Disqus - Latest Comments for thomallen

Re: This New Trend in Facebook Apps Looks Ugly

jessestay — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:55:18 -0000

Thom, exactly. There are other ways they *could* use Facebook, but the
native functionality of their website isn't it.

Re: This New Trend in Facebook Apps Looks Ugly

thomallen — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:50:26 -0000

I've noticed more and more of these non-apps making the rounds. Some are interesting, others are just marketing. For example, I would not want to watch Hulu shows on Facebook. You lose the user experience by watching in Facebook. I agree they should be using Facebook to drive viewers to their own website.

Re: Now You Can Access Google Tasks In Mail, Calendar and Mobile Applications

thomallen — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:28:09 -0000

as is suggested in the project notes for taskalone, I created the Chrome tear away option for tasks. But, this project seems pretty cool too.

Re: Today I Learned About WordPress Category Templates

thomallen — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:58:30 -0000

Yeah, it's a feature I over looked. But now I know. Will this make that feature for your site work better?

As I was thinking further, you could just add the different sidebar index, like sidebar 1 and 2 for cat 1, sidebar 3 and 4 for cat 2, and so on.

Re: Kindle Is Convenient But Not Always The Best Choice

jwang392 — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:23:34 -0000

I see more of a problem to be what you can and cannot do with the book once you're done reading it. With a physical book, you can swap/trade, resell, donate, lend to someone else. With the Kindle version, it's basically, you're done, you're stuck with it. That's it. I can't totally complain about it, because it's the same as buying music on the iTunes store. You buy it, listen to it and that's it. Whereas a CD you can lend to someone else, resell it or trade it. Can't really do that with Digital music. Well, you can, but I'm saying legally. That's what I see becoming the biggest issue right now. And the iTunes store has taken off pretty well. So maybe Amazon just needs some time for people to get into the same habit.

Re: Kindle Is Convenient But Not Always The Best Choice

thomallen — Wed, 20 May 2009 23:58:13 -0000

Hey Kirk,

Yeah, I'm one of those that have several books and mags in their bag at any one time. But it's so heavy. Like to offload them to a digital device.

Re: Kindle Is Convenient But Not Always The Best Choice

thomallen — Wed, 20 May 2009 23:56:17 -0000

Agreed. I think the authors should get more because the expense of production is considerably less for the publisher. I'm glad Orson Scott Card see it that way too. I'd love to have more of his books in digital format.

Re: Kindle Is Convenient But Not Always The Best Choice

thomallen — Wed, 20 May 2009 23:56:00 -0000

John, I never thought about College books, but you are correct. I'm an advocate of using digital text in the classroom. It's cheaper and no student would go without. It's crazy that in 2009, my student has to share a text book. Publishers are way over pricing their books. As for college students, being able to sell back used books to partially finanance the next semesters lot is hindered with a digital copy.

However, if a student only had to pay $1 for a digital copy of a text that expired at the end of the semester, now that's a model. I think there is a lot of room for improvements. The old establishment of book publishers and printers will have to face the music like newspapers are doing.

Re: Kindle App Now Has iPhone Optimized Pages For Browsing & Buying Books

thomallen — Mon, 11 May 2009 18:13:33 -0000

its still lame that I have to use the web page to buy the book. I can't believe this isn't a built in feature of the app.

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/03/facebook-drops-walled-garden-opens-up.html

thomallen — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:54:39 -0000

Yeah I would love to see more on the server side. Or at least a dev server that will allow us to move a lot of the work off the client.

Re: TV.Com (and Star Trek) Come To iPhone

Jay Bienvenu — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:47:40 -0000

Can't knock NBC on this one. You can view full episodes of their current series just by going to NBC.com in Safari and browsing to the show. I saw this week's episode of "Heroes" that way just the other night.

[BTW, the "Connect with Facebook" feature is broken... I had logged in and it said I didn't have a valid email address.]

Re: TV.Com (and Star Trek) Come To iPhone

Robert Basil — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:17:23 -0000

"Sure, if that's what you're actually defending, is the actual application installed on my phone, the app works as advertised."

And that's what this story is about, the APP. Not your beef with network broadcast companies.

Thank you for proving my point.

Re: TV.Com (and Star Trek) Come To iPhone

thomallen — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:11:15 -0000

Sure, if that's what you're actually defending, is the actual application installed on my phone, the app works as advertised. And my bitch is with CBS, and other stations like it, for giving the public a sense they can watch television shows on their iPhone by just downloading this app or that app, when its not the case.

See, when someone reads "you can now watch CSI on your iPhone", they really think they can watch ALL of CSI on their iPhone. That is the mental picture they get. That's crap. You can watch one, maybe two old episodes.

So if companies want to keep propagating the lie that you can actually watch TV on your iPhone, go ahead I guess.

Re: TV.Com (and Star Trek) Come To iPhone

Robert Basil — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:59:55 -0000

Your statement: "he problem with this app, like i.tv's app, they fail to actually provide complete versions of their shows."

Wrong, as I said above, every full show that is on tv.com is available on the iPhone app. Your problem is with the availability of the shows on the tv.com website, NOT the app.

Care to try again?

Re: TV.Com (and Star Trek) Come To iPhone

thomallen — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:53:50 -0000

I agree this is a huge win over Joost. Requiring wifi is crazy when 3G work just fine. I can never watch shows on the Joost app anyway because it always tells me my connection speed isn't fast enough, which is again crazy.

Re: TV.Com (and Star Trek) Come To iPhone

thomallen — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:48:39 -0000

Yes, I spent quite a bit of time looking at this app before I posted. have you taken the time to look at it?

I'm not saying there aren't ANY full shows, I'm saying they don't provide all episodes for all seasons. Why not? Look under Dexter. I would expect to see episodes of Dexter. But no, I see interviews. Look at Rules of Engagement. I expected to see episodes. I see one 30 second clip. That's what I'm talking about. Nothing to do with 3G.

Re: TV.Com (and Star Trek) Come To iPhone

Robert Basil — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:40:50 -0000

I don't know what app you are using. But the app I downloaded has full versions of all of the shows on tv.com, they are just split up in 4-6 pieces for easier downloading over 3G.

So many of the comments above are totally wrong, do you people even look at the apps before you post your comments?

Re: TV.Com (and Star Trek) Come To iPhone

thomallen — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:37:30 -0000

The problem with this app, like i.tv's app, they fail to actually provide complete versions of their shows. Who gives a crap about a 2 minute clip with an actor. It's a waste of space and doesn't add any value to the application. Start Trek really can't be the draw. That original series has been available online for some time, and most people don't really care about it. It's just a ploy. Sad CBS uses it as bait.

If CBS really wants to rock the world with streaming TV, release all the series episodes. If they are worried about DVD sales, charge a fee for premium access to current series. I'd pay for that.

At least CBS is making an attempt. What about ABC, NBC, Fox, FX, HBO and hundreds of others? I was hoping that with a name like tv.com they had actually produced something with mass appeal. FAIL.

Re: Is An RSS Feed Important Anymore?

thomallen — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:39:50 -0000

I can see that Mike. You consume what is interesting to you. Thanks for your thoughts.

Re: Private: Twitter Apps Can Only Grow so Far

thomallen — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:09:06 -0000

Yeah, it probably wasn't a good idea to pull the carpet that fast, and like I said, Twitter should have engaged the development community first, that would have made the transition easier. Could have been handled a little better.

But what do you think about external services causing issues with the overall service that affects the average person who just uses Twitter. Should they suffer because companies want complete and unfettered use of the API and it's resources? Doesn't sound too fair too me. I understand you position on timing, they have more to worry about than external services.

Re: Private: Twitter Apps Can Only Grow so Far

thomallen — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:44:52 -0000

I agree with abrudtkuhl first post. A premium service is needed. You can't expect a business to provide a free service that lets YOU build a business for FREE, and get upset when they lookout for themselves. Jesse I know you would make some changes if you were in their shoes. Maybe not the same choice, but you would protect you business first.

I mean come on, Twitter was never meant to be an API for someone to build a business on. I like a lot of the services that use the Twitter API, but I certainly can't blame them. Maybe a discussion with the development community should have taken place first, just to gage the acceptance level, but you really don't know where they sit.

Mostly I think we should work with them instead of building a negative campaign against them.

Re: Private: Twitter Apps Can Only Grow so Far

jessestay — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:52:31 -0000

Thom, as I mentioned in the article, this discussion has gone on far before
I posted this article. Alex has made it fully clear they don't intend to
budge on this rate limit. They're just finally making it official. He has
also made it clear they don't intend to make it any more easy to find out
the followers or friends a user has.

You bet I have plans around this, but it involves much less Twitter and much
more of their competitors. I would be willing to pay (although the cost
would have to be passed to our users) if Twitter charged for this. Charge
for the API first, then let that throttle API requests. Don't just cut off
your developers after giving them full access and telling them they are
allowed to do what they want in the parameters you gave them.

Re: While Qik Is A Leap Forward, Mass Adoption Will Be Slow

thomallen — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:52:21 -0000

Oh I understand you were speculating, and my post is an answer to your question. I don't think Sundance will have as big an impact on Qik as SXSW had on Twitter. But I guess we'll see. If it does, I'm glad for it. Pushing this technology is the only way to create competitors and improve the overall infrastructure. That I agree with.

Re: While Qik Is A Leap Forward, Mass Adoption Will Be Slow

thomallen — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:29:37 -0000

Oh, and I'm glad to be back in the fray. Kinda of fun eh?

Re: While Qik Is A Leap Forward, Mass Adoption Will Be Slow

jessestay — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:26:41 -0000

I think live video will explode this year. I don't know if Qik will be the
mechanism to deliver that. I do think Ustream has a very large possibility
to be that player.