Archive for category Internet

The Faloupoo Store: Coming Soon

Recently, I haven’t posted much about my various projects and the like, but today I would like to take the time to discuss my new project (part of Faloupoo.com), the Faloupoo Store. A store, you ask? What will you sell? Well, we’re going to be selling your games and software, for any platform, at any price point you wish.

Within the next few months, several groups/organizations are planning on launching their own stores (mainly to get some sort of kickback from the large success of the App Store for the iPhone/iPod touch). The thing is, that is a locked platform, and as such, you are limited to the store and your Apple device. The Faloupoo store, on the other hand, will be serving up both free and paid content for any major platform (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and more). While the Faloupoo Store is not a crucial element of the overall business plan for Faloupoo, it plays a significant role in terms of our future plans and projects. As such, we are going to open it up for any game or application developer who wishes to sell their content. Along with that, we are planning on distributing high quality, free software (games, applications, etc.) titles that wish to be placed in the store for exposure, but do not necessarily want to be sold.

So, how will this thing work? Over the next few weeks and months, we will be preparing for the launch of the store in the fall (October/November). This includes getting developers on board who wish to make use of our services, as well as finishing the actual store software and seller pages. Once we have the service ready to go, we will let the sellers create accounts, set up their game(s) and/or program(s), and set up their payment and price details. While there are going to be other distributors and stores looking to take away traffic and developers from our store, we have some compelling features and fees that, we are fairly certain, not many can beat.

Within the next few weeks, I will post an update on how far along the Store is coming, and when we expect to allow developers inside for a peek and registration. If you are interested in the Store and would like more private information regarding it, or simply wish to express interest in using it in the future, feel free to contact me personally (connor[at]faloupoo.com), or post a reply here on the blog.

No Comments

Why the Banning of Google Voice on the iPhone Should Spell the End for the Limited App Store

When news broke earlier this week that Apple and their dictatorial App Store policies had not accepted, if not banned, the Google Voice application on the iPhone (and iPod touch), you could tell there would be hell to pay. Then, just yesterday, several online blogs and news sites reported that the FCC, amongst other investigations (into carrier-phone exclusivity, fees, and other things), would be looking into Apple (and, if they played a role, AT&T) blocking the new Google Voice application from the App Store. If I had to guess, many of the higher ups at Apple didn’t expect such a rash response to this decision, but they got one. Now it’s time for me to explain some things.

In some regards, people are misinformed about what exactly Google Voice does. Yes, it does allow you to make free phone calls and text messages, and it also allows you to link multiple phones (such as your home, work, and mobile) to a single number. If someone attempts to call you via that phone number (supplied by Google), all of your phones (or some, based on your settings) would ring so you can answer the call at any phone. Among the telephone services offered by Google Voice, it also provides free SMS messages in the United States, both from the web interface and its associated, platform specific, applications. As a former GrandCentral user, and one of the first to gain the opportunity to try Google Voice back in April, I was pleasantly surprised and pleased about the new features Google was offering its users for free. But, what a large number of people discussing this latest set of incidents haven’t realized, or fail to understand, is that, for the end user, the calls they make via Google Voice are not free. Google simply acts as a proxy for the calls, in order to set the phone number used for others to recognize.

Let me explain this in terms of the iPhone: If someone were to load up the Google Voice application on the device and select a contact to call, the application would connect to the Google switchboard, set your new ‘outgoing’ phone number to your Google Voice number, then sets up the call on your device using the native Phone application on the iPhone. So, while the call is technically free, you are still using your AT&T minutes to complete the call. So, in essence, these calls are free from Google, but depending on your device and service plan, the actual call may not be free for the end user.

So, while the arguments regarding AT&T not wanting this application on their network due to the free calls may be false, there is also the issue of SMS messages on the device. By default, Google Voice sends your mobile device(s) a SMS message letting you know your Google Voice account received a new text message. But, this can be disabled. So, if you can view, receive, and send SMS messages directly from the Voice application, you can get free text messages on your device. As such, the argument in regards to free text messages can be made, but we also need to analyze not only AT&T’s involvement in this case, but also Apple’s.

The iPhone/iPod touch App Store has been open for a little over a year now, and since its creation and subsequent public release, many developers and consumers alike have targeted Apple’s application acceptance policies for being unreliable, varying, and often downright stupid. For example, when Apple approved the “I Am Rich” application a year ago, with the staggering $1000 price tag, many people wondered how it was able to get through the approval process. After purchasers and observes began to complain, Apple pulled the application from the store and that was the end of it. But, it showed how Apple’s approval practices are downright flawed. Since then, we have had several incidents of how unreliable and varying the approval process is, including the Slingbox application, the NetShare tethering application, and some more adult related applications in recent months. Some applications have been approved, then removed from the store, being forced to change their functions (such as only working over WiFi), only to be allowed back into the store that they were originally allowed to be in in the first place.

The lack of solid, clear rules not only affects the consumers who wish to use these applications, but also the developers, who are the backbone and support of the App Store. Without the developers, the App Store wouldn’t have been such a large success as it was. For example, a developer may spend a few thousand dollars, as well as hours and hours of their time, to develop a title for the App Store, only for it to be denied for a vague reason that isn’t part of the open rules of the store. If developers don’t have a clear and concise list of rules and regulations that all developers, including small companies and large corporations, have to follow, and rules that Apple enforces evenly and consistently, then these application creators might as well get up and leave the platform all together. Why? To spend the time, money, and effort into creating a product that may or may not be allowed into the only viable, approved means of application sale and distribution on the platform can be considered a risk too big to take. If Apple would enforce their rules evenly, and explicitly state what is and isn’t allowed, then developers would be able to create products that follow the rules set in place by Apple.

I think its clear where the true problems related to Google Voice apply: the App Store. If AT&T ordered Apple to cut the application down, then fine. But, Apple’s App Store policies need to be fixed and enforced so other developers don’t violate the ‘hidden’ rules of the store.

No Comments

An Open Letter to the European Commission

June 13th, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

As an avid tech enthusiast, I have been following your investigation of sorts into Microsoft’s anti-competitive practices in regards to its internet browser, Internet Explorer. To be frank, your investigation was not unwarranted: Microsoft’s dominance in terms of browser market share is impressive, at the least. But, just because a particular piece of software has dominance in an industry (Internet Explorer had control of 65.5% of the browser space as of May 2009 (1)) does not necessarily mean that it is participating in anti-competitive practices.

Now, before we can start to debunk the notion that Microsoft may be participating in such practices, we need to look at the source of this accusation: another browser, which, despite it’s more than twelve year existence in the industry, has yet to garner more than two percent of the desktop browser market share. Understandably, the company would like to place the blunt of the blame of this failure on Microsoft, and it’s, supposedly, anti-competitive actions. What Opera fails to realize, or, most likely, fails to inform others of is its own dominance in the mobile browser space. As of May 2009, Opera Mobile had control of over 24.6% of the mobile browser space (2). Now, if you were to calculate the iPhone and iPod touch as one entity instead of two, Opera loses the first place position, but in terms of this conversation, we are discussing Microsoft and Opera Software.

So, is Opera participating in anti-competitive practices as well? Of course they aren’t, and neither is Microsoft. Let’s create a real life scenario: if one particular consumer has a BlackBerry smartphone, they are free to download a mobile version of Opera’s web browser onto their device and use it over the built in web browser provided by RIM (the creators of the BlackBerry and its software). Likewise, a user with any modern version of Microsoft’s own Windows Mobile operating system can download a copy of Opera and use that over the mobile version Internet Explorer. This is the exact same case for the desktop: while a web browser may come bundled with an operating system, the end user is free to download another browser at will.

You see, the basic definition of the term anti-competitive is anything that attempts to stop competition between businesses. What I would like to ask you is this: how is Microsoft committing an anti-competitive action by shipping Internet Explorer bundled with its Windows operating system? Does Internet Explorer contain the ability to block other users from downloading another piece of software to browse the Internet? If not, which is the case, why is shipping a particular version of its own software anti-competitive? It does not bar users from finding and installing other alternative software. It does not limit them to what they can or cannot do. All it does is provide a medium for the end user, who, in a large number of cases, does not express a particular feeling for such a piece of software, to browse the Internet.

To the public’s knowledge, there has been no action taken by other web browser developers (notably Mozilla, the developers of Firefox, as well as Opera) to have their browser shipped on Windows. Likewise, there is no reason why OEMs (original equipment manufacturers, such as Dell and Acer) can’t ship another web browser alongside Internet Explorer on machines they build and distribute. As such, I believe it is safe to say that there are no anti-competitive actions occurring here.

To summarize, while Internet Explorer may have dominance in the internet browser market space, their lead does not necessarily constitute that anti-competitive practices are being used. Likewise, Opera (the original company that asked you to investigate Microsoft), has its own level of control in the mobile browser space. As far as anyone in the public can tell, neither company is doing anything that prevents their software (whether it is an operating system or browser) from stopping the downloading or use of another web browser. Browser developers have also, at least from the eyes of the public, have not reached out to offer their products alongside Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and, as such, should not claim that they are participating in such alleged illegal activities. Because of this, I believe your pursuit of such a case is absolutely outrageous and does not reflect any sort of understanding of the technology and software industries.

Thank You for Your Time,

Connor Wilkins

1. According to Net Applications’ monthly analysis of various market shares. (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpmr=100&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=M)

2. According to StatCounter Global Stats. (http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-daily-20090501-20090531-bar)

1 Comment

New Year’s Eve, Part II: Announcing Town Hall

Today I am also pleased to announce my first project for the New Year, called Town Hall. Town Hall is an all new forum/bulletin board community, with a focus on being both lightweight and a low learning curve, which is not common with a lot of bulletin board systems out there currently.
While Town Hall (TH) is going to be free (as in beer), it is not open source software. There are several reasons for this, mainly the fact that custom modifications can portray the same software, yet be completely different. That being said, a plugin system or modification area will be considered at one point or another.

Right now we (the team that will be announced in my final New Year’s Eve post) do not have a date set for the release of Town Hall, hell, even an idea when we will show off a working version of the software, but we will do our best to keep you updated on all of the progress we are making with the software, via this blog and possibly a development blog.

I have attached a few screenshots to this post to show you some of the designs we have come up with regarding the overall user interface (board front end) of TH. To be frank, I haven’t even started a design for the administration panel, but I believe firmly that what I come up with will be a revolution in terms of bulletin boards. ‘That sounds kind of egotistical, doesn’t it?’ In a way, it does. But this will be the crowning achievement of the software because it will balance the power of the board, providing access to every customizable option of the forum, in an interface that won’t leave users cocking their heads in confusion.

So, I welcome you to the first project of the New Year, and of ____________ ___________, but you will learn more about that soon enough ;).

Town Hall Forum View
Town Hall Post Icons
Town Hall Post View

No Comments