What is the Point of the Stock Market?

Posted in Uncategorized by Protopop on October 8, 2011

I think The stock market in its current incarnation is having a negative impact on society. I”m not an economic expert, so this is based on my common sense  experience as a 39 year old reasonably intelligent person. And please, if you know better feel free to educate me , without any insulting lip.


From what I understand the IPO is the equivalent of selling your soul for a price. Companies only make money when they first sell their stock. After that it’s investors who benefit, not the company. And I’ve seen many stories about investor profit becoming the main goal of any company after that. Why would you let people who have nothing to do with your company basically dictate it’s direction?

Real Money

Furthermore, it’s not real Money. The wealth of the stock is a valuation that is not concrete. It isn’t earned by working for it. Your money grows while you sleep. And according to the economics of opportunity cost,  that wealth is coming from somewhere. Wealth comes from someone’s hard work somewhere whether it’s from you or not.

Active Investors

What the stock market needs is more active engaged investors who truly care about the company they are supporting, who don’t expect huge returns out of line with the average,  and are educated about their investments. I can’t believe an investor with a portfolio of thousands can truly be knowledgeable about the day to day workings of every company in their portfolio.

So, aside from generating profits for disengaged investors and giving them a huge say in the company, what is the point of stocks? Of course for some people that may be reason enough.


Tide Commercial exploits Gender Norms

Posted in Uncategorized by Protopop on August 2, 2011

It’s clever, and it had the potential to deliver a much more positive message. But in the end this commercial for Tide detergent dissapoints with its exploitation of gender norms for comedy.

It’s these subtle messages that shape our society into something damaging to anyone who falls even slightly outside the status quo. In this commercial, the little girl is obviously at peace with her decision to play with blocks ‘like a boy’ instead of wear pink as per her mothers wishes. The fact that the young girl is exhibiting stereotypically masculine instead of feminine behavior is the crux of the joke.

It’s 2011. Isn’t it time we let people live their lives the way they do naturally without making fun at their expense? Why not show the mother much more positive about her daughter’s behavior? Oh, because then it wouldn’t be funny? If that’s the truth, sit back and think about what that means.

Procter & Gamble, the makers of Tide, is a Fortune 500 American multinational corporation. This is the message they throw their considerable weight behind? If this is the message Tide detergent wants to put out into the world, so be it. In the meantime, I’ll be spending my hard earned money on products from ecologically friendly, progressive and open minded companies.

The 185,000$ domain name game

Posted in Uncategorized by Protopop on June 18, 2011

Brand owners will soon be able to part with 185,000$ to create their own top level domains in a move that no one asked for.

As we wait for the rush of .coke, .bmw and the ‘rolls-off-the-keyboard’ .glaxosimthkline web addresses to come off the presses, we’d be well served by taking a closer look at what this accomplishes.

Until now, people and businesses had to be satisfied with plain old .com, the less sexy .orgs and .nets, or a related country code like Canada’s good old .ca.

Apparently, Big Brands that do not purchase their domain names as suffix do so at their peril. Why exactly? Are there millions of cyber squatters waiting to pay the 185,000$ pleasure of buying .apple? I don’t think web surfers are chomping at the bit to go there when works just fine.

Also, the companies that do apply are among the most “active, aggressive and articulate members of our society”.

Fear and flattery will get you everywhere.

Google News on the iPad

Posted in iPad, Uncategorized, UX Design by Protopop on July 16, 2010

In June Google launched a redesigned Google News U.S. edition, a design that immediately  came under fire for its busy layout and 1 column design. Users are forced to sign in if they want to customize the page for a more usable experience.   And while the new experience on the desktop has disappointed , the Google News redesign has become an inefficient multi-step process  on the iPad.

The Original Google News on the iPad

Google News originally has a two column page spanning layout that worked well for many years. Headlines were easy to scan bold type. Columns were fluid and adapted to your browser page width. The page was highly readable without having to sign in. I can still access this old layout by visiting the Canadian version of Google news.

On the iPad, reading this layout is a 1 step process

Step 1 – The Original Layout (via Google News Canada)

Screenshot of Google News Canada on the Apple iPad

Screenshot of Google News Canada on the Apple iPad

The original layout is ready to read from the get go. The 2 column layout is very readable and fluid. Bold headlines are consistent down the page and easily read. News items are grouped into sections as in traditional newspapers. The option to customize the page is subtle and non intrusive. Since the focus of the page is news stories, and not the power of customization, this enhances the usability of the page. As soon as I arrive on this page I’m ready to browse it. As usual, Google has done an excellent job and provided a clean, much needed service.

The Google News Redesign on the iPad

The Google News redesign on the iPad forces me to undergo extra steps every time I reach the page before it is ready for scanning. Google has also backtracked somewhat by reintroducing the option for a 2 column layout. However, since the immovable right column  remains, what we really have is a cramped three column layout (with one non-fluid right column and wasted whitespace on the left) that I can’t imagine will satisfy many people.

Step 1 – Close the Personalization box (1 click)

Google News US edition on the Apple iPad

Step 1 - visit Google News US

If you clear your cookies or have cookies disabled in Safari on the iPad, the rather large personalization box will appear each time you visit Google News.  With the wasted space , intrusive personalization and weather boxes, I am still a few steps away from settling in to scan the page. Please note that I’m using the terminology “click’ here to refer to the ‘touch’ action on touchscreens that is the analogous to mouse clicks action on desktops.

Step 2 – Close the Weather Widget options (3 Clicks)

Google News US - closing the Weather Widget

Google News US - closing the Weather Widget

Much better. Questionable design elements like non-bold headlines outside the top stories, lack of subject grouping and wasted whitespace remain. But thanks to an update today, we can now get rid of the weather widget on the right. Incidentally, the weather widget determines your location and delivers temperatures in Fahrenheit. If you are reading the page in most countries other than the United States, you will still see the temperature in Fahrenheit even though you use the metric system, Celsius. If the box is smart enough to figure out my location, it should return the results in units that hold relevance to me. That said, to close the weather widget

  1. click on the ‘edit’ link on top of the weather box to open the options
  2. deselect ‘show weather for this location’ in the options
  3. click on ‘save changes’ button to close the options

Step 3 – Enable Sections (1 Click)

Google News US without Personalization or Weather Boxes

Google News US without Personalization or Weather Boxes

Now we have a news page that has no personalization or weather boxes. However there is no grouping of news items by subject. Essentially the page is one big smorgasbord of stories. Why does this matter? Compare the original Page grouping with the current ones

Original Google News Groupings

  • Top Stories (analogous to a newspaper front page)
  • World
  • US
  • Business
  • Sci/Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Sports
  • Health

These are based on near universal groupings of some of the largest human disciplines. It has worked well for newspapers for over a century. And while I don’t think that the physical pulp and paper aspect of newspapers will be around much longer, I do think that many of the journalistic and organizing principles that newspapers have fine tuned and honed over the years are very valuable, and have value in the Google News format as a way to organize stories by subject matter.

Current Google News Groupings (iPad Default)

  • Top Stories
  • Recent
  • Local
  • Spotlight
  • Most Popular

For me, the difference between these grouping is far less powerful that the original ones. There is more difference between, say, SciTech and Business than there is between ‘Top Stories’ and ‘Recent’. In fact, if I were trying to simplify things, I’d argue that the differences between ‘Top Stories’ and ‘Recent’, as well as’ Spotlight’ and ‘Most Popular’ are negligible in comparison and quite arbitrary. It’s as if Google News is giving us a page full of arbitrary stories so that we’ll be encouraged to sign in just so we can maintain a personalized experience that has some semblance of organization, something we were originally getting for many years without signing in.

Armed with the ‘why’ of ‘why we need to enable sections’, we can now do it by clicking on the ‘sections’ button in the ‘News for you’ area. Unfortunately this will only organize the stories below by topic, the immutable right column remains organized by the vague topics above.

5 Clicks Later

So what does 5 clicks get you on the iPad? Let’s compare the original and new layout (with our clicks applied)

Google News Comparison - Old vs New Layout

Google News Comparison - Old vs New Layout

In my opinion, the original provides a better news browsing experience on the iPad.

  • I need to go through 5 clicks upon visiting Google News US  every time I clear my cookies or have cookies disabled on the iPad in order to get something that resembles the usability of the original Google News
  • I need to go through 1 click if cookies are enabled and i have preciously closed the personalization and weather boxes. 1 Additional click every time i visit Google News US adds up
  • The resulting layout still does not serve me as intuitively as the original

The 2 Column Option Returns

When I read this morning that Google had relented and provided a 2 column option I breathed a sigh of relief.  However, the implementation is near useless on the iPad. Since the immutable right column remains, what we essential get is a very cramped 4 column layout. A better option is for the 2 column to really mean 2 column, not 2 with  side columns. For some reason Google is very adamant about the presence of their new right fixed width, random story column. Until they become flexible on this point we won’t have the true 2 column usability of the original.

2 Column option on Google News actually creates a cramped 4 column layout

2 Column option on Google News actually creates a cramped 4 column layout

Cookies and New Pages

It’s worth mentioning one more time that all of these personalizations are useless if you are not signed in and clear your cookies and/or have cookies disabled. Upon revisiting Google News US you’ll be presented with the default layout again, including the lack of sections, intrusive personalization box and weather box. Opening a new page in Safari will also reset the ‘Sections’ to the default ungrouped layout upon returning to the Google News page.


Google is great. It’s not a stretch for me to say this. Google News. Search. Gmail. Google Earth. Google has provided us with so many terrific services for free. But now we seem to be getting to a point where signing in is becoming an increasing necessity in order to get usable services. This is completely within Google’s rights as a for profit company, but it’s not what i signed up for, and is not what attracted me to Google in the first place.

I am perfectly happy to sign in when it’s necessary – I sign into Gmail, Twitter and Facebook all the time and am glad to do it. But those services REQUIRE personalization (ie sign in) in order to function because my emails and tweets are my own. Reading news should not require personalization.  It even brings with it sizable and problematic philosophical issues about reading only what we want to read and limiting our exposure to new ideas.

The hobbled usability of Google News is in my opinion a painfully transparent attempt to force personalization and sign in where the need did not exist in the first place. I hope Google will learn from this just as I learn from them, and implement a solution that will leave users impressed and gasping for more. Most of us are or have been Google fans at one point or another. Let’s hope they are able to continue the tradition of simple, usable and useful services.

Tagged with:

iPad, Flash and the Mobile Web

Posted in Flash, iPad by Protopop on January 28, 2010

The lack of Flash support on the iPad is a serious blow to the identity of Flash.

I became a Flash designer because of 2 things – its unrestrained creative freedom to deliver almost anything i could think of making, and its cross platform and deep penetration across the internet.  Now I could create beautiful things and share them with the world.  Well, that world has become increasingly mobile in mind and market share. And it’s a world from which Flash is being largely excluded.

First, kudos.  I love Flash, I do.  And if you didn’t love it too it wouldn’t inflame such passion and give rise to so many blog posts.  Flash isn’t under attack because of it’s a poor product. On the contrary, it’s like an athlete at the Olympics going for gold.  Flash is so great at so many things that we just want it to be even better – perfect perhaps.  But Flash has been denied perfection because of 2 fatal flaws in its DNA.

First, it’s proprietary technology, and this is an ugly truth that I try to forget every time I use it.  It’s owned and operated by ‘Big Design’ (you know who you are) and although their intentions and efforts are noble, it still remains a closed platform and cannot achieve the adoption rates and democratic zeitgeist of open source standards like HTML.

Second is performance which, backroom deals aside, has been a large deterrent to its adoption on mobile devices.  Yes, apparently Flash and Flash lite players are available on millions of mobile devices.  Well I’ve been developing flash apps for years and honestly I wouldn’t know it.  Flash has a history of poor performance on Macs so I can understand why the Mac faithful haven’t been rushing to defend a platform that’s forsaken their interests for a long time. Performance anxiety is not only the result of the Flash player itself either, which is a beautiful and compact piece of software engineering (if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be having this discussion).  Flash developers are an industrious creative lot who love nothing more than to create something they said couldn’t be created.  As such you have a huge ecosystem of flash media on the web pushing the boundaries of even new PC performance.  How could this ever be restrained to the emerging mobile ecosystem that thrives on prudent power consumption?

Enter the iPad.

The wild success of the iPhone and iPod Touch had Flash developers scurrying into Apple App development, and with good reason.

Beyond the ability to browse in the bathroom (you do it too), they offered a relatively open ecosystem and a ‘for-dummies’ ecommerce infrastructure that let small developers make more than a few dollars while expressing themselves creatively.

Now the iPad offers people a sexy new way to experience the internet, and at 499 and up, it’s going to sell millions. Apple’s share of the mobile market space is already huge and the iPad will just see this share grow.  And guess what? Flash will not be invited to the party.  So it’s decided to crash it in the form of Flash CS5’s admittedly nifty Mac App export tool.

The problem with Adobe’s answer to Flash on the iPhone is this: By restricting it (not by their choice) to the app store ecosystem they are erasing many things that make Flash Flash, the most important being delivery by web browser, perhaps THE defining quality of Flash, erased like it never existed.  No longer the clever way to circumvent Big Media and deliver content straight to The People without big budgets, it becomes a ‘me too’ entry into Apple’s App Store ecosystem. It becomes subject to the developer fees and approval process of the App Store queue, which, while hardly exorbitant or stifling, represents quite a change in pipeline for developers accustomed to few restraints on creative freedom.

It also positions Flash as an application development platform rather than a web browsing experience.  This is a well deserved position since Adobe has made great strides to develop Actionscript 3 as a robust and powerful language in its own right.  Just be aware it comes with it’s own identity crisis for Flash.  Is it the best way to reach millions via the web, in which case it should be available on the exponentially growing mobile market, or is it an application development tool, in which case we should see performance boosts equal to other app development frameworks like c++ and Cocoa.

Hello Standards

So then, what’s the sexy new way to circumvent authority?

Well it turns out that it’s something that wasn’t so sexy in the first place.  Standards, in the form of HTML 5, CSS and a renaissance in Javascripting that sees it compared to early versions of  actionscript.  Because standards are open source and accessible to all, they are used by literally everyone. Compare the number of people who have created a web page or read one to the number of people who have created a App or used one and the difference becomes apparent.  Like politicians swayed by populist chants, big companies like Apple, Google and (even though they seem to resist it tooth and nail) Microsoft embrace and adopt standards like HTML or face the consequences. Imagine a web browser that didn’t run javascript.  Now THAT would be a deal breaker.

Standards become the new-meets-old way to again reach the masses, unrestrained by corporate interests or approval. Look at Google’s latest version of Google Voice.  When Apple said NO! to the App Store version, Google went ahead and created a web browser version that sidesteps the App Store and proves to be almost just as functional.  What’s Apple going to do? Restrict people from visiting certain web pages that break their terms of service or compete with their app store infrastructure?  Web developers are finding out that their javascript transitions and database signups work just as seamlessly on the iPhone as on the PC. Standards are getting a lot of love.

So we’re left with the big quandary.  Flash does so many things right.  It’s increasingly open source. Performance has increased. 3D in flash is really coming on strong. All’s right on the left side of the brain.  But on the other side, the concept of Flash as a technology that can reach anyone anywhere (in other words, via the web browser) is eroding.  And the thing about standards is that they are great when it comes to accessibility, but unless you’re a creative genius they just aren’t up to snuff (yet) when it comes to delivering the rich media (ugg…) experience that proprietary plugins like Flash and Unity can deliver. I waited YEARS for 3d to come to browser via software based Flash and hardware accelerated Unity 3D.  Now I’m told i can’t have it if i want unfettered reach to the mobile market, and I have to run back to standards.

Where do we go from here?

Here’s what I’m going to do for the time being.  I’m going to continue to use Flash with the queasy, back-of-my-mind understanding that it’s a proprietary technology with performance issues, and both will need to be addressed eventually with the mobile market.  I’m going to adopt HTML 5/CSS/Javascript everywhere possible whenever it can replace flash. This means cookies/databases instead of shared objects.  jQuery instead of Flash transitions.  Open video instead of swf players. I’m going to enjoy the power of plugins like Unity and Flash as a way to deliver a powerful creative experience while hoping against hope that they too will become so essential that companies like Apple will be forced to adopt them in the browser.  All the while knowing that if people want platforms like the iPad to adopt Flash without question there is only one surefire way to do it.

Turn it into an open standard.  I mean an open standard like HTML, not corporate initiatives with the word OPEN attached to them.  Actionscript that everyone can contribute to.  Free players for all.  Open source the entire thing and make money Adobe by selling the best IDE’s to harness the power of a newly open sourced phenomenon.

Let’s face it.  There’s an opening for an open source, non-proprietary, performance savvy method of delivering rich media experiences on the mobile and non-mobile web.  Who ever fills it is going to have the future in their hands.

Flash vs Unity 3D

Posted in Flash, Unity 3D by Protopop on December 27, 2008

*ive moved the official post to my games blog:

Please link to the post above. Thanks!

After reading John Grden’s post about  Unity 3D and this post on the subject, I thought I’d add my opinion. Let me say that i am a longtime flash developer coming from an artist’s background. I love Flash and am attracted to Unity 3D, and think there is plenty of room for both. That said:

The Current Situation

Flash is a well-tested technology with a lot of goodwill behind it. Decisions to limit the capabilities of the Flash player to ensure ubiquity have been good ones, but now the imagination of it’s users is outpacing the power of the flash player. Flash’s primary draw has been it’s effectiveness as a creation tool and delivery method for a variety of media (games, music, videos, animation, apps), but while the delivery method is still pitch perfect, the creation tools are lacking.

Why Flash is King

Flash works.

Slower on mac and haphazardly on Linux perhaps but it works.  As for Unity, I have installed the Unity 3D web plug in twice.  The first time i checked out a unity example with it, it threw up a black screen that required a restart of my computer to get out of.  I gave it another test today with another Unity example and had the same results. My computer specs are not an issue for the point i am trying to make – flash works even on my old system, Unity didn’t.


Flash and Unity 3D are like PCs and Televisions.

Televisions do one thing very well. They turn on instantly. They don’t crash. They are easy to use. But the trade off is that they are not very flexible. My television cannot create rich internet applications if I decide to try that.

PCs Personal Computers do many things with less reliability than a television turning on and off. They crash. They frustrate. They don’t work and then suddenly they do. They take an age to turn on and off. But unlike the specialized television they can literally do millions of things. Run air traffic control centers. Surf the internet. Play music. Explore Mars.

Flash is like the PC in this analogy. It doesn’t harness the most power or create 3d as well as Unity, but it has consistently offered people who are willing to try a surprisingly unlimited range of opportunities. Unity specializes in games and does it really well. Flash is less specialized but does more – games, motion graphics, video, music, animations, apps, banners and more

Why Unity Rocks

Sex Appeal

Read John Grden’s post and you will notice something – he is excited. The kind of  “I’m staying up all night because wow the power of this is so cool” excitement that keeps flash developers working past their bedtime and without encouragement from the outside.  Unity offers the kind of sexy interface and promise of power that made flash a phenomenon in the first place. I’m excited about it and it essentially crashed my computer twice.

Web 3D

Everyone has wanted this since 1999. Powerful, simple, accessible 3D for the web. Is anyone surprised that an app like Unity is making such a splash by delivering the holy Grail?


Flash doesnt deliver enough graphic power for many situations, and people looking to create powerful applications that can be distributed online are reluctantly looking elsewhere. When Flash superstars like Bit 101 start blogging about the ABC’s of iPhone development with the zeal of a kid in a candyshop, code and tutorials included, the trend is clear. There are new ways to deliver your creations to the masses and this will quickly eat into flash’s userbase. Especially since i don’t see full-powered Actionscript 3 flash apps being available on any devices besides the desktop and laptop anytime soon.

The Masses

If Unity 3D didn’t have a web player, we would not be having this conversation. Unity would be just another game creation app, albeit a very attractive one. It is Unity’s developing ability to deliver 3D on the web that will directly compete with Flash.

How Flash can Compete

The following suggestions are for Adobe to consider:

Open your vision of Flash

No excuses about how Flash is meant for this or that and Unity is meant for something else.

Flash is not the ‘industry-leading-authoring-platform-for-delivering-engaging-interactive-experiences-and-deploying- accessible-and-content-rich-internet-applications-on-the-world-wide- web-and-breathe-whew! ‘. Flash is the best way of getting your imagination out on the web for all to see.  And it has done a terrific job of doing that no matter what kind of imagination you might have.

Acknowledge the Competition

Unity 3d with its web plug in offers exactly the same thing – imagination online. Adobe -get moving! Everyone knows you are the monopoly and we all know what happens to monopolies in terms of innovation – it falters. You have got to surprise us by giving the fans what they want, and for the better part of the last decade, that dream has been hardware acceleration and web 3d.  Learn from them and acknowledge they are offering something out of the box (powerful gorgeous 3d web) you aren’t. No it won’t be easy – but do it or someone else will

Leverage the Power of the Flash Player

Reading a few posts on Adobe’s new C/C++ to Flash solution Alchemy and the open source meta compiler Haxe has surprised me:

1. Flash player IS capable of native OS-like speeds

2. Flash player is capable of delivering all kinds of code bases

Who knew?

I love the flash player – i can play it windowed, full screen, in a  web page – my choice. There’s no reason Adobe or anyone cant create a new IDE that leverages more powerful 3d tools and compile this down to something the flash player can play.  Keep the player – expand the technology that can use it. After all it’s everywhere, its well known, its cute and it works. Adobe has already done this with Flash CS series and Flex. Yes they both use actionscript, but they are two separate apps that compile to the same player. People are willing to use whatever tool they need to to get the job done.

The Buyout Option

Quite frankly, it looks like the Unity team is doing just fine on their own. I’m not sure Adobe buying them would have such a positive effect. Yes it would stifle Adobe’s competition in this area, but it would potentially shake up Unity’s corporate culture in negative ways. Unity has a cool, young app here, so cool we have people buying Macs just to use it. And I know there are a bunch of flash developers just waiting to pounce once a PC version arrives. Yes, they are doing something right so let them flourish. Instead of buying them out, innovate.

The Bottom Line

New technologies that allow content creators to deliver more graphically intensive and powerful games and apps across the internet are emerging.

The Unity Web Player will overcome any instabilities and its content creation tools will go cross platform, attracting hundreds of thousands of developers aching for powerful web 3d in an instant.The Apple appstore reaches millions of customers and the iphone and iPod touch themselves outperform the graphic capabilities of flash on the desktop. The Flash player has excellent reach, easy of use and cross platform capabilities. What it lacks now is raw power and an expanded vision to compete with these new technologies.

The good news  that while i see Unity 3D and Apple apps only continue to expand their marketshare and user base (which is a good thing), the same will be true with Flash if it addresses these concerns.