Ajax Girl

Earlier this week, California’s Supreme Court reaffirmed the state’s position on noncompete clauses: they’re almost never valid, except for in a few specific circumstances. While this has been the state’s policy since 1872, the law recently came into question in the case of Edwards II v. Arthur Andersen LLP, in which the accounting firm tried to uphold a noncompete contract Edwards signed in 1997.

The point in question was a “narrow restraint exception”, which effectively punished employees for joining a competitor, but didn’t prohibit them for doing so. If the ruling had gone the other way, companies would be allowed to restrict employees’ pensions and stock value in retaliation for their departure. The Court’s ruling has stricken this exception, affirming that any such punishment is illegal.

However, this ruling has no bearing on confidentiality agreements - companies are still allowed to defend their intellectual property and trade secrets. But this is much harder to enforce, as evidence is usually always indirect and there’s rarely a smoking gun. The ruling also has no impact on another one of the law’s exceptions, which allows for non-compete agreements during the sale of shares in a company. For example, Google could lawfully require the owner of a company it acquired to sign a noncompete agreement as a means to protect its investment.

For Californians, nothing will change. But what about other states with growing tech communities, like Massachusetts and Washington, where noncompete agreements are allowed? Many people have blamed the relatively small growth of the tech sector in these states on their noncompete clauses, because they prevent the “best and brightest” from forming or joining their own companies at will, and some blogs have suggested that this ruling might change things.

Daniel McCoy, an attorney at Fenwick and West who specializes in employment litigation, says that the ruling is too subtle to have any impact on the law’s standing in other states. Because there has been no real change, no precedent has been set that didn’t already exist, and there’s little for activists to rally around.

Silicon Valley is the world’s technology hotbed, bringing both talent and revenues to California. If the potential economic gains to be seen in states like Massachusetts and Washington aren’t enough of an incentive to drive them to change their policy, we can’t expect this ruling to change anything.

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Source: TechCrunch
Original Article: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/9UCjzXhbDQg/

Twitter isn’t for everyone, and you may have dismissed the service a long time ago. But regardless of your own use, it’s hard to dismiss the phenomenon itself and the passion of so many that has built up around it.

No matter how long the outage du jour, Twitter users continue to stay attached to the service despite an ever-changing backdrop of alternatives.

Blogging isn’t for everyone either. But unlike blogging, Twitter enjoys a far a greater variety of users — they include people, many people, who would never think of starting a blog and people who would never touch an RSS reader. The 140 character limit is a plus for Twitter, but it isn’t all.

What explains the Twitter phenomenon then? What produces the positive feeling and the strong attachment among those who tweet? And moreover: How can other systems learn from this?

The answer lies in understanding Audience.
Twitter has a simple premise: You tweet & the message is pushed to your friends. The actual mechanics are slightly different (messages go to everyone who follows you, whether they’re your “friends” or not, assuming your stream is public) — but from a user’s perspective, the circle of receivers consists only of the people they know. Everyone else is part of a faceless crowd that’s hidden behind the follower count.

This simple premise holds the key to Twitter’s success: messages go to a well-defined audience. In the moment you release a tweet, you know who’s on the line and you have an idea of who can catch a glimpse of your message. @replies are the best illustration for this sense of audience: Even though Twitter is not a point-to-point message delivery system (let alone a reliable one), @replies are sent with the understanding that they will be read by the intended people because they are known to be in the audience. (Imagine a newspaper article that suddenly greeted a specific reader.)

Blogging on the other hand has no such clearly defined audience. An aspiring blogger who hasn’t crossed the chasm speaks into the void. Direct feedback can only come in the form of written comments (a relatively high barrier of effort) and it’s diminished by spam and vocal trolls these days.

FeedBurner’s subscriber count only provides the equivalent of Twitter’s opaque follower count and MyBlogLog didn’t solve this problem either.

So it’s not surprising that the majority of blogs are abandoned — the most-cited reason being “No one was reading it.” No one might be following your Twitter stream either, but Twitter is designed for network effects to take hold and given the natural reciprocity among groups of friends, it’s likely that most people have at least a handful of followers they know.

Back to Twitter: Why Audience works
Twitter works and enjoys such strong attachment because it provides real-time access to a well-defined audience. The backlog of all previous tweets is a guarantee of permanence (you can even search it) and you can catch up on it anytime. As a result, people use Twitter because they have an idea of who will see their lightweight messages and this sense of audience is reinforced by @replies, re-tweets and references in future conversations (online and offline).

Designing for the sense of Audience is a powerful tool to create cohesion and a sense of utility among users of a service. This lesson from Twitter can apply to many other services too. But before leaving the current discussion, it’s helpful to look at a service that has missed the full power of Audience so far.

Facebook: Designed for Audience? Not so much.
Facebook isn’t about Audience? That’s ridiculous, you’ll say — so let me clarify. I fully agree that social network profiles are all about self-expression and being seen, but a platform for self-expression isn’t necessarily designed for the audience that does “the seeing.”

Profile Pages on Facebook can have audiences of course, but this requires that users continually roam Facebook to look for news in their network. Facebook realized this limitation and introduced the News Feed. Its intent was to move a user’s “acts and performances” from the stage of the profile page to a single and central stage, a single place for Audience.

Sharing with the News Feed: Did it ever reach my friends?
Facebook was the first major social network to introduce the News Feed concept, which has since become a standard sauce for stickiness in many places (although not StudiVZ surprisingly). But Facebook’s implementation of the News Feed doesn’t capture the full power of designing for Audience: While Twitter distributes every message consistently, Facebook decides algorithmically which update is shown to whom. Algorithmic filtering is nice in theory, but such black-box behavior is simply unpredictable for the user.

“When I post new things, will my friends actually see them?”, one might wonder. And conversely: “Have my friends posted something that I’m not seeing? The news feed is cluttered right now with people I don’t care about.” Anything that’s unpredictable produces a feeling of uncertainty — and that’s never a comfortable feeling.

Even with Facebook’s recent attempts to introduce smarter filters, users only have relative means to customize their feed (more of this, less of that). Furthermore, there is mostly just one kind of feedback that users can give on the News Feed: comments. Imagine a concert, in which you could only leave written notes as you left — no clapping, no booing.

Because users don’t really know who’s listening on Facebook and who isn’t, the platform hasn’t been embraced as a place to publish proactively. Publishing events or photos is mostly push-driven (and generates an email — “you are invited to an event” or “tagged in a photo”). But for everything else you share, do you know if it ever reached your friends?

Who capitalized on this gap? FriendFeed.
It’s the same setup as Twitter, but with more content: You know who’s listening and you choose the people you listen to. A useful premise but it also has a catch: the word “more”. Too much content, too many people — which is exactly the problem that Facebook is trying to address with its algorithmic feed. But what’s a solution then? It’s not the “middle ground” and it has nothing to do with smarter filters.

The answer is feedback loops. But that opens up another discussion. If you’d like to read more, I have a separate post on my website, in which I elaborate on how to design for Audience.

Gregor Hochmuth is the founder of zoo-m.com Interactive, where he created Mento, LaterLoop and other services. He currently lives in Berlin, Germany, where he worked as an analyst for Hasso Plattner Ventures and has written about German startups on TechCrunch.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Source: TechCrunch
Original Article: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/siL48DCsF8s/

If you’ve bothered to look at the ads on Facebook lately (don’t worry, nobody else looks at them either), you might have noticed little thumbs-up and thumbs-down icons at the bottom of each ad. If you click on one of these, a box pops up asking why you liked or didn’t like the ad. This presumably will help Facebook target ads at you more effectively in the future.

The ad-rating feature was quietly rolled at least two months ago. But it seems a bit redundant. After all, ads already come with a natural, built-in rating system. If an ad resonates with me, then I will click on it. If it doesn’t, I won’t.

But ads on social networks in general perform so poorly that perhaps Facebook is hoping to get some feedback from the 90-percent-plus of members who never click on a particular ad. In effect, Facebook is throwing up its arms and asking consumers diercty: why do our ads suck so much?

You’d think that Facebook members would have better things to do with their time than instruct Facebook on how to d a better job targeting ads. But then again, we are talking about Facebook.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Source: TechCrunch
Original Article: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/wO4Mkj85ypc/

But fighting the web is like holding back the ocean; it will route around you or it will wear you down, but will never go away, and it will never tire or give up. Yet in spite of the futility of fighting the web, Silverlight is being positioned in opposition to the web, not in support of it

This is one of a few great quotes from DeWitt Clinton’s post On Fighting the Web itself. DeWitt is a colleague at Google, one that I have shared offices with, and great conversations. He has very strong ethics, but at the same time is very practical. But, back to his writing.

This is not a post saying “the Open Web rules and the proprietary Web is evil”. If you actually read this carefully you see a very interesting argument that covers:

We can’t be blind:

The short answer is that the technology behind Silverlight, and most certainly the company creating it, has the potential of changing how the web itself works.

The Web has strengths, but man it is tough to work with:

If you’re a web developer then you’ve felt the acute pain involved in writing applications inside the browser. Even armed with the most state-of-the-art toolkits, such as jQuery, Dojo, etc., you’re still limited to the available runtime of HTML, CSS, and JS, and worse, the absolute morass of cross-browser incompatibilities and restricted access to native client-side capabilities. I remain in awe of what people have accomplished in this environment, but I’m sad that this is all we’ve been able to accomplish so far.

Man, if the client is involved… evolution is slooooow:

The web revs slowly. Very, very slowly. In 10 years we’ve seen virtually no meaningful advances in the the ubiquitous web client; just a painful slog forward as web developers learn to eek out just a little more functionality in a constrained environment. Progress is slow because revving the ubiquitous client requires the coordination of multiple parties, not all of whom have shown consistent interest in working together to move the web forward.

There is some hope for an Open Web-style speedup:

More recently we’ve seen some earnest attempts at breaking that cycle. Rather than wait for the entire web to catch up, projects like Gears seek to rev the client from the inside out. It may take several years for standards like HTML5 to be widely deployed, but if developers can gain a toehold inside the client and start forcing the issue immediately then we’ll quickly see what works and what doesn’t, and be that much more informed about what to standardize and adopt as part of the long-term web platform.

The proprietary folks have a huge advantage, as they can just innovate and run without getting consensus:

But there’s another approach, an approach best exemplified today by the Flash runtime, whereby one doesn’t seek to improve the web from the inside, but rather replace it entirely. Sure, technologies like Flash take advantage of the web via http-based delivery mechanisms and in that they run inside the browser, and yes, they can use network connections like anything else, but these alternate runtimes fundamentally divorce themselves from the web ecosystem, and in doing so gain a significant advantage, but at a cost.

In spite of circumventing the web — no, because they circumvent the web — these new runtimes have the potential of offering a far better developer experience, and hence, a far better user experience, then the least-common-denominator of the standard widely-deployed ubiquitous browser runtimes of today.

And, thus, the proprietary stuff can be very good indeed:

Which leads us to Silverlight: Silverlight is positioned to take the fork-and-forget approach to the web pioneered by Flash and bring to it an unprecedented wealth of technology and corporate might. With a better underlying runtime and VM, better tool support, far superior multi-language capabilities, and more marketing muscle, Silverlight has all the potential to make rapid and noticeable inroads over the next several months, cleaving a large section clean out of the web.

And the scary thing? That this isn’t entirely a bad idea. The browser itself is anemic, the dependency on a single language is a handicap, the security models simultaneously constricting and flawed, the development environments underpowered, and frankly, the whole ecosystem is deserving of a major disruption. We’ve lived too long thinking that what we have today is good enough.

And will get better, fast:

Granted, these technologies won’t be perfect at first. On the contrary, they might be slow, cumbersome to deploy, buggy, and feature deprived. But right now that doesn’t matter. The strategy is all about getting a wedge in place, a bit of leverage that can be used to further pry open a vector for escaping the existing ecosystem. And over time, as the technology improves and adoption grows, so will the size of that tear in the fabric of the web.

But, there is a reason why the Web does so well:

But fighting the web is like holding back the ocean; it will route around you or it will wear you down, but will never go away, and it will never tire or give up. Yet in spite of the futility of fighting the web, Silverlight is being positioned in opposition to the web, not in support of it.

Why in opposition to the web? This stems from the principle that the web is axiomatically defined as an open system, where the underlying technologies are resistant to the centralization of control, where the protocols and formats are extensible and malleable, and where the power to effect change is shared and distributed. The DNA of the web is one of ceding control, and of learning to work with, rather than against, the collective wisdom and power a larger community.

Whereas a development monoculture, a centralization of control, and a tight grasp on the ability to change and adapt, all stand against these basic ideals, and give rise to the forces that, given enough time, will erode and eat away at any temporary advantage gained.

A violation of these principles does not necessarily make for a bad technology, but it does make it something other than the web.

And finally, and this is so key, the answer isn’t to try to destroy the innovation in Flash, Silverlight, and others. Instead, the biggest win will be for us to make technology from those worlds into the Web itself. If we can do that, I think it will be a win-win, and we will have a much better Web to show for it:

But the call to action here is not to go and try to fight the disruptive technology. On the contrary, the ideas are sound and the improvements are very much needed. No, the call is to discover ways in which these ideas can become a part of the web, rather than working to tear it apart.

I do not want to see ambitious attempts like these fail. Just the opposite — I want to see them succeed. But success on the web requires a different kind of DNA, the type of DNA that is difficult to adopt when one’s attention is focused on fighting the web itself.

Source: Ajaxian » Front Page
Original Article: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ajaxian/~3/360871993/on-fighting-the-web-the-invitation