Shopping sites are starting to replace most popular and bestselling products with most liked.

Well if that isn't the strangest for loop I've ever seen.

Dragging the background in yelp's live map search produces major perspective distortion on multiple axes. Limited case or compositing problem?

Two small tech issues this week morphed into one huge project.

First I was shopping for a new 212 number to port to my phone. I remembered I also needed a network camera for my house now that it's on the market and I'm gone so much. Plus I had some free time and got around to playing with the Twilio API. Bad combination for a slow day at work. 

My current plans call for an iPhone app that will monitor location status in the background and post to a callback when I leave the house, go to a different office, or stop moving entirely. Combined with a network camera that monitors temperature, audio levels, and records motion events, I have all the raw data needed to begin redirecting my calls.

By tracking twitter activity, motion events and basic location, detecting sleep cycles should be fairly straight forward. A maps mashup with location pins for my main work locations and an understanding of Amtrak Regional Rail should be able to break down "in transit" from "in a meeting" (I'm also working on a detection radius for airports so callers can get a special message when I'm in the air and can't be reached). And I can always SMS Twilio from my phone to set a custom status. 

Hopefully by the end of next week anyone who calls me will receive specific information as to why I'm not answering and an estimate of when you'll hear from me. 

The next step is to add RFID tags to my bed so I can autodetect if I've tossed off the covers and tie in the thermostat to adjust the temperature accordingly. 

(This whole project would be a lot easier if Loopt was just an API with constant streaming location data, as is now possible with iOS 4.x, but as far as I know they don't share that data, even with the user him/herself. I think we'll get around to writing the iPhone component sometime next week and maybe start adding in controls for manual updates.)

This is all by way of saying program or be programmed. If you aren't up to date on all the killer APIs out there, start playing. 

Gotta love that typography! So legible!

Why isn't Amazon selling apps? Despite providing the world with a new user interface and a radical step forward in small creen functionality, mobile apps are a mess from top to bottom. Different SDKs require developers to learn and stay on top of new, esoteric languages and APIs with steep learning curves, creating a limited pool of talent for hire. It is not yet clear even which platforms let alone which languages are here to stay. Consumers are faced with a dizzying array of mostly poor quality choices, navigating between which can be a nightmare even on a single platform. Thanks to search, the web has never encountered the same problem in the same way. It is always easy to find what one is looking for, multi-task, or get a link from friends. Products can be compared in multiple browsers or tabs and comparison shopping is a must. Developers write in a single stack of standards-based languages (LAMP+HTML5, CSS3, and Javascript if the Flash blitzkrieg is truly at an end) that evolve with the web. APIs and frameworks are option and can be adopted at will. Most importantly, all of this is true for mobile as well, just few people are using it. Instead of developing for a single platform, investing in a proprietary, limited codebase, many developers are exploring cross platform deployment using web technologies and frameworks like jQTouch. It can be easy to make high quality apps that go direct to customers, run offline, and don't need to be approved by anyone. Several big problems emerge that no developer alone can come close to solving. Discovery. Most users are still looking at the official platform App Stores as the single point of access to adding mobile functionality. It would not occur to most customers to search on Google or try to download a website as an application. Flawed as they are, the App Stores offer destination shopping to millions of registered users. Payment. All those registered users also shared their credit cards when they signed up. That means a painless, often single-click checkout process and the possibility for in-app purchase. Not only have millions of users already entered payment information, but credit card processing is a nightmare that merchants should avoid when possible. Any new solution would require integrated payment processing that took the issue out of developers' hands without requiring new registration from customers. User accounts. In addition to data, all these existing accounts are a great jumping off point for keeping account data synchronized across devices and servers. Think about how much simpler the web would be if all the sites you use had a single login system that didn't require password tracking or different authorization systems. Very few existing companies are in a position to offer a single payment, account-centered, discovery-based, cross-platform app store online today. There are a few basic criteria. First, they need to have an existing financial relationship with the majority of users. That means the company needs to already have your credit card number and experience using it. Secondly they would need significant experience with web merchandising. Google and Apple have both produced shiny stores but neither is designed around the breadth of content apps present (Apple is used to selling music and television shows with album art, a very small market compared to apps). This leaves a small set of contenders. Google clearly isn't the winner. They have a vested interest in their own SDK and platform, an extremely limited financial relationship with consumers (everyone uses Google but few people have handed over their billing info), and at the end of the day they've sold very few Android applications. Paypal has no experience with merchandising, unless you count eBay. They do have a large number of accounts with linked billing data, but are more of a bank than a store. Their brand has not garnered much trust from consumers over the years either. Apple, again, has their own set of goals which do not include cross-platform compatibility. Remember they originally wanted web apps as the de facto standard on iPhone, but after being pushed by developers built an SDK and have been selling proprietary apps that don't offend Disney audiences' sensibilities ever since in tremendous numbers. That leaves Amazon. Amazon has a long history of making virtually every product imaginable available to search, browse, and buy while looking pretty. They also have everyone's credit cards already. They've shown a strong interest in taking on iTunes before with their own direct digital download service for music and videos, and aren't really involved in the mobile device game (Kindle doesn't count--at least for now, we'll talk after it gets a real touch screen). They can provide a service that meets or exceeds the requirements for discoverability, payment, and single auth while opening up development to the hundreds of millions of developers who can write for the web as opposed to the hundreds of thousands who love Java and Objective C. That also means that consumers could buy a new phone, switch carriers or platforms and take all their Amazon apps with them. Huge value added benefit. For what it's worth Amazon has also created a handful of serious apps for mobile themselves and seem to understand what the market it all about. I want to be able to buy all my apps from Amazon, and you should too. Why haven't they yet? A few years ago Amazon got serious about solving the shipping problem. Amazon sells nearly every product imaginable for cheaper than you can get them locally. That combination of convenience and cost is what brought so many of us in as customers. Finally the combination of Prime accounts and direct downloads allowed the to circumvent the problem to a certain degree. Not every home is set up to watch videos downloaded directly on their TV, but once they are Amazon can cut UPS out of the model. No more DVDs in the mail. This was likely the single driving force behind the Kindle. Amazon is not a consumer electronics manufacturer, as made evident by the Kindle's design. They just want an avenue to sell books without shipping books. Because of their direct competition with iTunes and now iBooks, Amazon has a tenuous relationship with Apple. They don't want to do anything that might make the Kindle app get pulled form iPhone and iPad or their other services blocked from the store (Google Voice anyone?). They're in a tough spot of having to protect their existing and emerging markets before investigating radical new opportunities. That being said, there are simpler ways to enter the market. Amazon Payments is a great Paypal-alternative used to accept billing info from users on third party merchant sites using their Amazon logins. Even combining that with data and account portability would let developers sell apps directly on their own sites with many of the advantages described above. Still for a completely integrated solution that could redefine the marketplace, they would need to have an Apps Marketplace as part of Amazon.com. Here's hoping.

Social media gurus and detractors were out in force this week to discuss the recent results of the Old Spice campaign, both claiming the other failed. Unfortunately, no one bothered to establish what success in this instance would look like, making any discussion of the results difficult. Let's find out why. A lot of people were hoping for a clear victory that would validate social media as an advertising and promotional medium for years to come. Agencies have a hard time selling clients on unproven methods and a strong set of data from this campaign would go a long way in future pitch meetings. Procter and Gamble can't have been easy to win over from the start. It is a radical strategy in entirely untested waters. The numbers Depending on who you ask the 52-week numbers for Old Spice are not strong, but were lower before the new campaign. Sales volume is up, but only in direct combination with recession-fueled buy-one get-one-free coupons. Single-variable correlation (change one thing and watch how a system behaves) is the only safe way to test a theory. We don't have that luxury here. If P&G (or W+K for that matter) really wanted to know if the social campaign made a difference to sales, they would not have combined them with other promotions. This time around, it may not be in either of their best interest. Who's winning? Wieden and Kennedy (at least in public). Everyone in the industry loves the campaign; it will win awards and W+K has cemented their role as a leader in social advertising. The agency's long-term relationship with their client may depend on future sales numbers (and can't be helped by the fact that people laud the campaign and trash the product). If W+K made a mistake (and we can't be sure yet if they did) it was mismatching a cutting-edge campaign with the wrong product. Does P&G have a choice? Right now it doesn't even matter if the ads work. P&G is the face of new digital. If they make any public sign of a lack of confidence, it will be front-page news in the industry. At least people are talking about the product. If nothing else Old Spice has gained a tremendous amount of mindshare online in recent weeks. I can't speak for anyone else, the only point of agreement in all the conversations I've heard has been that no one likes the product. For a company known for household products that span generations, maybe the appearance of innovation has value in itself. What about the customers? The Old Spice campaign brought a radical new approach to branding online. The Old Spice product itself however is perceived as neither radical nor new. Lots more people (not clear if they are customers) are checking out the Old Spice and P&G presences online. There is plenty of traffic to YouTube and Twitter accounts and with the help of massive discounts, product is leaving the shelves. What is not so clear is the relationship between those figures and how it will play out long term. Maybe W+K has attracted a whole new set of consumers to a product most of us associate with our grandparents. But there are other possibilities. My personal theory No one argues the campaign is drawing a lot of attention and traffic to Old Spice, P&G, and W+K. Maybe some younger ad-savvy consumers turned on by the campaign are taking advantage of great discounts to try the product. I can't help but think there will be a cultural disconnect when they start using it. As someone said to me on Twitter "[E]ven great ads can't make that crap smell good - eventually the truth will out." The bigger question to me is whether the old customers will stick with a brand that may not reflect their core values. If they wanted in-your-face ads, wouldn't they be buying Axe? What really matters? W+K will get more big-brand clients looking to rebrand for social media. P&G will not be pigeon-holed as an aging company disconnected from a younger generation. Old Spice may or may not have long-term success in the marketplace. The investment paid off big time for w+K and P&G. The gurus and social media haters hoping for instant validation about the value and efficacy of social will have to wait. This fight has a few rounds to go. Where's the data?Industry spectators hoped for a clear turnout immediately. I argue that was never possible for several reasons. W+K and P&G did not have an interest in generating let alone sharing good data. W+K wants to sell more clients on social media. P&G wants to stay ahead of the curve and show investors they can remain relevant despite low sales across the board. This pair of titans combined a new style of campaign with tremendous price reductions to keep product moving no matter what the actual effect of the advertisements. Worst case scenario, they both tried and neither AdWeek or P&G shareholders can perform a detailed postmortem. Success without a single clear cause is still success in the eyes of anyone collecting a dividend. Unfortunately for everyone this strategy makes extracting any useful data from this mess nearly impossible. Now every agency and brand will have to try similar approaches on their own dime to test results. If they all hedge their bets in the same way it may be a long time before we know the cold hard truth about how and if social advertising really works. What's next? Everyone on the blogs will keep discussing sales data as it comes out. The next social (copycat) campaigns for big brands will be scrutinized and compared to the OS data. In another year when the smoke has cleared on the Old Spice sales data, everyone will already have laid down their bets on the future of online advertising. We have imperfect data but no one can afford to wait for more. A new arena has opened in the brand wars and everyone is caught playing catch-up. It's time to innovate, test, and iterate. See you there. Further Reading: BNet AdAge What we do next

Hulu Plus launched recently to a rowdy internet reception. To me, it only served to prove yet again how far separated traditional media is from real digital. Here's what went wrong: Freemium failure. Hulu.com in its original incarnation is a great free ad-supported service. Watch all the shows you want for free with fewer ads than on tv. No wonder it's so popular. Unfortunately, the same thinking didnt apply to Hulu Plus. Only a select few episodes are available in the free gallery. This does not constitute a free trial. This is a tour at best. A free trial lets useers try the service for free. There is no better enticement than letting people experience how their lives would be altered for the better with your service. Look at all those shows I want to watch, and I can view them right now on the mobile device of my choice! Want more, just sign up. Oh wait, you can't. That's right--users can't actually sign up. No matter how excited you are by the 'trial' or enticed by the selection, you have to join a waitlist before you can even consider signing up the for pay service. All native web companies know better than this--if you can't let everyone through the gate at once, either make a private beta, or a full featured free service until the paygate drops and people can sign up. There are still advertisements. Where the heck did this come from? Hulu is now asking users to pay $9.99/month for the privilege of viewing the same shows they could until a month ago with the same ads they are used to. The price is higher than Netflix which has most of the same content but without ads. Here's what should have happened: Hulu's entire back catalogue remains available indefinitely for free (with ads). The big money here is in the exclusive access to this season's shows. Sure you can buy them on iTunes for several dollars per episode, but most people don't. DVDs often are not released until the fall, just before the start of the new seasons. This makes catching up on a show before premiers almost impossible. Hulu traditionally only offers five trailing episodes while they air. This is the largest service gap Hulu Plus fills. There should be no advertisements. Hulu needs to figure out how to make more money from video ads. They're already working on it, and doing better than most in the field. But asking people to pay $9.99 per month on top of ads is absurd. The service should be free for a month to everyone. Take people's credit cards like all other free trial services do and start billing 30 days later. Even better, don't offer a sign up option until the first month is up. Far more users will try and love the service and pay when it's time. Taking their cards first even establishes financial relationships with your users without forcing them to pay. Tried and true methods all. This product and its launch have been wildly mismanaged. But i don't blame the Hulu folks. By any large they seem to be on top of their game and understand the web. However to a large degree their hands are tied by the big boys at the networks. My advice to the corporate goons: let the web kids do their jobs and innovate on their own terms. They know their audience far better than you do and are just as worried about the bottom line. This is a monthtly streaming not a download service, there's no great risk of losing your beloved content rights overnight. At the end of the day we just want to watch our favorite shows on reasonable terms on all our devices without being taken to court. Every time the networks make that harder more people turn to torrents, and that's bad for everyone. Play fair and learn how the web works instead of letting your board and executives run digital startups.

In honor of the Day Against DRM I would like to share a few thoughts I have on restricted software. Check the Electronic Freedom Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, and DefectiveByDesign.org for more. Media conglomerates reacted to fears of piracy by implementing various DRM schemes. Today they affect virtually all music, video, and books sold online. Different types of media are affected very differently by DRM in its various incarnations. Music suffered an early assault from industry control but was eventually liberated by the reality of the CD. Since CDs were conceived without copy protection, and all new CDs had to be backwards-compatible with older players, no new scheme could be implemented. Eventually after pressure from digital marketplaces (Apple and Amazon), most labels dropped copy protection. Studios maintained a stronger degree of control over all forms of video. DVDs and Blu Ray had strong copy-protection schemes built-in from the start, and the combination of file size and bandwidth limitations with the complex nature of video encoding strongly restrict the ability of average individuals to digitize their video collections. This type of lock-in to a specific device or family of devices prevents consumers from switching brands of products. If you have $500 in iTunes licensed movies and television, you are unlikely to switch to Android. Strangely, books are the last medium to enter the fray. Because the printed word was analog by nature (books do not come to you digitally, the pages must be scanned individually), most consumers would not think of digitizing their home collections. The result - that any person buying an iPad, Kindle, or similar e-reader has to create their library from scratch, and for pay. Lock-in applies here as well. Buy a book from Sony, and it is generally illegal to move that book to another device. True, there is a limited form of cross compatibility here. Amazon offers an application version of the Kindle for iPhone and iPad. However, because this application is downloaded through the iTunes App Store it is subject to the unpredictable whim of a dictatorial digital empire that has recently and repeatedly at random and without notice removed entire categories of application from their store that they considered competitive or offensive. Since all forms of media are about ideological expression, the likelihood is high that someone will be offended by every title in some way. It should be noted that in each case, the end user is prevented from using a product he or she already owns on their device of choice. There is no reason I should be less able to carry all my books on an iPad without purchasing them anew than listen to my music on an iPod. Both were originally purchased in a single user form, which is how the consumer wishes to continue to use them. However publishing houses, film and television studios, and music labels continue to renege on end user agreements, centuries of accepted legal precedent and common sense to pad their profit margins. In the case of iTunes, consumers were also allowed to upgrade to DRM-free versions of songs they purchased previously. I have two serious concerns here. First, despite Apple's strong language that they were on the side of the consumer, the upgrade scheme suggests their primary motivation was to add a surcharge of 30% to previously purchased titles. At the very least this type of program highlights the defective nature of all DRM products: consumers have to pay more money after the fact for their purchases to work properly. The situation is further complicated by the ridiculous and convoluted nature of international trade agreements and media licensing. Many media projects are financed through the sale of international distribution rights to a project before it has been created. Unfortunately, this financial model was created before digital distribution as a reality. As such, American consumers could purchase a title created in america but sold in Poland online. Since the Polish market is much smaller, the Polish distribution rights would have been sold for a small cost, savings which in turn could be passed onto crafty consumers. It gets even messier when people and devices start crossing borders physically instead of digitally. If an American purchases content in the US and takes it to the UK for personal consumption, has he or she broken a law? As legislators attempt to resolve these issues in response to industry pressure, their hands are often tied by existing free trade agreements. In frustration, increasingly severe measures are handed down on personal and fair-use cases under the name of piracy. Additionally, many new laws hold individuals guilty until proven innocent in a massive departure from centuries of western jurisprudence and legal precedent. DRM is more than an inconvenience--it is a disaster. It interferes with trade, ruins lives, hinders technological progress, and takes attention away from real issues of digital security. Fight for the rights you paid for, the rights you deserve, and a future free from industry-funded, government enforced digital tyranny before the governments you elected build our cages. As a developer and consumer I urge everyone online to take a stand against DRM by supporting the EFF, FSF and Defective by Design campaign today.

I was fortunate enough to attend the first annual SPIRIT conference at UN Headquarters last week which brought together students and experts from around the world to discuss and refine plans that had already been proposed and reviewed by participants over the past year. Their plans focused on leveraging new technology and social systems to confront pervasive issues in major global conflict zones. In each case, the students presented ways that new social technologies could affect and improve relations both in border regions and internal conflicts that have been entrenched for generations. I was most struck by the potential for further development of the plans on SPIRIT's new digital platform later this year. While the plans presented last week were submitted through major universities and reviewed by experts prior to their arrival, in the future such plans might be evaluated in a more open format online in any number of venues. All of the plans utilized the expanding role of digital in some way, but perhaps the greatest emerging online resource was largely overlooked. The event highlighted the need for outreach by the crowdfunding community to new programs where people in need can most benefit from their services.Despite the fact that many projects were based around online connectivity, all primarily sought institutional or governmental aid for their modest fundraising goals. I have written previously about the manifold benefits of engaging communities through crowdfunding platforms and the long term benefits that projects gain by partially self-funding. We should also work to ensure the tools developed in the larger crowdsourcing movement are made available to more projects through open, interoperable frameworks. Too many new leaders looking for the tools to help them change their communities and end conflicts remain unaware of the options available today. I found the gathering extremely encouraging as for the first time I saw experts across a variety of fields assemble to acknowledge the potential not only of digital, but of contributions younger minds can make to many seemingly intractable situations around the world. Hopefully this year's event will be the first in a new movement that connects revolutionary ideas with institutional expertise to secure a safer, more prosperous future for generations to come. I strongly encourage anyone interested to learn more about SPIRITand find a log of the events on @SpiritPeace2010 to which I was posting throughout the morning.