Alex Payne has a great criticism of both Web and desktop email application in his post The Problem With Email Clients which accurately captures some of the frustrations I've had with both classes of email clients. The entire post is a must read if you've ever thought about how email can be improved. Some key passages from his post are 

Anyone who’s given Gmail a fair shake will quickly find conversations indispensable. Going back to any other email client is agonizing and disorienting, like being knocked around and dumped out of the back of a pickup on the outskirts of a strange town. In desktop email clients, new messages arrive completely bereft of context. The only way to orient yourself is to either remember what the conversation was about or read through the mess of quoted text that may or may not be present at the bottom of the message, depending on what kind of email client or prefences the sender has. You could try searching to re-orient yourself, but good luck with that in Outlook or Mail.app.

With conversations, Google has offered the only advancement in the information architecture of email clients in decades. Apple, on the other hand, has given us basically bupkiss, rendering Neven’s defense a bit silly.
…
This is probably heresy coming from a web application developer, but I think web applications are mostly ghastly. I hate using them. When I’m faced with a computing problem, I want to solve it with a polished, stable, native application for my operating system that looks and feels like it belongs on my computer. I don’t believe in Rich Internet Applications — they’re a boogeyman that I keep hoping will disappear.

The problem with Gmail is that it could be a “real” application. While its conversations and search-that-actually-works are (sadly) innovative, they’re not impossible to implement as part of a platform-native email client. I enjoy using Gmail, but I’d enjoy it even more if it obeyed the rules of my operating system, not the rules of the web. The web has a lot to offer certain types of problems, but I’m not convinced that email is one of them.
…
The problem with desktop email clients is that they’re not webmail. The problem with webmail is that it’s not a desktop email client.

I think Alex is on to something here. I prefer to read read my Hotmail account in Outlook via the Microsoft Outlook Connector because I'd rather read my email in a desktop app than in a Web app trying to look like a desktop app. On the other hand, I read my RSS feeds in RSS Bandit even though Outlook is an extremely popular RSS reader because I'm dissatisfied with how Outlook presents messages and feel an app I wrote myself does it more effectively.

Clearly there is room for a revolution here.

Now Playing: R.E.M. - Everybody Hurts

Facebook made two interesting announcements this week in the area of making their platform more open. The first announcement was made by Mike Shroepfer in the developer blog post Next Steps in Openness where he writes

Enabling social information to flow through the Web is one of the core goals of Facebook. In the two months since Facebook Connect became generally available, over 4,000 sites and desktop applications have gone live with the service. Users can now log into sites across the Web using their Facebook account, bring their identity and friends with them, and share information and experiences using the same features as they would with applications on Facebook.

As we've launched and built Facebook Connect, we've been participants in OpenID efforts. One of our user experience experts, Julie Zhuo, presented at the UX Summit in October. Several of our engineers have been participating in meetups, and one of them ran as a community member for a board seat. We're happy to announce today that we are formalizing our support of the OpenID Foundation by officially joining the board.

At first glance it seems contradictory for Facebook to join the OpenID foundation given that many people view Facebook Connect to be a competitor to OpenID as a single sign-on solution albeit a centralized one. The confusion from pundits around this announcement from Facebook is summarized in the Ars Technica article Facebook's "next steps in openness" raises questions which openly questions why the company needs to join the OpenID foundation when Facebook Connect seems to be enjoying broader deployment across the Web.

The reason seems quite straightforward to me. Right now, Facebook has created a situation where web sites that want to enable their users log-in with credentials from third party sites need to implement two solutions; an OpenID consumer and Facebook Connect. This places a burden on web sites which now either have to chose to adopt one solution over the other or create a user experience problem by offering users both options. It's bad enough that there is now a market for companies who wrap both solutions in a single package like JanRain and Clickpass. I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook has been getting an earful from some of their larger Facebook Connect partners about being a competing offering to OpenID.

That said, I doubt that a generic solution like OpenID will ever beat the ease of use and value added functionality that Facebook has created with Facebook Connect. By supporting OpenID, Facebook gets to silence the sites who simply want single sign-on solution that is built on standards so they can implement one solution to get access to users of Facebook, Google, Yahoo!, Windows Live, MySpace, and AOL's services among others. However anyone who wants the richer integration that comes with integrating with the Facebook mini-feed and live feed will still need to adopt the proprietary Facebook Connect.

The second interesting announcement about Facebook opening up comes from Chris Putnam in the post titled Opening Up Facebook Status, Notes, Links, and Video to Facebook Platform which is excerpted below

We've seen increasing engagement with over 15 million users updating their status each day and sharing over 24 million links per month. We wanted to make sure this content and the ability to share this content was available through our standard APIs.

Specifically, your applications can now directly access all of a user's status, links, and notes via new methods and FQL calls. Your application will have access to any status, notes, or links from the active user or their friends that are currently visible to the active user. In addition, we're opening new APIs for you to post links, create notes, or upload videos for the current user, and we've made setting a user's status easier.

We're pretty excited to see what kinds of ideas you can come up with to help users create and share more content.

Like Facebook Connect, this is a further step away from the walled garden approach that characterized the Facebook platform of 2007. In 2007, the goal of Facebook's platform efforts was to tell websites to re-implement themselves as Facebook apps (e.g. iLike website vs. iLike Facebook app). With Facebook Connect and the changes to their APIs announced above, Facebook is now acknowledging that their users use other websites and integration with those sites doesn't require these sites to become sharecroppers on the digital farmland that is the Facebook canvas page.

Twitter has shown the value of having open APIs for link sharing and status updates which isn't lost on Facebook given their failed attempt to acquire Twitter. Sharing status updates is a powerful way for humans to connect in social contexts and given Facebook's goal to be the world's social operating system we can expect them to make more moves in this space. It's particularly interesting to see how people use status updates as a way to communicate and share experiences during news events such as President Obama's inauguration. Facebook saw this first hand with their integration of Facebook's status updates with the CNN website where Randi Zuckerburg wrote

Over 2 million status updates were posted through the CNN.com Live Facebook feed with 4,000 status updates per minute on average and a huge spike of 8,500 updates when President Obama began his speech. We're thrilled that you and so many others chose to actively participate as history was being made—by sharing the experience with the people that matter most to you.

Similar surges were seen on Twitter as evidenced by the chart below. The thing that is interesting to note is that while status updates increased during the most exciting part of the inauguration other forms of Web traffic declined at the same time.

Similar traffic drop on Last.FM seen on the right

Google saw a similar drop as well

Was it because everybody went to Twitter?

Charts taken from the post Understanding Web Operations Culture - the Graph & Data Obsession on the O'Reilly Rader blog.

UPDATE: I've been playing around with the APIs announced and it looks like there actually isn't an API to get your friends' status updates included in the announcement. The status.get method only returns the status updates posted by the currently user. The closest I could get was trying the query below via fql.query but it never returned results

SELECT uid, message FROM status WHERE uid IN (SELECT uid2 FROM friend WHERE uid1=$userid)

So much for the claims that this is a Twitter killer.

Now Playing: Eminem, Dr. Dre & 50 Cent - Crack a Bottle

This morning I was reading Om Malik's post entitled Google & The Big Ideas where he writes

Earlier today, when I read about Google launching a mobile version of Tasks. I was amazed by the attention being focused on essentially a to-do list website. And while it wasn’t worth a story, I shared my feelings via I sent Twitter. My tweet read:

I think google has no big ideas. this morning they announced a to-do-list. FGS. [For God Sake] Remember the Milk MUCH better.

...
Matt’s comments and the responses both on this blog and FriendFeed resulted in some thoughts about what constitutes a big idea, where Google is right and where it is light. Instead of responding on FriendFeed, I decided to share my thoughts with you, hoping that we can have a larger conversation about Google and the big ideas.

For me startups and products such as Skype, Flickr and YouTube represent big ideas. Why? Because they not only redefine our notions about certain technologies, but they also change our behavior and cause massive disruption. For instance, Skype redefined our relationship with our phone and in the process put disrupting the telecom industry. Flickr made a largely way web into a dynamic, thriving social community. Today even our friends at Wall Street Journal have comments, and the New York Times is hoping to use LinkedIn to foster a community. YouTube made us rethink television, by making it dead simple not only to consume video but also to broadcast video.

Similarly, Google’s Search changed how we consumed information. Instead of going to destinations, we now consume information by just finding it. What made this “big idea” even more disruptive — Google’s use of data analytics to offer highly focused advertising messages to marry search queries. (Of course, Google wasn’t the one to think of this big idea, but that’s a whole another story.)

The problem with "Big Ideas" is that sometimes people get obsessed with how game changing or disruptive their product is instead of focusing on making it the best at what it does.

I remember a few years ago when every other article out of the technology press was about how innovative every product Google created was. For a while, this created a scramble amongst various Web companies to show that they could be just as innovative as Google. Yahoo! tried to do this by buying innovation in the form of every hot startup they could get their hands on (Flickr, del.icio.us, Jumpcut, Webjay, Konfabulator, Upcoming, etc) which only led to spreading itself too thin as eloquently captured in Brad Garlinghouse's Peanut Butter Manifesto memo.

On the other hand, there are lots of products that have been unoriginal ideas now seen as game changing because of how these ideas have been executed. One example is the iPod + iTunes which started of as yet another MP3 player with a proprietary music player but has grown to be a cultural force and the number one retailer of music in the United States. When Facebook launched it plowed ground that had already been covered by MySpace, Orkut and Friendster yet today it is the number one social networking site in the world. In both cases, these have been very focused products that have been careful to grow their feature set in a limited way but have done an excellent job in providing a very user-centric experience. This isn't to say that there aren't any innovations in Facebook or in iTunes+iPod but instead that they are examples of products that have been game changing not by being a "big idea" but instead by being full of lots of good ideas.

Being original or innovative is nice but even better is building a product that your customers love. Never forget that.

Now Playing: Justin Timberlake - What Goes Around.../...Comes Around Interlude

From the Live Search team blog post entitled Live Search autosuggestions come to Firefox we learn

We're happy to report that we've officially integrated Live Search into Firefox by popular demand.
...
The Live Search add-on for Firefox is available to install at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10434. It's based on the Open Search standard and uses the JSON interface supported by Firefox to retrieve autosuggestions.

I'm glad to see this finally get out there since I was one of the popular demanders at work. If you're a Firefox user who's also a fan of Live Search then this is a must have extension. It's definitely improved my browsing experience when I've had to use Firefox.

By the way, it's an interesting insight into the different user bases to compare the suggested searches from Google with those from Live Search for a particular phrase.

Now Playing: Kelly Clarkson - My Life Would Suck Without You

From the blog post on the Office Live team blog entitled Looking ahead and bringing you even more we learn

Today, I wanted to share with you some exciting news about Office Live: To simplify and improve the customer experience around our Live services, we’ve made the decision to converge Windows Live and Office Live into an integrated set of services at one single destination. We think that just makes a ton of sense and goes a long way toward giving you a simpler, richer, better service that allows you to do more with one account.

Every day, more and more people are signing up for Office Live Workspace and Office Live Small Business (4 million of you so far!), as well as Windows Live (460 million to date!).

Secondly there’s the MSDN forum post entitled Working Together: Live Mesh and Windows Live by the Live Mesh team which informs us that

For some time now, many of you have expressed interest in seeing some sort of combination of Live Mesh and other Microsoft services. In order to further explore these ideas we would like to ask you to share with us the scenario(s) that you have in mind. 

What combination(s) are you interested in, and why? Whatever your interests, whatever problem you’re trying to solve or scenario you want to enable, we’d like to hear the details – and the more specific you can be, the better.

We know you have ideas – this is the place to share them!

Thank you,

The Live Mesh Team

I love it when things come together this way. There's been a lot of choice in Web-based storage solutions offered by Microsoft and some would argue that it's been too much choice. It will be good to how the cross pollination of ideas ends up working out between these various products over the coming months and years.

If you are interested in developer or end user scenarios around Web-based storage I recommend chiming in on the MSDN forum post linked above. It's your chance to give your feedback to Microsoft and help influence the direction of the most innovative technology product of the past year. 

Now Playing: Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good