His comments on the difference between Twitter and Facebook are particularly interesting:
"Previously, developers took data out of Twitter and into the context of their own applications and services. The new design flips this on its head, bringing rich embedded content into the site from a host of brand-name web properties. (It’s worth noting that Facebook has done much the opposite: they started out with a very centralized build-it-within-our-walls model, then gradually grew their tendrils out into the web with Facebook Connect.)"
I'm curious how this relates to his later observation that "walled gardens" are doomed to fail. In both instances, the walls are being chipped away, but in the former, the content is being brought in, while in the latter, content is being let out.
You'll note that Apple is already preempting this argument. Reader exists to offer clarity to the reading experience, removing "annoying ads and other visual distractions." iAds, on the other hand, is promoted as adding to a seamless user experience. Apple is bending over backwards to show that iAds are different -- not "annoying" like what we're used to, but something immersive and interesting.
Of course, much of this is marketing. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. An insightful article, overall.
Perhaps they'll eventually have iAds for the web and this is step one in their evil genius plan.
This also adds another dimension to the browser wars. Microsoft, Google and Apple all have browsers, all have ad platforms. Any of them could make their browser block out annoying Flash(y) ads and replace them with JPGs, smaller format ads, nothing or their own ads.
The browser with the best browsing experience wins, not the browser who follows standards religiously. Chrome is an excellent example, they're adding very important features that are getting them market share because standards alone are not sufficient for promoting the web as a platform.
Reformatting websites is not a new idea, but a new money dimension could make things interesting.
There has been an uncharacteristic quiet at the New York Times about yesterday's iPhone announcement. Usually, there is at least a more prominent article in the Technology section (Their current blurb is the lackluster "On Newest iPhone, Another Camera"). I wonder if "Reader" has anything to do with it.
Keywurl[1] and Safari 140[2] are both extensions that I want to recreate with the new framework. Mostly for learning, don't want to step on anyone's toes.
Although the article is purely speculative, it is interesting to note that the iPad's "Videos.app" could easily be replaced by the Apple TV's touchscreen-friendly interface.
Also: "So, one more sidetrack: If video is moved off of iTunes, the App Store is a marketplace for apps, and our books are bought in iBooks, could this mean that iTunes could return, gracefully, to serve its original purpose? Could iTunes just be for music? I just blew my mind."
This - Gizmodo wasn't banned, they just weren't given press credentials. They could have bought a ticket just like everyone else (well, at least be fore it was sold out) if they wanted to make sure they could have someone there.
Why do you have an issue with saying banned? It's not like they were forgotton, or passed over due to space constraints, they were specifically not allowed to attend even after thy requested a pass because of the iPhone leak.
Except it's not true that they were "specifically not allowed to attend." In fact, they were specifically not given the special privileges offered to other journalists.
"Previously, developers took data out of Twitter and into the context of their own applications and services. The new design flips this on its head, bringing rich embedded content into the site from a host of brand-name web properties. (It’s worth noting that Facebook has done much the opposite: they started out with a very centralized build-it-within-our-walls model, then gradually grew their tendrils out into the web with Facebook Connect.)"
I'm curious how this relates to his later observation that "walled gardens" are doomed to fail. In both instances, the walls are being chipped away, but in the former, the content is being brought in, while in the latter, content is being let out.