Combine available marketing power into one global campaign? Could that also have a positive effect on piracy? If I can go and see/buy a movie on the same day as someone across the ocean can, surely there is no need to download it? I would have no problem paying to see a movie or a new episode of a TV show.
Sadly, this is not even just restricted to copyright laws. Remember the launch of the iPhone? It was available only in the US for months. What did people outside the US do? They bought one in the US and hacked it. There are plenty of other examples like this one out there…
I know this blog post is not going to change anything but at least I got it out of my system ;-) Would love to hear your thoughts though!
UPDATE: As Mike Chambers pointed out, in some cases this is a knife that cuts both ways. People in the US also can’t watch content from Europe.
- End of rant -
Why does it still take multiple days to transfer money from one bank to another?
<RANT>
I’ve been wondering about this for a while and I post this here hoping that someone in the financial world can explain this to me. In this modern day and age, why does it still take multiple days (up to 7 working days) to transfer money from one bank to another? I mean… I always use net banking (I never go in to the bank with the exception of getting a new card every x years) so from the moment I click the send button on my payment, the money should be in the other bank account, right? There is no physical action needed. Everything is done electronically. Just like sending an email, right?
You would think that it would only take seconds but instead it takes up to 7 working days to get money from one bank to the other. Is someone physically taking this money from one bank to the other and is that the reason for this delay? Probably not… “It’s because you pay interests during these days and that’s how banks make money”, someone replied on Twitter this morning. Wait… What? Interests? For what? To do a transfer? A transfer that I entered in to the system using net banking? A transfer that is done electronically? I get that I would have to pay something if someone at the bank has to actually do something. But when I do all the work, why should I still pay for this? I am already paying €30 a year for the “privilege” of using a bank account. That’s €30 to do all the work yourself… And banks still managed to get in trouble?
So… Is this the biggest scam in the world? Or is there really a perfectly valid reason why this takes so long? And how come PayPal is able to do it like this? You enter the recipient, enter the amount, click send, and *boom* the recipient has money. Sigh… Sorry for the rant, but this has been bugging me for years and I really hope someone in banking can explain this… but I’m not holding my breath.
</RANT>
Is imitation really the sincerest form of flattery?
That’s what they say, right? But I’m wondering… Is it still flattery of you brag about it and say that it is a world first?
Here’s the story. This week, Belgian band Clouseau released a new track and the accompanying video clip. They also launched an online version of the video clip which is supposed to be an absolute first… I’m not so sure.
This is the first screen. Already loo familiar? So you have 6 different rooms and when you click on them, you zoom in to the room.
While it is still pretty cool, it’s far from an absolute first. Big Spaceship already did this for the HBO Voyeur project.
So… Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery? I have my doubts…
You can compare it yourself:
Clouseau (I have no idea why registration is required)
HBO Voyeur
UPDATE: I knew other politicians were going to copy some of Obama’s web tactics but I never would have guessed it was going to be this extreme. Check this out!
Why I think the Open Screen project matters…
It’s all about user experience. I could just end this post right here because that’s what I think is the main reason the Open Screen project matters. The Flash platform has really revolutionized the user experience on the web and we have all gotten used to having this rich experience. With more and more devices being connected to the web, people expect these devices to have the same experience they are used to. Just the other day, I was witnessing a new high-end-phone user surfing the web. She could not understand why some parts of the sites she was browsing to, worked fine on a PC but not on that new, shiny and expensive high-end-phone. Things like little widgets on a page or even full sites would only show a little “missing plugin” icon. “That’s because this phone doesn’t have Flash”, I remember saying which she just couldn’t grasp.
We’ve all become accustomed to things just working without having to think about it and also to having rich interfaces on the web. We are used to seeing animated menus on DVD’s and are rapidly getting used to seeing interactive menus on Bluray discs. We’re used to animated rich menus on game consoles and its games. So why can’t we have this experience everywhere?
If I switch on my digital TV set-top box at home, it’s far from a rich ‘engaging’ user experience. The interface is dull and dead slow with no connectivity to online information and communities. I always think about what I could do with Flash to have a richer experience Flash only were available on this STB. The same thing goes for the menus in TV’s. How much more could you do if you could ask a Flash designer/developer to make the menu instead of having to write it in some obscure language that offers no richness whatsoever. How much more exciting would it be to control your TV/STB/PVR with a rich connected user interface that immediately gets online reviews, ratings and comments about the TV-shows you are programming?
This is why I think the Open Screen project matters. It’s not just about bringing Flash/AIR to mobile devices, I think it’s about bringing that rich experience that people are used to, everywhere.
When does copyrighting go too far?
My home town Mechelen (Belgium) is having an exhibition about the world expo in Belgium in 1958. One of the only remaining buildings from that year’s world expo is the Atomium, one of the most recognized buildings in Belgium. When tourists visit Belgium, this is on their agenda. Obviously, a lot of pictures are taken in front of the Atomium.
The exhibition in Mechelen was supposed to show these types of photos. Photos of people who had visited Belgium during the world expo. Sounds very innocent, right? Well… Since the Atomium was/is such a prominent building on the world expo site, it’s obvious that this appears in a lot of photos. According to copyright laws, they can’t show the pictures. Well… They can show the pictures but it can’t have the Atomium in it. Every time the image of the Atomium is shown, they (and actually, you too) have to pay a copyright fee, get written approval from the company that manages the building and to top it off, every photo must have the “(c) vzw Atomium” copyright line.
The exhibitor has found a creative way to get around that and is now looking for 100 Photoshoppers to cut out the Atomium from all of the exhibited photos. That just seems wrong to me. I mean, it’s totally cool that they are specifically asking for Photoshoppers (Photoshop being an Adobe product :D) but the reason why seems wrong to me. The Atomium is a public building and a landmark that was (probably) paid for with tax payer’s money but you can’t show pictures from it without paying copyrights to the building owner. So that got me wondering where this copyright-fee goes to? Does it go back to the owners of the building, in this case the tax payers? I think not…
So when does copyrighting go too far? I think this would be an excellent example.
Feel free to follow me on: 
