While busily writing this post in Schiphol airport however, I never found myself actively discussing my main argument, that software is intellectual property, and that stealing it is very wrong. I kept going off-tangent, which I can only ascribe to my state of being. I couldn’t focus my attention on my point, that I was also confused that even in today’s (hyper) web-focused business world, and those making plays in that world, that individuals would still find it appropriate (or make endless excuses that make it seem potentially appropriate, when you squint your eyes and the stars are all aligned, but even then, everyone should know that it is still wrong) to use cracked versions of software packages, or would actively seek stolen copies or access codes. That sort of stuff is, um, frowned upon.

It was my intention to elucidate these thoughts, beginning with my personal sordid history with stolen software as a basis for my opinion. Unfortunately, I was not able to illustrate my thoughts in a purposeful manner while sitting barely awake at AMS, and now, time has seemingly run out. Either way, I am pretty sure I am not qualified too take such a high road on the issue, but I’m pretty sure I’m right.

This is what I wrote on May 15…

I stole some software when I was young and stupid. A friend of mine burnt me a copy of a cracked version of Macromedia’s DreamWeaver and Flash. (Macromedia is now owned by Adobe.) I’ve never used Flash. Too time consuming. And I was all set to create a series of splash pages for my websites too. That was four years ago, and I still have no Flash-based splash pages on any of my websites. So there goes my determination. Dreamweaver, on the other hand, I got some pretty good use out of in the immediate short-term. And overall, it was a much better option for editing more complicated code than with, say, FrontPage. However, I never used it enough to say that I needed it. I have always edited my websites on the fly, with Notepad or any text editor. That is all that is really needed anyway. And when I started using blog publishing tools, the in-house editors sufficed for the most part. In the end, Flash and Dreamweaver became wasted space on my hard-drive, and as I purged my old computer a few weeks ago, in an effort to clean-up my files for a partition and dual-boot install of the latest Ubuntu release, so went Dreamweaver and Flash with the ubiquitous Add and Remove Programs utility.

That was the only software I have ever really stolen. My usual process when I think I want a piece of software, which almost always is based on temporal foolishness and not earnestness, is to find an open-source comparable. I prefer open-source (for the most part) for one reason: you know that someone is working to improve it. And that is true always. Unlike a purchase of a big-name product, say, Microsoft Office, which, purchased legitimately will set you back a few hundred dollars, there really is no reason or driving force for Microsoft to improve that product. You’ve already bought it. Open source software, on the other hand, is always being improved because that is the only reason people will use it. If the product is not always getting better, typically by way of sometimes-stubborn incremental updates (FileZilla is the best example), then the users will simply flee. There is no reason for them to stick with the product because they didn’t pay for it. If there is no comparable open source solution, I then looked at the trial period or limited free versions to see if those were good enough for what I needed this piece of software for — this ultra-important task that I had forced myself to think was immediately pressing. And most of the times, it is.

I have a long history of deleting programs — via Add and Remove — within a few hours or days of initial install, sometimes minutes.

I’ve never really spent a lot of money on software, until I purchased my MacBook. I had two incorrect perceptions of Apple products before I had finally drummed up the courage to buy one. First, I thought that the right-click was a no-show on Macs, and I was wrong. Although the built-in and Apple-branded mice do not have a right-click, the hardware (and software) recognize right-click. When I am away from my home, and I do not have my wireless mouse, I do need to use control-click on my MacBook because there is no right mouse button, but after a few weeks of use, I am entirely accustomed to the practice (whereas on a PC, I hardly ever use control-click, since I always had a right mouse button). Anyway. The second misconception was that there were no freeware or open-source software for the Mac, and I was entirely wrong.

In all, I may have “owned” ten or fifteen domains. (“Owned” is in quotes because I never actually owned them, NameZero did, but I was able to use the domains as if they were mine. I set up redirects to existing subdomains.) I don’t use or own any of the domains that I had registered with the service anymore (they were obviously not as important as I once thought they were). Some of them have probably been picked up since. I lost track. Why am I telling you this? I have no idea.

1. I also owned engineeringdogs.com, and used it for a class project.
2. I had a classmate that had a substanitial credit with BigWords when they went bankrupt in 2001.

Web designers have long desired to control the look of their sites,¹ and to be different, unique, special. But that has always been difficult to do. For one, every browser renders web-pages differently (Firefox, Chrome, Opera, etc.). This has been getting better as more and more browsers accept web standards of how to interpret HTML code. Except for Microsoft’s veritable Internet Explorer, that is, which has long tormented even hobbyists of web design (including myself).²

One way to control the look and feel of a site is by using Flash as a site within a site, however the portability of Flash is limited, if non-existent, and overall, text, images and video is what makes the majority of web content, and Flash doesn’t provide any of those in a reasonable way, at a reasonable speed, with any reasonable sense of reliability.³ And that is why embeddable fonts will be huge.

Why limit yourself to what your end-user has installed on his computer — or what you assume your web user has installed on his computer? We have been strictly limited to a very few, yet ultimately serviceable, web-friendly fonts. A pox on all that. If I want fancy header text — why force myself to use an image which may be unreadable on portable devices, or scaled incorrectly, or rendered incompletely? Rather, embed the font in the CSS, call the font as-needed, wherever and whenever (allowing the end-user to download it temporarily, most likely without notice⁴), and the end-user will see how the designer wishes to present the text (not how his or her browser decides, not how his or her native font choices decide). Very simple. This is a huge step. Flash, and graphics to a lesser extent, will not be used as widely simply as a way to maintain control over text fonts. It will be unnecessary.⁵

The future of web is video. This is clear. (In maybe a more broad, far-reaching sense, the future of the web is 3d holograms and scratch-and-sniff, but let’s be realistic.) Therefore, control over video is essential. The new video tag/element in HTML5 is mostly amiss however. First off, no one uses Ogg format. No one; and likely, no one ever will. A video format cannot simply be forced upon people. (Recall the Real audio format. Where has that gone?) That being said, this will hopefully allow developers to fool around with the video tag and take us mere followers where we need to be in the future. That is, to simplify the video embedding process and optimize the code. (Video embeds are needlessly long and overtly redundant.) I have to admit, the idea of controlling video parameters from CSS gets me excited. Probably too excited to be considered healthy.

I’ll ask my doctor, but in the meantime, the web is changing towards a multimedia-focused experience, with more control for the developers to convey their design on computer screens, regardless of browser or operating system, and that makes me happy.

1. Duh. This will never change.
2. This is my favorite IE bug (which still exists): “The easiest way for you to fix the problem is to upgrade to Internet Explorer 8. This problem no longer occurs in Internet Explorer 8.” Why did it exist in the first place? Why don’t you patch the existing software that the majority of web users in the world use in the meantime?
3. Plus it is a bitch to add to, subtract from, or interact with in a meaningful way for the majority of web users and designers. Flash is an end-product only. It is never a work in progress, which is how most people would view their creations, or blogs or websites.
4. This may be considered a security concern, however just like every other embeddable image or video, security will always be a concern. Adding a downloadable/embeddable font is not changing the game.
5. Rendering times of web pages will be reduced (i.e., sped up), less material overall will be forcibly downloaded by users, the tubes of the internet will open up (until they are clogged again).

It’s called the Clearstream 4² and has a range of “up to 65 miles.” With this thing on my roof, I can pick up 5 channels. Two of them are the same. Three of them are PBS. The last comes in rarely. None are the major channels I need. Although my house is 20 miles from Sutro Tower — the radiowave emitting tower in San Francisco — I cannot pick up any of those signals. All my signals come from the North Bay, either Napa or Cotati. This upsets me.

This is how Google Earth renders Sutro Tower (with the City in the background; looking northeast)…

All of the major signals in the bay area (including radio) are emitted from Sutro Tower, except for NBC, which is inconveniently based out of San Jose.

I have convinced myself that all I need to really do is get the antenna higher, over my neighbor’s roofline, but honestly, I am not all that sure. A ridge or two may also be blocking my view, and based on my research, I need a clear view — direct line of sight — of the emitting tower, and I just don’t know if that is possible. I could realign my antenna and face it due eastward, and look to capture the Sacramento stations, but that is likely too far.

In order for my master plan to work — to eliminate my cable tv bill³ — I need only the locals, the alphabet soup: PBS, CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC (although NBC may be impossible). The signal will be better. The cost will be better. And our lives will be better.

I am heading back up to my roof to figure this thing out. If I need an antenna pole, so be it. If I’m the only house in the neighborhood with an antenna, so be it. (As long as I do not have one of the window A/C units, my elite status, or strive for elite status, will not be shattered). I want my free MTV. But not MTV, because that won’t be available. But ABC and NBC will be. But not NBC, because that is based out of San Jose, which is a little too far.

1. I put it together myself.
2. The instructions for this antenna include the following warnings: Do not attempt to install if drunk, pregnant or both. Do not eat antenna. Do not throw antenna at spouse.
3. I currently have the basic of the basic plans for cable tv, something like 30 channels or so, but a bunch are Spanish, Chinese, shopping, religious and local access, so in reality, I have 10 or 15 good channels, but these are actually the only channels I want, and most of them are available over the air. My basic bill is $22.

In fact, the real reason I even have a cellphone is because of the number. I know that I will need a cellphone some day — even an iPhone — and I do not want to give up the number I’ve had since 2002. I do not want to port it now, which is an option, of course, but one that makes no difference with regards to my current usage. I would love to pay my cellphone company — or a third-party — to hold my number for, say, $5-10 per month.¹ That way, I can forget the hassle of a cellphone I don’t use (or an iPhone I don’t need), while retaining my rights to a number — my number — when I do.

1. Porting my number to Google Voice is another option, however I would like to have my number back at some point. I don’t feel that Google Voice’s masking of outgoing calls will work for average users. Also, I like my current Google Voice number. I’d like to keep that one in my back-pocket.

Note: I am making a serious effort to break my TechCrunch habit. It’s just not going that well… yet.

* Sometimes I cannot help myself. I’m still reading the Huffington Post too. Please help me.

Maybe I’m being too harsh. I could see the service being useful for those interested in broadcasting their lives. Although one may argue that this blog — or any personal blog — is a form of broadcasting, and there is merit to that argument, there is much more control (of content, value, etc.) with a personal blog. Twitter in a way reminds me of a newsgroup (say, Yahoo! Groups). Every message is regarded with the same value, and treated as such, even when that is clearly not the case. Here is an example…

I tweet “I love the Knicks.” I don’t; this is just for argument’s sake. A follower of mine — maybe a friend, acquaintance, or some internet stalker (and a person I cannot deny as a follower because I accept everyone who asks; I have 500 close “friends” on Facebook) — retweets or replies, and says, “@prefidentBUSH You’re a liberal douchebag.” I am, but that is beside the point I am trying to make. Substitute a more benign username — like fredwilson — and the issue becomes more clear. (I should mention that the idea of “following” someone is inherently stalker-ish.)

I have no control over that reply tweet. I can delete my original tweet, and that reply may still exist (unless the user also deletes it). If someone searches @prefidentBUSH (or whatever your Twitter handle* is), which is easy to do using Twitter, they will find this. They may also find other one-sides of conversations that I was or was not a part of. It’s as if the opportunity to enter and close a conversation does not exist, because it doesn’t. The bar is filled, and people are talking; you can choose not to listen, but the words are being recorded.

Without context, individual statements can only provide distraction, and with Twitter’s policy of making all tweets equal, all the more dangerous. Even if my account was private (it was), and my messages were not published to web-pages available for search on Google, the other half of the conversation (the other half that I do not control) may be public since that user may not opt for the private mode. So if I tweeted “I got a job offer,” and a follower replies, “@fredwilson congrats on the new job,” I would only hope that my two weeks notice was already submitted.

I’m looking for control, and Twitter has everything but. If I were big into texting, I can see using Twitter more. If I were looking to create a rather large but shallow following, I cold see using Twitter to do just that. But blindly publishing little tweets — without the back-story, without the control — is dangerous. I understand that that may be the point of Twitter (and Facebook, etc.), that users these days do not want control (until it is too late). But I do.

On the home front, this means that I will be able to delete the apps that I’d used while I tweeted my life away: TweetDeck and Tweetie (the free version). Of the two, I’m not sure which one to recommend. Although the two do the exact same thing — publish and sort tweets — they do it so differently, they are nearly impossible to compare.

I had a Friendster account way back when. I even had a MySpace account for two months. No more Facebook. And now, no more Twitter. All I have left is my Gmail and LinkedIn, but honestly, LinkedIn is on the chopping block too. (Become useful, or else.)

I guess my one regret is that I will never have one of my brilliant, witty tweets read on CNN, but that is okay, because people like me, and know me for who I am, in person, not my Twitter feed (or so I think). The curtain is coming to a close anyway.

* Funny. I thought we were trying to get away from handles and avatars.

I was having drinks with a land developer this past Saturday evening at a local bar. He asked my why I had left Facebook, and I described the now-ubiquitous networking utility like this: It is a high school reunion every night. And why would anyone want to subject themselves to that?

Facebook has its uses, there is no doubt, primarily as a reunion organizer for high schools and colleges (but also elementary and middle schools, even neighborhood cul-de-sacs). Other than that, it borders on useless. It replaces Evite, and may serve as a contact manager, but after reconnecting with friends, there is not much there (except a poke or two, and an entirely necessary vampire app).

Some people may say that it has replaced their email, but that could not possibly be true. Have you ever tried to send an attachment to someone, or check spelling, or blind-carbon copy someone while using Facebook email? Have you ever told a potential employer to send you interview details to your Facebook account? I didn’t think so. Facebook may complement an email account, but it will not replace one. Related, a company is much more likely to block access to Facebook than they are Yahoo! Mail or Gmail. There is a reason for that: Facebook is not email.

Some may say that it replaces their instant messenger platform, but what they really mean is that the status feature has replaced their AIM profile. This may be true, but AIM in its hey-day was a much better communication tool than Facebook is today. With AIM (and other instant messaging systems), it is entirely possible to have several conversations at once. Sure there was the potential for the “wrong window” slip-up, but Facebook is simply one-on-one communication, no distractions. Maybe it is more clear that way, and maybe that is the purpose, but it doesn’t replace IM. And with regards to the Facebook status as profile phenomenon, Twitter is the future of that space, that is clear.

Some may have only their close friends linked on Facebook, and to them, I salute you, through and through. And for others who may have hundreds of friends, everyone that they have ever sat in a classroom with, well, good luck to you. There is a place for drawing a line on the ground, and saying, albeit quietly (or maybe on a 3×5 index card), on this side are my friends, and on that side, are you, mister or missus acquaintance. There is nothing wrong with saying no. (That will be a big part of Web4.0: You know what, I don’t really need to let every person I used to take Physics with a half-decade ago know the details of my flight information so they can track the path on Google Earth.)

Facebook’s primary active use (not just as a reunion organizer) is with current students, organizing meetings and study sessions. I’m not a student. I don’t need Facebook; using it was purely whetting a childish appetite. And I now know what most of my graduating high school and college class looks like, so I’m satisfied with how things are, and I’ll leave it — and Facebook — at that. Time-sucking is now kept to a minimum.

The Facebook photo application is horrible. The best photo sharing service is clearly Flickr (and for most users, the free account accommodates them; however the $25/year pro account is well worth the upgrades*). Flickr easily beats out Shutterfly or whatever Kodak offers, and mightily trumps Google’s Picasa Web Albums. There is no comparison. However. If Facebook’s photo application gets you to share your photos, use it. People want to see your photos. The least you can do — if you are willing — is share them.

Same with Twitter. If Twitter allows you to update your friends and family that you are traveling through southeast Asia or Africa, then it is a godsend. People do want to know this stuff (that is obvious), and if a poorly-designed web interface like Twitter (or one of it’s many well-designed clients) gets you to share that information, great. Use it. If blogging is too much, even a tumblelog on Tumblr, then tweet away. (I would suggest keeping your tweets private, but that is just me, and that really depends on whether or not the people you want to read and be informed are Twitter users. If they are not, then private tweeting doesn’t make much sense, unless you’ve built a hack, which I have, but that is another story for another day, or maybe it is worth only a tweet.)

And if the iPhone and its myriad capabilities and limitless apps are the only way for you to share on Twitter, or Flickr, or Facebook, then yes, the iPhone is the solution to the world’s greatest problem, because there are people in this world that do want to know what you are doing, and you owe it to them.

Share, but please do it safely.

* Pay services are the future of the web. You will soon be asked to shell out $10 per month for unlimited Facebook features (this is a guess), and if you truly utilize the service, you will pay for it, because it will be worth it (just like the bills for your cellphone and cable tv, and increasingly, just like the bills for your hosting and storage). Sites will always have limited free accounts (if only to get you in the door), but in order to sustain growth, fees must be assessed. This is inevitable.