Today Twitter rolled out a massively re-designed homepage. For such an incredibly successful young service, this is a major change. And their design shows where Twitter – and possibly the social web – are headed.
Let’s dive into the details:
1. Twitter’s new focus is on searching and discovering what’s happening right now, anywhere in the world. It’s about DISCOVERY, not publishing or chatting.
2. Search is first and foremost. The search box almost has the same prominence as the signup button. Twitter obviously feels this is the killer feature that will, in the end, drive more adoption.
3. Trending topics are now on the homepage. Twitter knows they’re going to draw people in with relevant, current content, not quotes from the New York times about how nifty Twitter is.
4. Trending topics fall into three categories (minute, day, and week) but this is very downplayed. To the first-time visitor, this is content, plain and simple…while they can pay attention and discover this granularity, it’s not shoved in their face – no need to overwhelm potential new users.
5. The very small text above the signup button says “Join the conversation”. Conversation has been stressed and established – now they gently encourage you to join in.
6. I don’t know if this was a feature before, but Twitter is now surfacing this as a tip: you can do location-based searches. Your discovery can now be local.
I’ll resist further analysis than this for now:
I think this reinforces the thought that the killer new social app isn’t microblogging: it’s discovery, serendipity, and eventually participation. And I’m excited.
I’ve been meaning to write a post for awhile about how outdated and damaging the Neilsen rating system is for television programming. It’s killed many a good show, including the brilliant Joss Whedon show, Firefly.
When Whedon debuted his new show, Dollhouse, I suspected the same might occur. Considering it’s time slot (9pm on Friday) and it’s audience (young-ish, geeky, hip Whedonites) it seemed that it would likely only be watched online…not via one of those “television” things that the mysterious “Neilsen Families” have.
I’ll skip what would be about four paragraphs here and just say: Dollhouse has captured my heart. Like all Whedon shows it snuck up on me. When the inevitable and depressing debate over a second season began, I was not hopeful. Thankfully, Fox apparently wised up somewhat and paid attention to the number of Dollhouse viewers on Hulu (which is where I watched the entirety of the season, save the first episode). The show was renewed, and all of us Whedonites breathed a sigh of relief.
Fox may be still wising up to the fact that online TV programming is going to be the next big thing, as evidenced by The Simpsons making more money per thousand viewers on Hulu than on TV. But they have for some time paid attention to DVD sales, resurrecting Family Guy and even Firefly (in the form of Serenity) based on successful DVD sales.
So the path is clear: those of us who want to see Dollhouse continue and grow into the brilliant series it is promising to become need to buy the Dollhouse: Season One DVD. Consider it an investment – by buying this DVD you get at least one more season of Whedon-brilliance, with fewer commercials and available anytime you want via Hulu.
Let’s prove to them that we don’t need a TV to watch, love, and save a good show.
I understand that TechCrunch needs to stir the pot to get readers. I won’t even address the fact that they chose to publish this abomination. But I will take a swing at the writer.
I think it’s clear why the author is anonymous – because he doesn’t want to be laughed out of his CEO role.
He’s proposing that Google is “unfair” and “mysterious” in what it puts on it’s Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs).
Newsflash: Google can be as unfair as it wants
…as long as it doesn’t break any of the agreements it’s made in it’s legal agreements.
The author, from up on his high horse, compares this to a Country or a City:
Suppose the paradigm is the streets of Los Angeles. Let’s imagine that in order to enter the city you had to pass through a single gate. And once you entered that gate, the streets you were or were not allowed to go down — and thus the businesses you were or were not allowed to visit — could be randomly blocked from your access.
Sigh. Google is NOT A COUNTRY
They’re not a city. They’re not a government. They are a business.
Let’s look at a REAL example, shall we? Let’s compare Google to a supermarket. My local supermarket blocks off aisles all the time. Maybe it’s restocking, maybe it’s got a spill. I don’t necessarily get to know, and I certainly don’t get to say “THIS IS UNFAIR. I DEMAND ALL PATHS THROUGH YOUR STORE BE OPENED TO MYSELF.”
The second factor is that the search engine can, at any time, determine that either company A or company B may or may not buy traffic within its index.
Oh really? Let’s go back to the supermarket, shall we? Should we prevent them from ditching your company’s brand of cornflakes because they think they’re not selling well? Or because they don’t like how you do business? Do they even have to tell you why? No. That’s courtesy – not law. To suggest that a business can’t decide who it does business with is just obnoxiously short-sighted.
Yes, he may have some points about arbitrariness of paid search account administration. I have heard stories of accounts being unceremoniously shut down without explanation, and that’s something of concern that is completely separate from this concept of private companies having to reveal how they do business and change to be “more fair”.
Let’s keep in mind that I’m a liberal, here. I’m all for more restrictions on giant financial institutions – in fact, I think we should prevent them from ever getting so giant that they “can’t fail”. But that’s because those institutions affect, as we’ve seen so clearly, the stability of our country. Google ain’t that.
Lastly, to say that “search engine optimization is more voodoo than science” is just asinine.
Do you also think that airplanes are magic? Just because you haven’t taken the time to learn from the best and keep yourself educated doesn’t mean something is voodoo.
There are plenty of intelligent folks out there devoting their days to understanding search engine optimization. None of them will tell you it’s easy. But none of them will tell you it’s voodoo – it’s a science that involves a lot of knowledge, research and hard work. Don’t diminish their work just because you don’t have the patience to do it yourself.
Microsoft announced their new Xbox controller, Project Natal, at E3 earlier this month. I was incredibly impressed to read about this…and I don’t say that about Microsoft projects often. It’s deliciously ambitious: get rid of the controller, and eliminate the step in between the game and the gamer. It’s a move designed to not only catch up to Nintendo, but surpass them by miles. It’s bold, and I like it.
I have a few concerns for Microsoft, however. The first is simply the same challenge that the Wii faces – how many developers are going to want to go to the effort to create games that really take advantage of this technology? Sure, a few will be inspired and create some amazing games, but will the rest largely ignore it or feature it as an afterthought during special sections of their games?
There’s also the issue of laziness – I’m all for America becoming more active and love moving around while playing Wii Sports, but I also use my gaming system for relaxation. I don’t want to move around after a long day of work, I want to sit on the couch with a beer and press buttons. The Wii allows both, generally – will Natal?
The biggest issue, in my opinion, is simply that Microsoft has miscalculated what “could-be gamers” will engage with.
Mario Kart Wii shipped with a wheel that has no electronic functions. It is simply a piece of plastic to put your Wii controller in. Why? Because it’s more compelling to grip a wheel while you’re driving something. Isn’t it going to be weird to pretend to hold a car wheel with Natal?
Nintendo understands that what intimidates “could-be gamers” is not holding something, but rather pressing buttons and moving joysticks. Yes, movement is more natural. But movement without anything to hold onto seems like it could backfire.
The problem comes in that there will probably never be a full, real motion controller. Natal is a hugely impressive innovation, but it’s not full movement. To move forward I’m not going to run towards my TV…I’ll probably walk in place, or maybe use my hand to do this somehow. The illusion is broken.
Until Natal is actually full movement, there is going to be a disconnect for older generations. Watching even a tech-savvy 40-year-old use a computer, it’s clear to me that they don’t fully follow the spatial dynamics of a computer. I, meanwhile, alt-tab my way back and fourth throughout my computer like it’s a physical object. Even more impressive, my little brother skips through Xbox screens that I find confusing at light speed.
The Wii didn’t aim to change this…folks who didn’t grow up with 3d interfaces still take some time to adjust. What the Wii did was to (potentially – not all games have done this) simplify the control scheme so these adults can concentrate on grasping the spatial dynamics – not on what combo of buttons to press.
I don’t mean to rip on Natal. I’m extremely excited to try it and I give Microsoft significant kudos for truly innovating, instead of just playing catch-up (*cough*sony*cough*). I’m simply unconvinced that this will inspire the “could-be gamers” the same way the Wii did. And I can’t wait to see how this plays out.
Video goes with piracy almost as much as music does. For both mediums, a new phrase may need to be coined: “piracy is the sincerest form of flattery”.
I’m not joking, not really. While this is only speaking from my personal experience and conversations with others, I suspect that most piracy is not for profit. People grab their favorite clips and post them online because they think that they are hilarious and need to be shared with the world.
In the last few years the struggle between studios and privacy has been one of threats, inaction, and bitching.
This year we’ve seen a dramatic turn from the bitter fighting over video rights online to an embrace of the open nature of the web. It’s truly amazing, and not something I expected to see happen so fast. Let’s look at two examples.
Hulu
Hulu is a project that I (and many others) harbored intense skepticism towards during it’s development. The whole concept of the television studios ganging up to create a rival to YouTube seemed childish, and we all expected them to do a horrible job.
Whatever the intentions, the people who actually built Hulu did an amazing job, and my personal TV watches has almost entirely moved to Hulu. I’ve heard many others raving about it, including the usually skeptical Michael Arrington.
Why do jaded Web 2.0 users like Hulu? They’ve done a few things right, and a few more great.
Giving The People What They Want Hulu could have gone the cowardly way and only offered up lame, old shows that nobody was interested in. Netflix faced this issue with their “Play Now” option…studios only OK’d stuff that was unlikely to get rented anyway (although their selection continues to improve, and I love watching SeaQuest on Netflix).
Instead, Hulu has provided some of the top shows on television: The Office, The Daily Show, House, The Colbert Report, The Simpsons, 30 Rock, Saturday Night LIfe, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and Family Guy (a YouTube favorite, which currently has 88,100 probably illegal results).
Don’t Be Stingy When you hold all the power, it’s tempting to stingily hand out goods at the slowest rate possible. Hulu managed to resist this, and their shows often show up the next morning. It’s hard to beat the experience of waking up on a Wednesday morning and watching The Daily Show from the night before while still in bed.
Hulu does sometimes set experation dates on their shows, but they make this very clear. I think the average consumer understands that if they want constant access to a whole season they should buy a DVD.
Monetization Is Changing
In a move that is in some ways more innovative than any monetization work YouTube has done, Hulu has started offering the option to watch a full-length trailer or ad (like the Tropic Thunder trailer seen in this image) in exchange for not showing any other ads during the episode. I assume (and hope) that they’re tracking this and adjusting their advertising appropriately.
Innovation One of the most innovative features to come out of online video in the last few months didn’t come from YouTube or any of the newer “Web 2.0” video sites…it came from Hulu.
Being able to select any part of an episode and send/share it as a clip is probably the most obvious and brilliant answer to the multitude of Simpsons clips on YouTube. And Hulu does it very, very well, making sure to suggest that you might want to watch the rest of the episode after your clip is over.
Monty Python on YouTube
Along with Family Guy clips and embarassing teen confessionals, Monty Python is a common search on YouTube. With over thirty thousand results on YouTube, it’s safe to say that this is money lost for Monty Python, who aren’t exactly actively promoting their old (and brilliant) material.
But, in a move humerously described by John Cleese as “deeply disappointing”, the comedy troupe has started a YouTube channel and is offering high resolution versions of their videos for free. This is a brilliant move for several reasons.
If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em
In their introductory video (embedded below), Monty Python jokes that “for three years, you YouTubers have been ripping us off, putting tens of thousands of our videos up on YouTube.” It’s funny, but it’s also true, and probably a bit irritating for them. Yet instead of throwing a tantrum, the Pythons made the smart move to work with the existing trends and technology instead of uslessly flailing against them. In admitting this, they give YouTubers some credit and foster a sense of belonging instead of reluctant surrender.
Transparency In Advertising
A lot of advertising I see online feels like an apology. “Sorry, I had to slip this in to be able to keep doing this for a living”. Worse, they are often purposefully ignored. “Ads? What ads? Oh, how did those slip into my blog?”
Monty Python simply asks their raving fans to do them a favor and click their ads. Simple as that. During a the “Ministry of Silly Walks” video I clicked a Bombay Sapphire ad. Would I have done that on a normal video? No. But I did it for Monty Python, and actually discovered a cool recepie widget on the Bombay Sapphire site.
Listen To The Wisdom of the Crowd
Again, instead of taking the stingy path and only putting up the less funny Monty Python skits (if there truly are any), our British friends took a look at the most popular Monty Python videos on YouTube and worked to get those up as the first hi-rez videos on their new channel. They listened, and will likely be rewarded by a number of views.
Is The War Over?
Nah, of course not. Many TV studious (notably ABC) have not gotten involved in Hulu, and many companies still work to try to sue people who are “stealing” their videos instead of working to satisfy these people. Still, it’s impressive to see the progress made this year and encouraging to think that even large companies can wise up and come up with something as smart as Hulu. Next up, the music industry?