...more recent posts
FaceBook releases the HipHop PHP to C++ cross compiler as open source
HipHop for PHP isn't technically a compiler itself. Rather it is a source code transformer. HipHop programmatically transforms your PHP source code into highly optimized C++ and then uses g++ to compile it. HipHop executes the source code in a semantically equivalent manner and sacrifices some rarely used features — such as eval() — in exchange for improved performance. HipHop includes a code transformer, a reimplementation of PHP's runtime system, and a rewrite of many common PHP Extensions to take advantage of these performance optimizations.Wow. At first I thought this was just another opcode cache like APC or eAccelerator but it looks like this is much more. It will be very interesting to see real world numbers on speed improvements, but if FaceBook is happy with the results that is a pretty strong endorsement.
Couple quick thoughts on the iPad:
It's pretty much what I expected. I thought there might be a camera (front facing, for video chat,) but I'm not so surprised there isn't. I didn't expect there to be a keyboard, so I'm a little surprised at that external option.
The price is a little lower than I expected. Apple is clearly gunning to dominate this space in a way they never tried with personal computers.
People are complaining that it's just a big iPhone, but I think John Gruber has it right that the truth is the other way around: the iPhone is a small iPad. This is the product Apple has been trying to make for many years, but it wasn't possible until now. A few years ago they took a lot of the ideas from the then still incubating tablet and made what they could at the time: the iPhone. But this is what they wanted to make, and they just had to wait for the reality of what is possible to catch up with their ideas.
As I predicted, lots of people seem to be enraged by this device (and all the hype around it). They point out, with some accuracy, that there isn't anything new here. Or worse, that there is even less here than lots of other devices that have been on the market for far longer. But this misses the point. The iPod was arguably worse (certainly had less features) than the Creative Jukebox when the iPod debuted. And there was this same sort of "Apple is doomed" talk at the time. How'd that work out for Creative?
The Apple branded CPU ("Apple A4") is interesting for how little Apple will say about it. This isn't to keep things secret, but just because this isn't a product for people who care about the hardware details. But for people who do care, like me, it looks like it's basically an ARM Cortex A9 that Apple tweaked and mated with a GPU (again, pretty much what we thought.) I'm hoping more details come up, but I doubt they'll be from Apple.
And finally, yes, I still think it will be a winner. But remember, it's not the tablet (I think iPad is a bad name, but I absolutely don't think it will matter) that is key. It's the whole hardware / software ecosystem they are building. Nobody else is even thinking on this scale. And that's why it's interesting.
I guess there is some interest in the question of openness. Clearly this isn't an open device. That's the point, Apple wants to completely control the experience because they think they know better than "most people". And while I don't personally like that aspect of it (for instance, I don't think I'll be buying one) that doesn't really have much to do with anything. When it comes to computers most people are not like me. But still, in the abstract, there's nothing ethically wrong with closed computing systems. Nobody complains that they can't load their own software onto a remote control; or that they can't reprogram their refrigerators. If Apple was somehow pushing to make general purpose computers illegal - then there would be a problem. But they're not, and they won't be. Personal computers will continue to exist, with a variety of open and closed architectures and operating systems. The iPad is something different. If someone doesn't like the closed nature, then they shouldn't buy it. But I think a ton of people are going to.
What will the entry level price for the iPad be by Christmas? $399 seems like a not too extravagant guess. $349 maybe? $299 possibly? Probably that's too low too soon, but you get the idea. Can anyone catch up? Does anyone else control the whole stack (from CPU through the OS and all applications? Does anyone else have the volume (iPad + iPod + iPhone - all sharing a ton of components) to drive prices down? I don't think so.
Derek Powazek lays out his hopes for the Jesus Tablet Apple tablet. Basically similar to what I'm thinking, except I don't sell media so I'm not really "hoping" in the same way he is. But I think what he outlines is going to happen. We'll know (some) tomorrow.
YouTube launches a beta of a Flash-less HTML5 version of their site which uses the new HTML5 <video> tag and h.264 encoded videos. They bill it as working in "Chrome, Safari, and ChromeFrame on Internet Explorer" where "ChromeFrame" is Google's Internet Explorer plugin that basically swaps out the IE rendering engine for Apple's open source WebKit (which also powers Google's desktop - Chrome - and mobile - Android - browsers). From the Chromium blog:
Recent JavaScript performance improvements and the emergence of HTML5 have enabled web applications to do things that could previously only be done by desktop software. One challenge developers face in using these new technologies is that they are not yet supported by Internet Explorer. Developers can't afford to ignore IE — most people use some version of IE — so they end up spending lots of time implementing work-arounds or limiting the functionality of their apps.
With Google Chrome Frame, developers can now take advantage of the latest open web technologies, even in Internet Explorer. From a faster Javascript engine, to support for current web technologies like HTML5's offline capabilities and <canvas>, to modern CSS/Layout handling, Google Chrome Frame enables these features within IE with no additional coding or testing for different browser versions.
To start using Google Chrome Frame, all developers need to do is to add a single tag:
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1">
When Google Chrome Frame detects this tag it switches automatically to using Google Chrome's speedy WebKit-based rendering engine. It's that easy. For users, installing Google Chrome Frame will allow them to seamlessly enjoy modern web apps at blazing speeds, through the familiar interface of the version of IE that they are currently using.
It's still going to take a while (several years at least) but the end is drawing inexorably closer for both Flash and Internet Explorer. IE just doesn't work correctly and Microsoft seems unable to fix it, and Flash is too resource hungry for low powered mobile devices (plus it gives Adobe way too much leverage in a future where they just are not needed by Google and Apple.)
Amazon announces an SDK for the Kindle:
Amazon, displaying a sense of urgency, perhaps driven by the pending launch of Apple’s tablet style computer is turning its Kindle device into a platform. The Seattle-based company today announced that it will allow software developers to “build and upload active content” and distribute it through the “Kindle Store later this year.” Amazon will be giving out a Kindle Development Kit that will give “developers access to programming interfaces, tools and documentation to build active content for Kindle.” The company will launch a limited beta effort next month.The Kindle is going nowhere with the current screen technology (which is just okay for reading, but clearly no good for anything "active", or even anything with color for that matter.) But they could evolve the device's hardware (and design) in future generations, and certainly Amazon has a lot of experience creating a good ecommerce experience. So I think they could be an important player, but they've got a lot of work to do on their device first.
And also on the Kindle front, Amazon announced earlier this week that they are sweetening the split on ebooks with publishers, now offering to take only 30% in some situations (i.e., 30%, but with a bunch of strings attached.) This matches Apple's across the board split with developers in it's App Store (and the rumored split Apple is offering content publishers for it's new Tablet.)
Amazon: "Hey, over here! Don't forget about me!"
NYmag says that the NYTimes is set to start charging for it's online content in the next few weeks. Supporting some of my speculation is this bit: "Apple's tablet computer is rumored to launch on January 27, and sources speculate that Sulzberger will strike a content partnership for the new device, which could dovetail with the paid strategy."
Wow. From the Google blog: A new approach to China
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.
First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.
Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists....
The annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES) is wrapping up after a week or so of excitement* (*YMMV). This is the main event for all the major electronics manufacturers to show new products. The result this year was a flood of Tablet and E-Book readers. Although there has never been a hit product in this space - with the possible exception of Amazon's Kindle (for which Amazon refuses to release any sales numbers) - a lot of people are betting 2010 is the year.
But do we really need small devices that are too big to put in a pocket, and lack keyboards? Steve Jobs famously (and unattributedly) wondered what they could possibly be good for other than surfing the web from the bathroom. I was long a skeptic as well, thinking there just wasn't any room between a good smartphone and a small notebook. But now I've changed my mind. I think most of what was shown at CES in this category will fail, but I think something in this space will succeed. By "this space" I mean a lightweight portable device with a 7 to 10 inch diagonal screen and no keyboard.
And unless you've been living under a rock you've probably heard the speculation that Apple has an entry ready to be shown at the end of January. Has Apple found a use outside the bathroom? I think so. We'll see in just over 2 weeks.
Just throwing out more pieces to the puzzle. Wish I could tie it all together better.
One thing that has really caught me eye regarding the increasing use of mobile devices for surfing the web (and just accessing the internet in general) is the de-emphasis of the URL. On the desktop (whether that be an actual desktop computer or a laptop - in other words, a computer with a full sized keyboard) the URL (the 'Location' field in your web browser) served as a sort of command line for the internet. You type the globally unique URL into your browser and you "get back" the web resource it specifies. On a mobile device, where typing is more difficult, the general purpose web browser which presents a general location field is (and I think will continue to be) de-emphasized in favor of small applications that "launch" the user directly to the remote resource with one click. For example, to use FaceBook on the iPhone you just launch the free FaceBook app instead of going to your browser and typing in facebook.com.
So what? Underneath everything is the same. The FaceBook app isn't much more than just a shortcut to pointing the mobile browser at facebook's web servers. Something like a glorified bookmark. But this is really important because as we move to using more and more individual apps to access information on the web (not just FaceBook app, but also weather, stocks, dictionary, wikipedia, etc.) we have less and less need for Google.
If I want to find information on wine on my desktop I will probably start with Google. But on a smartphone I may well download a free wine widget instead. Both methods will use the internet to return me hopefully relevant information, but using Google fuels a particular advertising model (where Google can serve me ads targeted to everything I search for on the web,) while using specialized smartphone widgets circumvent this model.
Put another way: as the internet more and more becomes the operating system of mobile computers (i.e., Chrone, Android, iPhone OS) what we used to think of as "websites" become more and more like what we used to call "applications". So instead of "going to" a website, we will increasingly be "launching" applications (widgets). The result is the same, but the cognitive set is much different. Instead of one vast sea of websites we navigate with our browser and the help of Google, the web is being sliced up into categories that will be accessed through special purpose widgets.
Note I'm not saying Google is going away. But just that smartphones, and specialized single purpose widgets, may well be the end of Google's total on line ad dominance.
In related news, Apple buys mobile ad company Quattro.
Smartphone total cost of ownership side by side comparison chart: Nexus One, Droid, iPhone 3GS, Palm Pre.