Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
New Models Of Web Application Development
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

New Models Of Web Application Development

1,290
views

Published on

The web is more interesting when you can build apps that easily interact with a myriad of sites and users out there that want to share information. But with the growing trends in social media …

The web is more interesting when you can build apps that easily interact with a myriad of sites and users out there that want to share information. But with the growing trends in social media applications also comes a growing list of market and technology rules that players from small start-ups and big corporations need to be aware of. With emerging technologies and common API frameworks such as OpenSocial currently being developed by a broad set of members of the web community, what’s the best approach to understanding how to build and connect to information all over the web? Join us as we explore how this emerging era of open standards and connected social networks is creating an exciting “free-range” digital content bonanza.

* Mashups: The promise of the API realized on the web

* How web applications can best be used in corporate enterprises using these emerging frameworks

* An overview of “Open” vs. “Walled” gardens and “Cathedral vs. The Bazaar”: What's the model for web application development

* Case Study: Toronto Transit Commission – How MyTTC shows a glimmer of what could be possible in an open environment

Published in: Technology

1 Comment
8 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Hello my dear
    I am Modester by name good day. i just went to your profile this time true this site (www.slideshare.net) and i got your detail and your explanation in fact the way you explain your self shows me that you are innocent and maturity and also understand person i decided to have a contact with you so that we can explain to our self each other because God great everyone to make a friend with each other and from that we know that we are from thism planet God great for us ok my dear please try and reach me through my email address (modester4life4@yahoo.com) so that i can send you my picture true your reply we can know each other ok have a nice day and God bless you yours Modester
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,290
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
309
Comments
1
Likes
8
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide






  • The Cathedral and the Bazaar (abbreviated CatB) is an essay by Eric S. Raymond on software engineering methods, based on his observations of the Linux kernel development process and his experiences managing an open source project, fetchmail. It was first presented by the author at the Linux Kongress on May 27, 1997 and was published as part of a book of the same name in 1999.

    CatB looks at two different models of software development, though both are Open in the original text. I’d like to apply the metaphor a little bit differently.

    In our case, the Cathedral represents many of the same things it does in CatB: quiet and ordered development by a small group of ordained officials. In our case, we treat this as the “Closed” model, since the offices of the Church are very much limited to those who go through the channels.

    The Bazaar, on the other hand, represents the marketplace at its best. It’s full of hustle and noise and smells as commerce in all forms fills the air. The Bazaar is “Open” at its best. Although it may not rise to the same lofty peaks as the Cathedral, it has and always will exist, outliving all formal structures. It is considerably more efficient and nimble than the huge bureaucratic structure of the church, able to adjust quickly to changing conditions and overcome obstacles.

    Traditional software development, including web apps, follows a Cathedral model. Today we’re going to talk about moving from the Cathedral to the Bazaar.
  • The Cathedral and the Bazaar (abbreviated CatB) is an essay by Eric S. Raymond on software engineering methods, based on his observations of the Linux kernel development process and his experiences managing an open source project, fetchmail. It was first presented by the author at the Linux Kongress on May 27, 1997 and was published as part of a book of the same name in 1999.

    CatB looks at two different models of software development, though both are Open in the original text. I’d like to apply the metaphor a little bit differently.

    In our case, the Cathedral represents many of the same things it does in CatB: quiet and ordered development by a small group of ordained officials. In our case, we treat this as the “Closed” model, since the offices of the Church are very much limited to those who go through the channels.

    The Bazaar, on the other hand, represents the marketplace at its best. It’s full of hustle and noise and smells as commerce in all forms fills the air. The Bazaar is “Open” at its best. Although it may not rise to the same lofty peaks as the Cathedral, it has and always will exist, outliving all formal structures. It is considerably more efficient and nimble than the huge bureaucratic structure of the church, able to adjust quickly to changing conditions and overcome obstacles.

    Traditional software development, including web apps, follows a Cathedral model. Today we’re going to talk about moving from the Cathedral to the Bazaar.
  • Very polarizing issue. Going to make some controversial statements. There are many viewpoints.

    It’s important to understand Closed and Open before we can talk about open as a new model for web apps.
  • Very polarizing issue. Going to make some controversial statements. There are many viewpoints.

    It’s important to understand Closed and Open before we can talk about open as a new model for web apps.
  • In this corner, we have walled gardens. Beautiful paradises, often attached to Cathedrals, perfect as long as you don’t want to leave or enter without permission.

    In the opposite corner, we have wide open fields full of flowers and sunlight.
    This is what the entire closed vs. open debate is about at a fundamental level: walled gardens are the ultimate in control. Open gardens are the ultimate in free expression.
  • In this corner, we have walled gardens. Beautiful paradises, often attached to Cathedrals, perfect as long as you don’t want to leave or enter without permission.

    In the opposite corner, we have wide open fields full of flowers and sunlight.
    This is what the entire closed vs. open debate is about at a fundamental level: walled gardens are the ultimate in control. Open gardens are the ultimate in free expression.
  • In this corner, we have walled gardens. Beautiful paradises, often attached to Cathedrals, perfect as long as you don’t want to leave or enter without permission.

    In the opposite corner, we have wide open fields full of flowers and sunlight.
    This is what the entire closed vs. open debate is about at a fundamental level: walled gardens are the ultimate in control. Open gardens are the ultimate in free expression.
  • In this corner, we have walled gardens. Beautiful paradises, often attached to Cathedrals, perfect as long as you don’t want to leave or enter without permission.

    In the opposite corner, we have wide open fields full of flowers and sunlight.
    This is what the entire closed vs. open debate is about at a fundamental level: walled gardens are the ultimate in control. Open gardens are the ultimate in free expression.
  • In this corner, we have walled gardens. Beautiful paradises, often attached to Cathedrals, perfect as long as you don’t want to leave or enter without permission.

    In the opposite corner, we have wide open fields full of flowers and sunlight.
    This is what the entire closed vs. open debate is about at a fundamental level: walled gardens are the ultimate in control. Open gardens are the ultimate in free expression.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • Some of you may remember the days of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. In some ways, these were the first consumer applications of the technologies we now think of as “the web” but were the ultimate in walled gardens. Eden is probably the first walled garden, but AOL and the like are generally considered to be the origin of the term from a technology perspective.

    On the other hand we have the Internet, which is, as you know, a series of tubes.
  • In this corner, weighing in at a user base of 67.5% spread across at least four versions (5.x, 6.x, 7, and 8), we have the Heavyweight Champion of the World, Microsoft Internet Explorer. It may be on top right now, but it’s rapidly losing market share to our challenger. Microsoft is the also the reigning champ of Cathedrals, being one of the biggest software development companies in the world.

    In this corner, weighing in at a user base of 21.5%, is Mozilla Firefox with over 200 million users worldwide. Despite being a free download, Mozilla earned $75 million in 2007 through a combination of partnership deals to monetize traffic. Mozilla is very much the bazaar: built by the people for the people and constantly adapting to the people’s needs.
  • In this corner, weighing in at a user base of 67.5% spread across at least four versions (5.x, 6.x, 7, and 8), we have the Heavyweight Champion of the World, Microsoft Internet Explorer. It may be on top right now, but it’s rapidly losing market share to our challenger. Microsoft is the also the reigning champ of Cathedrals, being one of the biggest software development companies in the world.

    In this corner, weighing in at a user base of 21.5%, is Mozilla Firefox with over 200 million users worldwide. Despite being a free download, Mozilla earned $75 million in 2007 through a combination of partnership deals to monetize traffic. Mozilla is very much the bazaar: built by the people for the people and constantly adapting to the people’s needs.
  • In this corner, weighing in at a user base of 67.5% spread across at least four versions (5.x, 6.x, 7, and 8), we have the Heavyweight Champion of the World, Microsoft Internet Explorer. It may be on top right now, but it’s rapidly losing market share to our challenger. Microsoft is the also the reigning champ of Cathedrals, being one of the biggest software development companies in the world.

    In this corner, weighing in at a user base of 21.5%, is Mozilla Firefox with over 200 million users worldwide. Despite being a free download, Mozilla earned $75 million in 2007 through a combination of partnership deals to monetize traffic. Mozilla is very much the bazaar: built by the people for the people and constantly adapting to the people’s needs.
  • In this corner, weighing in at a user base of 67.5% spread across at least four versions (5.x, 6.x, 7, and 8), we have the Heavyweight Champion of the World, Microsoft Internet Explorer. It may be on top right now, but it’s rapidly losing market share to our challenger. Microsoft is the also the reigning champ of Cathedrals, being one of the biggest software development companies in the world.

    In this corner, weighing in at a user base of 21.5%, is Mozilla Firefox with over 200 million users worldwide. Despite being a free download, Mozilla earned $75 million in 2007 through a combination of partnership deals to monetize traffic. Mozilla is very much the bazaar: built by the people for the people and constantly adapting to the people’s needs.
  • In this corner, weighing in at a user base of 67.5% spread across at least four versions (5.x, 6.x, 7, and 8), we have the Heavyweight Champion of the World, Microsoft Internet Explorer. It may be on top right now, but it’s rapidly losing market share to our challenger. Microsoft is the also the reigning champ of Cathedrals, being one of the biggest software development companies in the world.

    In this corner, weighing in at a user base of 21.5%, is Mozilla Firefox with over 200 million users worldwide. Despite being a free download, Mozilla earned $75 million in 2007 through a combination of partnership deals to monetize traffic. Mozilla is very much the bazaar: built by the people for the people and constantly adapting to the people’s needs.
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • On the IE side, we have proprietary source code locked up in a vault and only accessible by Microsoft’s developers.
    Partially because of that and because of the architecture of the application, it is fairly difficult to develop add-ons that extend the browser’s functionality. Microsoft has launced IEAddons.com for IE8, which does include more extensibility via Accelerators.

    Unfortunately, Accelerators are really a classic Microsoft “embrace and extend” tactic. They’re really a version of microformats, a widely accepted standard, renamed and modified. This is one of the heavily touted features of IE8 and a clear indicator of where the true advances in the browser space are coming from.

    Meanwhile, over on the Firefox side, we have a true open source project. Anyone can download the source code and build themselves a version of Firefox, or use it as the foundation of a different browser like Flock (the social browser) and Blackbird (the browser for African Americans).

    This flexibility is accommodated through open source but also through an extremely extensible architecture that takes the forms of Add-Ons and Themes. There are nearly 6500 add-ons and 630 themes currently available from addons.mozilla.org.

    One of Mozilla’s primary objectives is to support the ongoing development of open standards, and the video tag in HTML5 is a great example. The goal of the tag is to provide web developers with an open mechanism for embedding video into pages that doesn’t rely on Adobe’s proprietary Flash technology, and Mozilla is one of the bigger backers of the effort.

    Lastly, Mozilla has made a considerable investment in the Mozilla Labs project, building a staff who are tasked with pushing the envelope of the web’s technology to see what lies outside of today’s browsers. They’ve released 4 projects in the Concept Series to date: Ubiquity (a new interface for completing common web-based tasks), Prism (package up web applications into standalone apps that run on your computer), Personas (much stronger theming capabilities than currently exist), and Bespin (a open, extensible, web-based framework for code editing).
  • In this corner, we have the mobile carriers, Rogers, Telus, and Bell, or as I like to call them, the axis of evil.
    In this corner we have the great unknown. Canada currently lacks an open alternative.
  • In this corner, we have the mobile carriers, Rogers, Telus, and Bell, or as I like to call them, the axis of evil.
    In this corner we have the great unknown. Canada currently lacks an open alternative.
  • In this corner, we have the mobile carriers, Rogers, Telus, and Bell, or as I like to call them, the axis of evil.
    In this corner we have the great unknown. Canada currently lacks an open alternative.
  • In this corner, we have the mobile carriers, Rogers, Telus, and Bell, or as I like to call them, the axis of evil.
    In this corner we have the great unknown. Canada currently lacks an open alternative.
  • In this corner, we have the mobile carriers, Rogers, Telus, and Bell, or as I like to call them, the axis of evil.
    In this corner we have the great unknown. Canada currently lacks an open alternative.
  • In this corner, we have the mobile carriers, Rogers, Telus, and Bell, or as I like to call them, the axis of evil.
    In this corner we have the great unknown. Canada currently lacks an open alternative.
  • In this corner, we have the mobile carriers, Rogers, Telus, and Bell, or as I like to call them, the axis of evil.
    In this corner we have the great unknown. Canada currently lacks an open alternative.
  • Since there’s no real alternative in Canada, we’re just going to look at what the extremely closed nature of the carriers has done.

    This is the slide that’s going to get me into trouble.

    Their pricing and customer service policies have led many consumers to feel like they’re over a barrel and it’s really just a question of choosing which colour barrel you’d rather be over. Their practices of limiting the applications you can install or the sites you can access contribute strongly to their reputation as the most walled of walled gardens.

    Part of that feeling comes from the pricing the three have set for data. This is a chart created by my friend Tom Purves, which showed the state of the cost of data in Canada in April 2007. Although things are better now, at the time it would have cost $1600 to transfer 500 mb of data on a Rogers data plan, compared to $41 on Vodafone in New Zealand, $58 on T-mobile in teh US, or $74 on Terracom in Rwanda. One of the end results is a dearth of Canadian startups in the mobile space, which is slowly starting to resolve.

    Lastly I want to mention the extreme leverage the carriers have. This is a BlackBerry Storm, one of the latest offerings from RIM and their first touchscreen device. Many people have questioned why RIM would develop a BlackBerry with no keyboard given that it’s their strength, and the truth apparently has a lot to do with the V you see in the background here. The story goes that Apple originally approached Verizon with the iPhone but were turned down, which turned out to be a big mistake. Fearing that they would lose the smartphone market if they didn’t produce a competitive product, Verizon went to RIM and demanded a touchscreen BlackBerry and the Storm was born. It’s not a very good device and is fairly buggy and difficult to use, but the leverage exerted by one carrier was enough to get it released.
  • Since there’s no real alternative in Canada, we’re just going to look at what the extremely closed nature of the carriers has done.

    This is the slide that’s going to get me into trouble.

    Their pricing and customer service policies have led many consumers to feel like they’re over a barrel and it’s really just a question of choosing which colour barrel you’d rather be over. Their practices of limiting the applications you can install or the sites you can access contribute strongly to their reputation as the most walled of walled gardens.

    Part of that feeling comes from the pricing the three have set for data. This is a chart created by my friend Tom Purves, which showed the state of the cost of data in Canada in April 2007. Although things are better now, at the time it would have cost $1600 to transfer 500 mb of data on a Rogers data plan, compared to $41 on Vodafone in New Zealand, $58 on T-mobile in teh US, or $74 on Terracom in Rwanda. One of the end results is a dearth of Canadian startups in the mobile space, which is slowly starting to resolve.

    Lastly I want to mention the extreme leverage the carriers have. This is a BlackBerry Storm, one of the latest offerings from RIM and their first touchscreen device. Many people have questioned why RIM would develop a BlackBerry with no keyboard given that it’s their strength, and the truth apparently has a lot to do with the V you see in the background here. The story goes that Apple originally approached Verizon with the iPhone but were turned down, which turned out to be a big mistake. Fearing that they would lose the smartphone market if they didn’t produce a competitive product, Verizon went to RIM and demanded a touchscreen BlackBerry and the Storm was born. It’s not a very good device and is fairly buggy and difficult to use, but the leverage exerted by one carrier was enough to get it released.
  • Since there’s no real alternative in Canada, we’re just going to look at what the extremely closed nature of the carriers has done.

    This is the slide that’s going to get me into trouble.

    Their pricing and customer service policies have led many consumers to feel like they’re over a barrel and it’s really just a question of choosing which colour barrel you’d rather be over. Their practices of limiting the applications you can install or the sites you can access contribute strongly to their reputation as the most walled of walled gardens.

    Part of that feeling comes from the pricing the three have set for data. This is a chart created by my friend Tom Purves, which showed the state of the cost of data in Canada in April 2007. Although things are better now, at the time it would have cost $1600 to transfer 500 mb of data on a Rogers data plan, compared to $41 on Vodafone in New Zealand, $58 on T-mobile in teh US, or $74 on Terracom in Rwanda. One of the end results is a dearth of Canadian startups in the mobile space, which is slowly starting to resolve.

    Lastly I want to mention the extreme leverage the carriers have. This is a BlackBerry Storm, one of the latest offerings from RIM and their first touchscreen device. Many people have questioned why RIM would develop a BlackBerry with no keyboard given that it’s their strength, and the truth apparently has a lot to do with the V you see in the background here. The story goes that Apple originally approached Verizon with the iPhone but were turned down, which turned out to be a big mistake. Fearing that they would lose the smartphone market if they didn’t produce a competitive product, Verizon went to RIM and demanded a touchscreen BlackBerry and the Storm was born. It’s not a very good device and is fairly buggy and difficult to use, but the leverage exerted by one carrier was enough to get it released.
  • Since there’s no real alternative in Canada, we’re just going to look at what the extremely closed nature of the carriers has done.

    This is the slide that’s going to get me into trouble.

    Their pricing and customer service policies have led many consumers to feel like they’re over a barrel and it’s really just a question of choosing which colour barrel you’d rather be over. Their practices of limiting the applications you can install or the sites you can access contribute strongly to their reputation as the most walled of walled gardens.

    Part of that feeling comes from the pricing the three have set for data. This is a chart created by my friend Tom Purves, which showed the state of the cost of data in Canada in April 2007. Although things are better now, at the time it would have cost $1600 to transfer 500 mb of data on a Rogers data plan, compared to $41 on Vodafone in New Zealand, $58 on T-mobile in teh US, or $74 on Terracom in Rwanda. One of the end results is a dearth of Canadian startups in the mobile space, which is slowly starting to resolve.

    Lastly I want to mention the extreme leverage the carriers have. This is a BlackBerry Storm, one of the latest offerings from RIM and their first touchscreen device. Many people have questioned why RIM would develop a BlackBerry with no keyboard given that it’s their strength, and the truth apparently has a lot to do with the V you see in the background here. The story goes that Apple originally approached Verizon with the iPhone but were turned down, which turned out to be a big mistake. Fearing that they would lose the smartphone market if they didn’t produce a competitive product, Verizon went to RIM and demanded a touchscreen BlackBerry and the Storm was born. It’s not a very good device and is fairly buggy and difficult to use, but the leverage exerted by one carrier was enough to get it released.
  • Since there’s no real alternative in Canada, we’re just going to look at what the extremely closed nature of the carriers has done.

    This is the slide that’s going to get me into trouble.

    Their pricing and customer service policies have led many consumers to feel like they’re over a barrel and it’s really just a question of choosing which colour barrel you’d rather be over. Their practices of limiting the applications you can install or the sites you can access contribute strongly to their reputation as the most walled of walled gardens.

    Part of that feeling comes from the pricing the three have set for data. This is a chart created by my friend Tom Purves, which showed the state of the cost of data in Canada in April 2007. Although things are better now, at the time it would have cost $1600 to transfer 500 mb of data on a Rogers data plan, compared to $41 on Vodafone in New Zealand, $58 on T-mobile in teh US, or $74 on Terracom in Rwanda. One of the end results is a dearth of Canadian startups in the mobile space, which is slowly starting to resolve.

    Lastly I want to mention the extreme leverage the carriers have. This is a BlackBerry Storm, one of the latest offerings from RIM and their first touchscreen device. Many people have questioned why RIM would develop a BlackBerry with no keyboard given that it’s their strength, and the truth apparently has a lot to do with the V you see in the background here. The story goes that Apple originally approached Verizon with the iPhone but were turned down, which turned out to be a big mistake. Fearing that they would lose the smartphone market if they didn’t produce a competitive product, Verizon went to RIM and demanded a touchscreen BlackBerry and the Storm was born. It’s not a very good device and is fairly buggy and difficult to use, but the leverage exerted by one carrier was enough to get it released.
  • Speaking of mobile devices, in this corner we have the reigning champions: Apple’s iPhone and RIM’s BlackBerries.
    In the opposite corner we have the new upstart, the Open Handset Alliance’s Android, started by Google. Given the long history of closed, proprietary mobile devices (ignoring, for the moment, Symbian and other similar attempts), Android represents a considerable about face from the status quo.
  • Speaking of mobile devices, in this corner we have the reigning champions: Apple’s iPhone and RIM’s BlackBerries.
    In the opposite corner we have the new upstart, the Open Handset Alliance’s Android, started by Google. Given the long history of closed, proprietary mobile devices (ignoring, for the moment, Symbian and other similar attempts), Android represents a considerable about face from the status quo.
  • Speaking of mobile devices, in this corner we have the reigning champions: Apple’s iPhone and RIM’s BlackBerries.
    In the opposite corner we have the new upstart, the Open Handset Alliance’s Android, started by Google. Given the long history of closed, proprietary mobile devices (ignoring, for the moment, Symbian and other similar attempts), Android represents a considerable about face from the status quo.
  • Speaking of mobile devices, in this corner we have the reigning champions: Apple’s iPhone and RIM’s BlackBerries.
    In the opposite corner we have the new upstart, the Open Handset Alliance’s Android, started by Google. Given the long history of closed, proprietary mobile devices (ignoring, for the moment, Symbian and other similar attempts), Android represents a considerable about face from the status quo.
  • Speaking of mobile devices, in this corner we have the reigning champions: Apple’s iPhone and RIM’s BlackBerries.
    In the opposite corner we have the new upstart, the Open Handset Alliance’s Android, started by Google. Given the long history of closed, proprietary mobile devices (ignoring, for the moment, Symbian and other similar attempts), Android represents a considerable about face from the status quo.
  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • On the iPhone/BlackBerry side, we once again have proprietary source code locked away in a vault. Developers have access to an SDK, or Software Development Kit, upon which they can build third party applications, but there’s no access to the underlying code that drives the device. Without delving too deeply into a literally religious discussion, closed development on an SDK is not unlike believing in a religion: you do what the book tells you to do without any real look at the underlying reasons why.

    Apple’s App Store has proven to be hugely successful and RIM has promised a similar experience for BlackBerries in March of this year. Both stores will feature apps available for download, free and paid, and in both cases the apps are constrained to run in a sandbox that the manufacturer makes available. Developers are limited in what they can do and don’t have the same level of access to the hardware as the manufacturer’s own applications do (e.g.: you can’t background an application on the iPhone). Closed isn’t always bad. The iPhone is an amazing and seamless consumer experience.

    On the Android side, we have a true open source project. Source code is still kept in a vault and administered by the members of the OHA, but anyone can check it out and build an Android device. Android also includes an App Market of third party apps, but in this case those apps have full access to the hardware and can do whatever they’d like.

    Both app stores are examples of syndicating apps: your application gets syndicated out to users through a third party. This is different than federated apps, in which your app becomes federated to a number of others through the use of the same underlying technology.

  • In this corner we have the reigning champion, copyright! Originally intended to protect the works created by an author until 50 years after his or her death, copyright can now be seen as the excuse behind things like the Digital Copyright Millennium Act in the US.

    In this corner we have Creative Commons, an alternative approach that protects the interests of the rights holder while allowing more freedom than traditional models.
  • In this corner we have the reigning champion, copyright! Originally intended to protect the works created by an author until 50 years after his or her death, copyright can now be seen as the excuse behind things like the Digital Copyright Millennium Act in the US.

    In this corner we have Creative Commons, an alternative approach that protects the interests of the rights holder while allowing more freedom than traditional models.
  • In this corner we have the reigning champion, copyright! Originally intended to protect the works created by an author until 50 years after his or her death, copyright can now be seen as the excuse behind things like the Digital Copyright Millennium Act in the US.

    In this corner we have Creative Commons, an alternative approach that protects the interests of the rights holder while allowing more freedom than traditional models.
  • In this corner we have the reigning champion, copyright! Originally intended to protect the works created by an author until 50 years after his or her death, copyright can now be seen as the excuse behind things like the Digital Copyright Millennium Act in the US.

    In this corner we have Creative Commons, an alternative approach that protects the interests of the rights holder while allowing more freedom than traditional models.
  • In this corner we have the reigning champion, copyright! Originally intended to protect the works created by an author until 50 years after his or her death, copyright can now be seen as the excuse behind things like the Digital Copyright Millennium Act in the US.

    In this corner we have Creative Commons, an alternative approach that protects the interests of the rights holder while allowing more freedom than traditional models.
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • Copyright is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s important that the rights of creators be protected and that they be allowed to benefit from their work for a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the benefactors of that work have become greedy and are working hard to keep extending copyright to keep their IP protected. Disney is often seen as being one of the worst, intent on indefinitely extending copyright lest they lose control of their precious characters including Mickey Mouse. This chart, sourced from Wikipedia, shows the gradual increase in the number of years of the copyright term, starting with nearly 30 in the 1790 act and ending at over 100 thanks to the Sonny Bono Act of 1998 (signed two years before Mickey would have become public domain).

    On the other hand, we have the work of Larry Lessig and a very dedicated crew of people who are determined to offer an alternative. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to license their works under different schemes depending on the protections they require. This talk, for example, is licenses under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which means that you can share the content on your website or remix it into your own work, provided you attribute it to me, use it in a non-commercial context (i.e.: you couldn’t deliver my talk for money), and share your derivative work under the same terms (i.e.: you share alike).
  • In this corner we have the record labels, represented here by their last hurrah: the CD. Labels have increasingly become recognized for what they actually are: very efficient manufacturing, distribution, and marketing machines for getting music from artists and into the hands of listeners. They are not actually content creators, which has become a major issue as the requirement to manufacture and distribute goes away thanks to electronic distribution, and as marketing increasingly becomes about blogging and using social media.

    In the other corner we have some major artists who have broken with tradition and set out on their own, including Radiohead with their In Rainbows release, and Nine Inch Nails with their Ghosts I - IV.
  • In this corner we have the record labels, represented here by their last hurrah: the CD. Labels have increasingly become recognized for what they actually are: very efficient manufacturing, distribution, and marketing machines for getting music from artists and into the hands of listeners. They are not actually content creators, which has become a major issue as the requirement to manufacture and distribute goes away thanks to electronic distribution, and as marketing increasingly becomes about blogging and using social media.

    In the other corner we have some major artists who have broken with tradition and set out on their own, including Radiohead with their In Rainbows release, and Nine Inch Nails with their Ghosts I - IV.
  • In this corner we have the record labels, represented here by their last hurrah: the CD. Labels have increasingly become recognized for what they actually are: very efficient manufacturing, distribution, and marketing machines for getting music from artists and into the hands of listeners. They are not actually content creators, which has become a major issue as the requirement to manufacture and distribute goes away thanks to electronic distribution, and as marketing increasingly becomes about blogging and using social media.

    In the other corner we have some major artists who have broken with tradition and set out on their own, including Radiohead with their In Rainbows release, and Nine Inch Nails with their Ghosts I - IV.
  • In this corner we have the record labels, represented here by their last hurrah: the CD. Labels have increasingly become recognized for what they actually are: very efficient manufacturing, distribution, and marketing machines for getting music from artists and into the hands of listeners. They are not actually content creators, which has become a major issue as the requirement to manufacture and distribute goes away thanks to electronic distribution, and as marketing increasingly becomes about blogging and using social media.

    In the other corner we have some major artists who have broken with tradition and set out on their own, including Radiohead with their In Rainbows release, and Nine Inch Nails with their Ghosts I - IV.
  • In this corner we have the record labels, represented here by their last hurrah: the CD. Labels have increasingly become recognized for what they actually are: very efficient manufacturing, distribution, and marketing machines for getting music from artists and into the hands of listeners. They are not actually content creators, which has become a major issue as the requirement to manufacture and distribute goes away thanks to electronic distribution, and as marketing increasingly becomes about blogging and using social media.

    In the other corner we have some major artists who have broken with tradition and set out on their own, including Radiohead with their In Rainbows release, and Nine Inch Nails with their Ghosts I - IV.
  • 1.2 units of In Rainbows at an average of 4 British Pounds (this converts to over 9 million us dollars)

    NIN Ghosts shipped 781,917 units (including free and paid downloads plus orders for the physical CD). Total sales figure of $1,619,420 in U.S. dollars.

    This is literally the Bazaar proving itself: the market has spoken while the organized cathedral comes crashing down around it.

    Madonna ironically left Maverick to form a new contract worth $120m with Live Nation to distribute and promote her new material as she no longer needs a record label.

    Jonathan Coulton’s Code Monkey was a crazy overnight success and resulted in all kinds of cool projects like this video because it was released under a CC license.

    Wired released a CD that came with the November 2004 issue featuring 16 CC licensed tracks by well known artists including Beastie Boys, David Byrne, My Morning Jacket, Spoon, and The Rapture.

  • 1.2 units of In Rainbows at an average of 4 British Pounds (this converts to over 9 million us dollars)

    NIN Ghosts shipped 781,917 units (including free and paid downloads plus orders for the physical CD). Total sales figure of $1,619,420 in U.S. dollars.

    This is literally the Bazaar proving itself: the market has spoken while the organized cathedral comes crashing down around it.

    Madonna ironically left Maverick to form a new contract worth $120m with Live Nation to distribute and promote her new material as she no longer needs a record label.

    Jonathan Coulton’s Code Monkey was a crazy overnight success and resulted in all kinds of cool projects like this video because it was released under a CC license.

    Wired released a CD that came with the November 2004 issue featuring 16 CC licensed tracks by well known artists including Beastie Boys, David Byrne, My Morning Jacket, Spoon, and The Rapture.

  • 1.2 units of In Rainbows at an average of 4 British Pounds (this converts to over 9 million us dollars)

    NIN Ghosts shipped 781,917 units (including free and paid downloads plus orders for the physical CD). Total sales figure of $1,619,420 in U.S. dollars.

    This is literally the Bazaar proving itself: the market has spoken while the organized cathedral comes crashing down around it.

    Madonna ironically left Maverick to form a new contract worth $120m with Live Nation to distribute and promote her new material as she no longer needs a record label.

    Jonathan Coulton’s Code Monkey was a crazy overnight success and resulted in all kinds of cool projects like this video because it was released under a CC license.

    Wired released a CD that came with the November 2004 issue featuring 16 CC licensed tracks by well known artists including Beastie Boys, David Byrne, My Morning Jacket, Spoon, and The Rapture.

  • 1.2 units of In Rainbows at an average of 4 British Pounds (this converts to over 9 million us dollars)

    NIN Ghosts shipped 781,917 units (including free and paid downloads plus orders for the physical CD). Total sales figure of $1,619,420 in U.S. dollars.

    This is literally the Bazaar proving itself: the market has spoken while the organized cathedral comes crashing down around it.

    Madonna ironically left Maverick to form a new contract worth $120m with Live Nation to distribute and promote her new material as she no longer needs a record label.

    Jonathan Coulton’s Code Monkey was a crazy overnight success and resulted in all kinds of cool projects like this video because it was released under a CC license.

    Wired released a CD that came with the November 2004 issue featuring 16 CC licensed tracks by well known artists including Beastie Boys, David Byrne, My Morning Jacket, Spoon, and The Rapture.

  • 1.2 units of In Rainbows at an average of 4 British Pounds (this converts to over 9 million us dollars)

    NIN Ghosts shipped 781,917 units (including free and paid downloads plus orders for the physical CD). Total sales figure of $1,619,420 in U.S. dollars.

    This is literally the Bazaar proving itself: the market has spoken while the organized cathedral comes crashing down around it.

    Madonna ironically left Maverick to form a new contract worth $120m with Live Nation to distribute and promote her new material as she no longer needs a record label.

    Jonathan Coulton’s Code Monkey was a crazy overnight success and resulted in all kinds of cool projects like this video because it was released under a CC license.

    Wired released a CD that came with the November 2004 issue featuring 16 CC licensed tracks by well known artists including Beastie Boys, David Byrne, My Morning Jacket, Spoon, and The Rapture.

  • 1.2 units of In Rainbows at an average of 4 British Pounds (this converts to over 9 million us dollars)

    NIN Ghosts shipped 781,917 units (including free and paid downloads plus orders for the physical CD). Total sales figure of $1,619,420 in U.S. dollars.

    This is literally the Bazaar proving itself: the market has spoken while the organized cathedral comes crashing down around it.

    Madonna ironically left Maverick to form a new contract worth $120m with Live Nation to distribute and promote her new material as she no longer needs a record label.

    Jonathan Coulton’s Code Monkey was a crazy overnight success and resulted in all kinds of cool projects like this video because it was released under a CC license.

    Wired released a CD that came with the November 2004 issue featuring 16 CC licensed tracks by well known artists including Beastie Boys, David Byrne, My Morning Jacket, Spoon, and The Rapture.

  • 1.2 units of In Rainbows at an average of 4 British Pounds (this converts to over 9 million us dollars)

    NIN Ghosts shipped 781,917 units (including free and paid downloads plus orders for the physical CD). Total sales figure of $1,619,420 in U.S. dollars.

    This is literally the Bazaar proving itself: the market has spoken while the organized cathedral comes crashing down around it.

    Madonna ironically left Maverick to form a new contract worth $120m with Live Nation to distribute and promote her new material as she no longer needs a record label.

    Jonathan Coulton’s Code Monkey was a crazy overnight success and resulted in all kinds of cool projects like this video because it was released under a CC license.

    Wired released a CD that came with the November 2004 issue featuring 16 CC licensed tracks by well known artists including Beastie Boys, David Byrne, My Morning Jacket, Spoon, and The Rapture.

  • 1.2 units of In Rainbows at an average of 4 British Pounds (this converts to over 9 million us dollars)

    NIN Ghosts shipped 781,917 units (including free and paid downloads plus orders for the physical CD). Total sales figure of $1,619,420 in U.S. dollars.

    This is literally the Bazaar proving itself: the market has spoken while the organized cathedral comes crashing down around it.

    Madonna ironically left Maverick to form a new contract worth $120m with Live Nation to distribute and promote her new material as she no longer needs a record label.

    Jonathan Coulton’s Code Monkey was a crazy overnight success and resulted in all kinds of cool projects like this video because it was released under a CC license.

    Wired released a CD that came with the November 2004 issue featuring 16 CC licensed tracks by well known artists including Beastie Boys, David Byrne, My Morning Jacket, Spoon, and The Rapture.

  • 1.2 units of In Rainbows at an average of 4 British Pounds (this converts to over 9 million us dollars)

    NIN Ghosts shipped 781,917 units (including free and paid downloads plus orders for the physical CD). Total sales figure of $1,619,420 in U.S. dollars.

    This is literally the Bazaar proving itself: the market has spoken while the organized cathedral comes crashing down around it.

    Madonna ironically left Maverick to form a new contract worth $120m with Live Nation to distribute and promote her new material as she no longer needs a record label.

    Jonathan Coulton’s Code Monkey was a crazy overnight success and resulted in all kinds of cool projects like this video because it was released under a CC license.

    Wired released a CD that came with the November 2004 issue featuring 16 CC licensed tracks by well known artists including Beastie Boys, David Byrne, My Morning Jacket, Spoon, and The Rapture.

  • 1.2 units of In Rainbows at an average of 4 British Pounds (this converts to over 9 million us dollars)

    NIN Ghosts shipped 781,917 units (including free and paid downloads plus orders for the physical CD). Total sales figure of $1,619,420 in U.S. dollars.

    This is literally the Bazaar proving itself: the market has spoken while the organized cathedral comes crashing down around it.

    Madonna ironically left Maverick to form a new contract worth $120m with Live Nation to distribute and promote her new material as she no longer needs a record label.

    Jonathan Coulton’s Code Monkey was a crazy overnight success and resulted in all kinds of cool projects like this video because it was released under a CC license.

    Wired released a CD that came with the November 2004 issue featuring 16 CC licensed tracks by well known artists including Beastie Boys, David Byrne, My Morning Jacket, Spoon, and The Rapture.

  • That concludes the battle! I hope it has convinced you that there is merit to the world of Open. I’d like to pause here and get some thoughts or questions from the audience. Any examples of Closed vs. Open you’d like to share? Any thoughts on why one is better than the other? I have three O’Reilly books to give away to the best answers.
  • That concludes the battle! I hope it has convinced you that there is merit to the world of Open. I’d like to pause here and get some thoughts or questions from the audience. Any examples of Closed vs. Open you’d like to share? Any thoughts on why one is better than the other? I have three O’Reilly books to give away to the best answers.
  • The world of mashups is enabled by open. There are thousands of examples from lots of media, but here are two.
  • The world of mashups is enabled by open. There are thousands of examples from lots of media, but here are two.
  • The world of mashups is enabled by open. There are thousands of examples from lots of media, but here are two.
  • Everyblock was a recipient of the Knight News Challenge award from Knight Ridder. This page shows views of crime data in Chicago from the Chicago Police Department by neighbourhood, ward, zip code, type, etc. This is a mashup enabled by open data. You can drill down into this data by entering a specific address and seeing all of the crime around it.

    Beer Hunter is one of my favourites. It shows all of the beer and liquor stores from across Ontario including their hours of operation. Another mashup enabled by open data but made possible by the ease of building on Google Maps.

    Another take on the same idea: open data about rental apartments from Craigslist mashed up with a Google Map of their locations.

    Twitter has become the new mashup tool of choice. This is one of my favourite examples: the washing machine had no buzzer which resulted in mouldy clothes when the wash got forgotten. This hack gave the machine a network connection so that it could twitter when it was finished, which can get sent by SMS to the owner. Note that there are 508 people following it.
  • Everyblock was a recipient of the Knight News Challenge award from Knight Ridder. This page shows views of crime data in Chicago from the Chicago Police Department by neighbourhood, ward, zip code, type, etc. This is a mashup enabled by open data. You can drill down into this data by entering a specific address and seeing all of the crime around it.

    Beer Hunter is one of my favourites. It shows all of the beer and liquor stores from across Ontario including their hours of operation. Another mashup enabled by open data but made possible by the ease of building on Google Maps.

    Another take on the same idea: open data about rental apartments from Craigslist mashed up with a Google Map of their locations.

    Twitter has become the new mashup tool of choice. This is one of my favourite examples: the washing machine had no buzzer which resulted in mouldy clothes when the wash got forgotten. This hack gave the machine a network connection so that it could twitter when it was finished, which can get sent by SMS to the owner. Note that there are 508 people following it.
  • Everyblock was a recipient of the Knight News Challenge award from Knight Ridder. This page shows views of crime data in Chicago from the Chicago Police Department by neighbourhood, ward, zip code, type, etc. This is a mashup enabled by open data. You can drill down into this data by entering a specific address and seeing all of the crime around it.

    Beer Hunter is one of my favourites. It shows all of the beer and liquor stores from across Ontario including their hours of operation. Another mashup enabled by open data but made possible by the ease of building on Google Maps.

    Another take on the same idea: open data about rental apartments from Craigslist mashed up with a Google Map of their locations.

    Twitter has become the new mashup tool of choice. This is one of my favourite examples: the washing machine had no buzzer which resulted in mouldy clothes when the wash got forgotten. This hack gave the machine a network connection so that it could twitter when it was finished, which can get sent by SMS to the owner. Note that there are 508 people following it.
  • Everyblock was a recipient of the Knight News Challenge award from Knight Ridder. This page shows views of crime data in Chicago from the Chicago Police Department by neighbourhood, ward, zip code, type, etc. This is a mashup enabled by open data. You can drill down into this data by entering a specific address and seeing all of the crime around it.

    Beer Hunter is one of my favourites. It shows all of the beer and liquor stores from across Ontario including their hours of operation. Another mashup enabled by open data but made possible by the ease of building on Google Maps.

    Another take on the same idea: open data about rental apartments from Craigslist mashed up with a Google Map of their locations.

    Twitter has become the new mashup tool of choice. This is one of my favourite examples: the washing machine had no buzzer which resulted in mouldy clothes when the wash got forgotten. This hack gave the machine a network connection so that it could twitter when it was finished, which can get sent by SMS to the owner. Note that there are 508 people following it.
  • The music mashup genre has been around for decades, but the prevalence of digital software has brought it to an entirely new level. The “bootie” genre exists because of the relative ease of finding acapella vocals and instrumental melodies and beats. This is probably one of the most famous: The Grey Album from Danger Mouse, which mashed up The Beatles White Album and Jay-Z’s Black Album. This is a roughly 30 second clip from track 3, What More Can I Say.
  • Which brings us, at last, to the API. APIs are the Secret Sauce behind a lot of what we’ve talked about today. Now before you go and think that this is Will Smith’s latest action flick...
  • Which brings us, at last, to the API. APIs are the Secret Sauce behind a lot of what we’ve talked about today. Now before you go and think that this is Will Smith’s latest action flick...
  • Which brings us, at last, to the API. APIs are the Secret Sauce behind a lot of what we’ve talked about today. Now before you go and think that this is Will Smith’s latest action flick...
  • According to Wikipedia, application programming interfaces (API) are sets of routines, data structures, object classes and/or protocols provided by libraries and/or operating system services in order to support the building of applications.
  • Who doesn’t like cake? This shows a traditional architectural diagram of how an API fits into the total picture.

    Right now you might have an application that your company makes available via the web to your users. We’ll call this direct access.

    Adding an API exposes some or all of the functionality to third party developers, who can then build that functionality into their applications. Users can now access the app through third parties, or what we’ll call indirect access.
  • Who doesn’t like cake? This shows a traditional architectural diagram of how an API fits into the total picture.

    Right now you might have an application that your company makes available via the web to your users. We’ll call this direct access.

    Adding an API exposes some or all of the functionality to third party developers, who can then build that functionality into their applications. Users can now access the app through third parties, or what we’ll call indirect access.
  • Who doesn’t like cake? This shows a traditional architectural diagram of how an API fits into the total picture.

    Right now you might have an application that your company makes available via the web to your users. We’ll call this direct access.

    Adding an API exposes some or all of the functionality to third party developers, who can then build that functionality into their applications. Users can now access the app through third parties, or what we’ll call indirect access.
  • Who doesn’t like cake? This shows a traditional architectural diagram of how an API fits into the total picture.

    Right now you might have an application that your company makes available via the web to your users. We’ll call this direct access.

    Adding an API exposes some or all of the functionality to third party developers, who can then build that functionality into their applications. Users can now access the app through third parties, or what we’ll call indirect access.
  • Who doesn’t like cake? This shows a traditional architectural diagram of how an API fits into the total picture.

    Right now you might have an application that your company makes available via the web to your users. We’ll call this direct access.

    Adding an API exposes some or all of the functionality to third party developers, who can then build that functionality into their applications. Users can now access the app through third parties, or what we’ll call indirect access.
  • Who doesn’t like cake? This shows a traditional architectural diagram of how an API fits into the total picture.

    Right now you might have an application that your company makes available via the web to your users. We’ll call this direct access.

    Adding an API exposes some or all of the functionality to third party developers, who can then build that functionality into their applications. Users can now access the app through third parties, or what we’ll call indirect access.
  • Who doesn’t like cake? This shows a traditional architectural diagram of how an API fits into the total picture.

    Right now you might have an application that your company makes available via the web to your users. We’ll call this direct access.

    Adding an API exposes some or all of the functionality to third party developers, who can then build that functionality into their applications. Users can now access the app through third parties, or what we’ll call indirect access.
  • Who doesn’t like cake? This shows a traditional architectural diagram of how an API fits into the total picture.

    Right now you might have an application that your company makes available via the web to your users. We’ll call this direct access.

    Adding an API exposes some or all of the functionality to third party developers, who can then build that functionality into their applications. Users can now access the app through third parties, or what we’ll call indirect access.
  • Who doesn’t like cake? This shows a traditional architectural diagram of how an API fits into the total picture.

    Right now you might have an application that your company makes available via the web to your users. We’ll call this direct access.

    Adding an API exposes some or all of the functionality to third party developers, who can then build that functionality into their applications. Users can now access the app through third parties, or what we’ll call indirect access.
  • Who doesn’t like cake? This shows a traditional architectural diagram of how an API fits into the total picture.

    Right now you might have an application that your company makes available via the web to your users. We’ll call this direct access.

    Adding an API exposes some or all of the functionality to third party developers, who can then build that functionality into their applications. Users can now access the app through third parties, or what we’ll call indirect access.
  • Transcript

    • 1. New Models of Web Application Development MaRS Emerging Technology Series Jay Goldman February 24th, 2009 Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 2. Questions Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 3. Questions How many people in the room: Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 4. Questions How many people in the room: 1. Are developers? Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 5. Questions How many people in the room: 1. Are developers? 2. Are marketers? Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 6. Questions How many people in the room: 1. Are developers? 2. Are marketers? 3. Are awake? Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 7. Questions How many people in the room: 1. Are developers? 2. Are marketers? 3. Are awake? 4. Know what an API is? Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 8. The prayers by cuellar: http://www.flickr.com/photos/49503180180@N01/238232186/ the spice market by heydrienne: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90318532@N00/22078000/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 9. The prayers by cuellar: http://www.flickr.com/photos/49503180180@N01/238232186/ the spice market by heydrienne: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90318532@N00/22078000/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 10. The prayers by cuellar: http://www.flickr.com/photos/49503180180@N01/238232186/ the spice market by heydrienne: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90318532@N00/22078000/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 11. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 12. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*"(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% LIGHTING FAST 5 ROUND KNOCKOUT CHALLENGE Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 13. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 14. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*"(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 1: GARDENS Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 15. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*"(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 1: GARDENS Jardim de Santa Bárbara by stukinha http://www.flickr.com/photos/29799200@N00/184026801/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 16. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*"(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 1: GARDENS Jardim de Santa Bárbara by stukinha o.k.... everyone reach up for the sun! by pbo31 http://www.flickr.com/photos/29799200@N00/184026801/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/30607051@N00/182143401/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 17. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 18. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 19. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 20. shining tubes by myfear http://www.flickr.com/photos/77467550@N00/223473228/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 21. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 22. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*"(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 2: SOURCE Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 23. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*"(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 2: SOURCE Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 24. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*"(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 2: SOURCE Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 25. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 26. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 27. Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 28. www.ieaddons.com Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 29. www.ieaddons.com Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 30. www.ieaddons.com Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 31. www.ieaddons.com Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 32. www.ieaddons.com addons.mozilla.org Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 33. www.ieaddons.com addons.mozilla.org <video> Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 34. www.ieaddons.com addons.mozilla.org <video> Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 35. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 36. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 3A: MOBILE CARRIERS Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 37. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 3A: MOBILE CARRIERS Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 38. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 3A: MOBILE CARRIERS ? Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 39. ? Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 40. ? Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 41. ? Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 42. ? Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 43. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 44. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 3B: MOBILE DEVICES Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 45. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 3B: MOBILE DEVICES Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 46. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 3B: MOBILE DEVICES Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 47. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 48. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 49. Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 50. Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 51. Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 52. my closet is THIS big by cking Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/48889042674@N01/156025944/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 53. my closet is THIS big by cking Bank Vault 1 by mbrand http://www.flickr.com/photos/48889042674@N01/156025944/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/87317539@N00/3289161324/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 54. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 55. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 4: IP Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 56. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 4: IP Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 57. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 4: IP Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 58. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 59. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 60. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 61. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 62. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 63. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 64. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 65. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 66. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 5: MUSIC Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 67. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 5: MUSIC Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 68. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% ROUND 5: MUSIC Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 69. http://www.rollingstone.com/recordindustrydecline Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 70. http://www.rollingstone.com/recordindustrydecline Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 71. http://www.rollingstone.com/recordindustrydecline Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 72. http://www.rollingstone.com/recordindustrydecline Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 73. http://www.rollingstone.com/recordindustrydecline Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 74. http://www.rollingstone.com/recordindustrydecline Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 75. http://www.rollingstone.com/recordindustrydecline Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 76. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 77. !quot;#$%&'()#*%+ !quot;#$%&'(()'*&quot;(+quot;%'%quot;,('*&%quot;%*-&.,)% LIGHTING FAST 5 ROUND KNOCKOUT CHALLENGE Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 78. Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 79. Mash ups The Promise of the API Realized Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 80. Data Mashups Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 81. Data Mashups Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 82. Data Mashups Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 83. Data Mashups Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 84. Data Mashups Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 85. Music Mashups Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 86. Music Mashups Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 87. API SECRET SAUCE Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 88. API SECRET SAUCE Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 89. API SECRET SAUCE “An application programming interface (API) is a set of routines, data structures, object classes and/or protocols provided by libraries and/or operating system services in order to support the building of applications.” Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 90. Layer Cake Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 91. Layer Cake Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 92. Layer Cake Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 93. Layer Cake Direct Access Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 94. Layer Cake Direct Access Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 95. Layer Cake Direct Access Third Party Applications Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 96. Layer Cake Indirect Access Direct Access Third Party Applications Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 97. Layer Cake Indirect Access Direct Access APP APP APP APP APP Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 98. Layer Cake Indirect Accesses Direct Access APP APP APP APP APP Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 99. Controlling Access APP APP APP APP APP Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 100. Controlling Access APP APP APP APP APP KEY KEY KEY KEY KEY Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 101. Controlling Access APP APP APP APP APP KEY KEY KEY KEY Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 102. Controlling Access APP APP APP APP APP KEY KEY KEY KEY Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 103. Eating Your Own Dog Food APP APP APP APP APP KEY KEY KEY KEY KEY Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 104. Eating Your Own Dog Food APP APP APP KEY KEY KEY Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 105. Mashup in Your Mashup APP APP APP KEY KEY KEY Your API Your Application Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 106. Mashup in Your Mashup APP APP APP KEY KEY KEY Your API Your Application 3RD PARTY API 3RD PARTY API 3RD PARTY API Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 107. CAVEATS Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 108. Crutch different colors - IMGP2549 by chez_sugi http://www.flickr.com/photos/60372336@N00/2598081906/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 109. Restrictions Don't - P1030706 by Larsz http://www.flickr.com/photos/75062596@N00/186757681/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 110. Privacy Souriez, vous êtes filmés ! by nitot http://www.flickr.com/photos/19663157@N00/2899134432/ Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 111. myTTC.ca CASE STUDY Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 112. February 4th, 2007 Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 113. Closed Says: Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 114. Closed Says: TTC Data Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 115. Closed Says: 3RD TTC PARTY Data APP Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 116. Closed Says: 3RD TTC PARTY Data APP Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 117. Closed Says: 3RD TTC PARTY Data APP Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 118. Closed Says: 3RD TTC PARTY Data APP FAIL Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 119. Open Says: Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 120. Open Says: TTC Data Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 121. Open Says: TTC TTC API Data Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 122. Open Says: 3RD TTC TTC API PARTY Data APP Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 123. Open Says: 3RD TTC TTC API PARTY Data APP Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 124. Open Says: Yay! 3RD TTC TTC API PARTY Data APP Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 125. Alas! Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 126. The Future! Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 127. The Future! Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 128. The Future! Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 129. Thanks for your time! jaygoldman.com O’Reilly Discount Code: 3BKPE Friday, February 27, 2009
    • 130. Thanks for your time! jaygoldman.com O’Reilly Discount Code: 3BKPE Friday, February 27, 2009