I used Macs a lot at University and whilst I didn’t completely revile them they certainly weren’t compelling enough to convert me. Price-wise the divide was large and software support was niche at best. Apple has come a long way since then playing an excellent strategic game supporting the progression of the Mac hardware as the ‘every-platform’ through BootCamp and their support ofvirtualization software, Parallels.

For me however the seduction was not one of purely access to a large variety of software – I’d seen the Mac find leading software products in almost every category of software I cared about. For me the issue was the taxing burden that poorly realised user-interfaces on Windows Pcs that wore me down. As time becomes a more precious commodity I found time wasted battling interface which could have been spent doing frustrated me to despair.

A few weeks into owning my new Macbook and I am still amazed at how few battles I’ve had to fight to be productive on it. I am discovering new software to replace my Windows favorites – where it was FeedDemon its now NetNewsWire (I think Newsgator may be able to attribute a portion of sales to the growing numbers of Mac converts); Windows LiveWriter (which I commended the Windows Live team highly on – Mac version please?) is currently surplanted by a trial version of MarsEdit; Firefox has surprisingly been replaced by Safari – I don’t know how long this will last as I am a great fan of the rich set of plugins available for Firefox but for now its probably the lighter information load I am dealing with on the new machine that is making Safari such a pleasure.

On the bang for buck front – I went with the standard MacBook and am glad I did so. For the price of a low to mid-range laptop you get a faster, quieter more pleasant to use machine. For all the tasks I’ve thrown at it I’ve not yet hit anything that has made me need to think about the hardware. And that’s the way it should be.

One final note: having used the Mac’s DVI out for connecting with my telly I think if you have a DVI enabled TV then a MacMini represents incredible value for you.

I used to get frustrated when someone beat me to a post, especially when my post had been delayed due to other committments. I’ve shrugged that off these days as I like being economical and afterall, linking to existing related work is sort of the point of hypertext, right?

One of the blogs I subscribe to, ‘Software As She’s Developed’ by Michael Mahemoff covered and extended upon some thoughts and frustrations I’d been having with ecommerce sites recently (or forever, I guess).

I’d recently decided that I should get over my disappointment with the I-Mate KJam and should get a new phone. Having been burnt before I wanted to research the phone well and feel like I had surveyed what is available. Being in the field I am I surmised that online would be the place to undertake this research. It would be a pinch. A saturday morning would do it, surely.

I have now decided, after days of research, that it is impossible to do thorough shopping research painlessly online. I can only assume that the expense of setting up a good online shopping experience is beyond but the biggest of players. And even the good examples I found are not yet frictionless from frontpage to checkout and are also rarely localised to Australia yet.

This post covers a few technical reasons why many sites are more costly from a time standpoint than they need to be. I’ll try not to restate too much of what is said there as the post already covers it nicely and is worth a read.

Instead i’ll raise some additional rationale for why commerce online is still in its infancy and why many likely abandon it for the bricks and mortar encased sales-people of the real world.

So firstly, lets explore the why of the activity.

Why shop online at all?

If its easier to just go to the shop, compare products side-by-side and to interact with the sales people to clarify facts you are unsure on then why bother with online shopping at all?

Well, I did, in frustration abandon an online purchase for an offline one but I felt a few basic drawbacks from the experience :

• Sales people’s incentives do not always align with yours. A quick way to test this (and I did) – ask them a question about the product you already know the answer to and you will notice the response usually was what they felt you wanted to hear rather than factually correct.
• Its a massive task to compare products within a store as well as across competing stores. It strikes me as being suited to an online activity where data processing is common activity

Shop front clutter
Many sites lose me on the front page. I dig around a bit but generally a front page brimming full of thousand of links and thumbnails doesn’t bode well. Only oddball bric-a-brac types appreciate clutter – and only because they know it means normal people wont have found their precious treasures yet. I don’t want to see all your products and specials and categories on your front page if it obscures the basic information I am after (like, do they even sell phones?). With the phone buying experiment I found it hard to locate a full list of phones sold by a particular telecommunications provider.

Shop fronts on the web are not equivalent to shop fronts in the real world. They are more like what a shopper sees as the enter a real shop – everything! It of course could be much more effective than a real shop because you should be able to search for exactly what items you are after and get straight to them. My supermarket still fails me in this regard because I often find myself scouring the isles trying to reverse-engineer the reasoning behind why they placed the milk next to the pet food and not near the bread.

No feature comparisons
If you are looking for a phone, a tv, a car (and these items seem quite popular among humans) then you usually find yourself in a ‘feature-off’ where feature-laden products vie for your approval. Of course, certain aspects about you will help determine which features are important to your purchase decision (your bank balance/credit, existing items you own like the Blueray enabled PS3 you just bought etc.)

Having a dozen or more tabs open is a terrible way to compare obscure details between each of products. At this point I must give some kudos to shopping engines like the one powering tech.yahoo.com which facilitate easier feature comparisons. Why are their still so few ecommerce sites that support this functionality (and, indeed, when can I see a version of tech.yahoo localised here in Australia)?

Can’t bookmark ready for easy comparison

Hopefully most sites support bookmarkability these days (those that don’t are definitely missing out on sales) however, as cool as modern bookmarking tools such as del.icio.us are, they do not cater specifically for shopping and can’t extract the attributes of the products you’ve shown interest in. I’ve a feeling that before long we will see an extensible product microformat become widely adopted which browsers or shopping spiders could read however for now we must rely on the site to provide this functionality.

I’ve a feeling I could continue this list forever but I am interested in frustrations you’ve had with online commerce. What improvements can online stores make?

In an earlier post I posited that the folks behind Twitter were about building a short-messaging platform that went far beyond the prosaic visage they masquerade behind.

With the recent announcement of Twitter securing venture funding there was much discussion of Twitter being unfettered by a business plan. Apologies to anyone who actually knows this to be true however for now I will remain skeptical that this remotely true. I think it would too difficult to attract the engineering talent required to get something like Twitter off the ground if the sole stated aim was to attract users and see what happened next.

Business plans are over-rated?

The VCs involved quipped about investing in a company without a business plan had worked out previously for them and felt it would again. Andrew Parker believes that companies are busy working on traction because business plans are pointless until you get some. In a similar vein Umair Haque and Paul Kredosky also reinforce this meme and believe that companies might avoid a business plan to make themselves a small target when under the scrutiny of a VC. You can’t criticize what doesn’t exist is the thinking, I guess. This strategy seems a little too transparent to me, to be effective. Actually I think I will nickname this strategy ‘the Aardvark’ (in case it catches on!) – where companies roll up into a ball so VCs can only see the protective plate-armor; their millions of users who are waiting to spend their money as soon as the company thinks of something they can spend it on.

Alright, smart-alec, where’s the evidence that there is more to Twitter?

Twitter’s innocuous ‘What are you doing now?’ query, the broadcasting of which is the key function of the service currently, offers an activity which is novel enough to generate interest in the service but is also disarming enough for people to underestimate their strategy.

Dave Winer who loves thinking publicly about these things believes that Twitter’s democratic approach to its API is part of its strength. 

Twitter’s API is very simple. It covers the entire functionality, leaves nothing out. You could implement the Twitter user interface using the API.

The openness of the Twitter API differs from many other offerings which limit functionality available via API to keep users loyal to the main interface of the respective service.

Often people cite the simplicity of things as being their strength but what I think they mean is the level of abstraction and the constraints applied. A clean abstraction is economical in its language, avoiding permutative options – those can be achieved through combining with other abstractions.

The API has been kept abstract and open because Twitter are betting on people finding applications for a short-message nexus which can find you whilst mobile, working or at home. Designing the API like this may have been a natural tendency of the engineers in charge however when viewed alongside the extensive IM and SMS gateways they are maintaining worldwide there appears to be too much shape for a company supposedly looking purely for traction.