iPhone advantages over Android:

• Integration with the desktop
• User experience
• Default apps

Android advantages over iPhone:

• Integration with the cloud
• Flexibility and freedom to choose
• Development environment

Not so sure about:

• Pseudo vs. true multitasking

What I thought might matter but doesn’t:

• Apple’s App Store vs. the Android Market

The iPhone works better with the desktop than Android while Android feels more like an extension of the cloud than the iPhone does. Essentially, Android is missing iTunes while the iPhone is missing Android’s integration with Google’s various online services (calendar, maps, mail). In my opinion, this is the major reason behind Google’s recent overhaul of GMail’s contacts. After switching to Android I started using GMail’s contacts a lot more – almost by default.

The iPhone still has a better overall feel to the user interface. Android’s scrolling is choppy compared to the iPhone’s and the default apps that ship with the iPhone (iPod, contacts, notes) are more accessible. Android however is more flexible than the iPhone when it comes to customizing it and making it your own – especially because of the widgets.

Android seems like a more powerful operating system, with true multitasking and a better notification interface. It feels more like a small, powerful computer. How this effects battery life though, I don’t know. The open source Linux-Java stack also means that the Android development environment is more appealing. Also, because Android is open source it wouldn’t surprise me if they overtake Apple regarding speed and functionality of the operating system, if only because it’s bound to have more developers working on it.

Finally, I was pleasantly surprised by the selection of Android applications available. I thought I might miss some iPhone apps but it seems that everything I used regularly on the iPhone is available on Android as well.

Overall, the jury is still out. The fact that there’s such strong competition in developing smartphone operating systems and handsets will bring benefits for the consumer. Next time I upgrade, I still don’t know whether I’d go iPhone or Android – although I’m leaning ever so slightly towards Android.

On one hand it’s useful to know exactly when the page expires and I can’t purchase tickets anymore, and on the other hand it raises my blood pressure.

I wonder whether Rupert Murdoch should add such a countdown to his web estate. The Sunday Times could give you 5 minutes free per article, and charge you 10-20p if you wanted to read more. That way, people could still link to and visit articles via Facebook, but would eventually have to pay for what they really want to read.

I quit my job at Oracle in 1999 because I couldn’t stop thinking about a simple question: “Why isn’t all enterprise software like Amazon.com?”

More than a decade after Benioff asked himself this question, it is still timely. Why is so much enterprise software ugly and difficult to use?

In the article, Benioff asks a new question: Why isn’t all enterprise software like Facebook?

Market shifts happen in real time, deals are won and lost in real time, and data changes in real time. Yet the software we use to run our enterprises is in anything but real time.

To address this, Salesforce has launched Chatter, a “realtime collaboration platform”.

Salesforce’s Chatter reminds me of an IBM commercial where an executive with magical powers can see into the future. When his colleagues excitedly ask him what he sees, he replies dreamily:

“Everything is integrated”.

Hilarity ensued. Users started arriving at the ReadWriteWeb blog and commenting on it in their hundreds, complaining about “Facebook’s new look” and that they couldn’t  log in. Because of Google, they were confusing Facebook with a blog featuring Facebook log-ins. Among the comments were:

“I HATE THE NEW FACEBOOK PAGE , IN FACT I HAVE STARTED TO VISIT IT LESS, BECAUSE IT IS A HASSLE”

The blog post now carries a health warning:

Dear visitors from Google. This site is not Facebook.

The Lifehacker blog had a post recently, called “Top Google Searches Show We’re Clueless About The Address Bar” highlighting a list Google published about top search terms in Australia, showing that adding “.com” to most of the search terms would have taken users directly to the site they were searching for.

What a fascinating insight into how mainstream users navigate the web: Via Google.

Many months ago at Pizza Express I fell into a well laid trap and assumed the second cheapest bottle of wine would be the second one on the list – below the house wine. I was wrong: The second and third cheapest bottles had switched places.

Now, check out the signup page for 37Signals’s Highrise shown below.

When I first saw this page I thought the Highrise house wine would be on the far right. It’s not. The solo and basic accounts are positioned the same as the Italian Merlot I ordered.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with this. It’s  logical for businesses to try and draw attention to their higher margin products. The Guardian recently did a piece on “how restaurants entice us into choosing expensive meals“. The short answer is menu layout. The same as the Merlot and 37signals.

Content is not cost free. Writing is work. Musicianship involves cost and labour, art is not innately free, nor the infrastructure of news reporting. Until food, clothes, housing and transport are doled out free, content-makers need to be paid. The theory that advertising revenues will cover that, in any medium, is tosh.

Full article: If the future’s worth having, it won’t be free

This is very much in the same vein as Malcolm Gladwell’s book review in the New Yorker (where the illustration is from) of Chris Anderson’s book, Free.

Both Purves and Gladwell maintain that the advertising industry simply isn’t big enough to support expensive content such as investigative journalism. Anderson on the other hand maintains that in the future, most things will be free for the consumer and funded by advertising.

On both sides of the argument, the debate seems to be based more on dogma than data. Where is the emperical data that shows whether the ad industry can or cannot support a future of free? It would be refreshing if the debate would become more rigorous and scientific rather than being based on gut instict.

This means you can:

• Log on to Wajapi with your Facebook details by clicking one button
• Sign up for Wajapi by clicking one button
• Connect your current Wajapi account to your Facebook account
• Automatically share Wajapi books with your Facebook friends

Below is a screenshot of a book added on Wajapi appearing in a Facebook news feed:

Wajapi is not a Facebook-only application. It’s still a standalone website you can use to keep track of books whether you are on Facebook or not.

If you are on Facebook however, we recommend you give the Wajapi and Facebook connection a spin.

1. Subscribe to the column online for a year for £50,
2. subscribe for a month for £10 or,
3. buy a single column for £1.

At the time you could buy the whole paper for 60p, 40% cheaper than a single online column. Unsurprisingly, the columns didn’t exactly fly off the digital shelves and eventually they started giving them away for free.

In all likelihood, this is not a good long-term solution. An annual survey run by Pew Research Center showed that in 2008, the Internet had become more popular than newspapers as the primary news source for US consumers. So, it hardly makes sense to use digital content as a loss leader to increase sales of the print edition. Soon enough, there will be no print edition. It also seems that banners, as effective as they actually are, aren’t enough to support proper journalism.

Enter: Google. It seems that they might start helping news outlets charge for their content by adding micropayments to Checkout, their payment platform. Surely, this is the way forward.

If Simon Carr’s column takes 2% of the real estate of one  Independent issue, charge 3% of the newsstand price for it. Or give the columns away for free and charge for the investigative journalism.

Micropayments might actually end up saving journalism. And Google will take a cut. They seem to be taking a cut from a lot of business models these days.

Why were the winning bidders willing to pay so a high price for a company whose very existence could be threatened by this lawsuit? One possibility is that they have nerves of steel. The other is that they know something nobody else does.

It’s an interesting question. With the lawsuit from the Skype founders, Zennstrom and Friis, hanging over the company like a dark cloud, it seems like a colossal gamble. Even more so given the current economic climate. Following this story is going to be very intesreting.

Anyway, let’s say I’m the average use and my personal CTR is around 0.1%, i.e. I click on one out of every 1,000 banners I’m exposed to. I clicked on this one from IndieClick:

It’s a beautiful banner with an interesting message. It’s not animated and still got my click. So, if you’re from IndieClick and you’re reading this, what kind of clickthrough rate is this banner of yours getting?