Sinecure Industries

Makers of iPhone, Android and Facebook apps founded in 2007,
dedicated to unique, entertaining and quality apps.

Our Products:

For iOS:

Backlash - A Physics Puzzler | Vision Assist: Ambient Night Vision Aid
Acts of Kindness | How Am I Feeling? Free Mood Analyzer | Free Bad Advice | Free Holiday Advice

For Android:

How Am I Feeling? | Bad Advice Generator | Holiday Advice

Follow us on:

Facebook | Twitter

Mashable Follow Reinvents Twitter

9th May 2011

Last week Mashable.com launched Mashable Follow, a new personalization and social layer to their website. Their announcement video stated that this development was meant to help Mashable readers save time while discovering the content that matters to them. As the amount of content on Mashable grows, users are faced with spending more time sifting through this content, and thus, providing a method to narrow down story topics and to receive recommendations from a few (or many) trusted users would seem logical.

But this announcement left me scratching my head in confusion. Mashable produces its own content and reacts to content from the web. This is a fairly standard way of running a large site. Most, if not all, news, technology, and pop culture sites write their own articles about topics that (hopefully) will interest the reader. When a large story breaks and can’t be ignored, but there isn’t enough information yet to cover anything except the 3 or 4 facts that everyone knows, these websites will re-hash content. Again, this is standard practice. I see it almost every day on my Twitter feed—a story reported by one site’s feed is bound to show up on another’s with slightly different wording.

Aside from the socially entertaining aspect of Facebook and Twitter, I use these services to discover new information. This is not a groundbreaking revelation since I’m sure most do the same. The beauty of social networking, from a perspective of content discovery, is that a user is able to discover information from many sources all over the web. Some of this information may come from other trusted users (like the friend who always finds funny videos), while other pieces of information might come directly from trusted websites (like the @RollingStone Twitter account).

What puzzles me is why Mashable decided to essentially re-create the Twitter and Facebook experience inside their own website. It makes perfect sense to allow your readers to filter through content in order to quickly access the topics they care about. In fact, Mashable was so quick to implement this strategy that they created separate twitter accounts for separate high-level topics on their website (@MashableTech, @MashableVideo, @MashableSocialMedia to name a few). This is to be applauded, since this move took the standard filtering section links often encountered at the top of a news website and turned them into feeds, thus enabling readers to receive Mashable content from a specific subject area without having to visit the Mashable website to find these stories. But Mashable Follow seems to require that users sign-in with a Twitter or Facebook account, create a profile, select other users and topics for their feed… and then…. open Mashable in order to receive this feed? Why would I want to do that? Why wouldn’t I simply follow users and providers of specific topic content on Twitter?

Mashable Follow seems to me much like a department store with high brand loyalty. Mashable wants visitors to come to it. Which is fine, and I’m sure many people leave Mashable.com open all day to get new information. But it seems to me that the majority of shoppers don’t care if they go to a department store, as long as they can get the best price on a product they want. They might turn to the web for shopping, where a huge marketplace is attempting to sell you many similar products. Simialrly, casual users don’t care where interesting content comes from, as long as they have a way to access it easily, hence the popularity of link sharing services.

Mashable Follow has essentially taken the keyword tags associated with blog entries and turned them into individual microblogging accounts inside their own website’s microblogging service, then allowed flesh-and-bone users to create accounts and share links, comment, etc. Some of this system is useful in that it allows users to connect and share links with one another, but Facebook Comments and Disqus already did this fairly well, and across multiple websites. The rest just seems to be a mashup of social media components that, I think, work better in a larger environment.

But perhaps I’m misunderstanding Mashable Follow. Perhaps Mashable has so many dedicated readers who visit the site every day that this feature is truly useful to them. But to me it seems like just another account I “need to have” that I probably won’t do anything with. If someone can explain its usefulness to me, I’d love to listen: @SinecureLuke

The Past Decade Isn’t Only About Social Networking

23rd April 2011

Last week in an article for Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Ashley Vance argued that, unlike the technology bubbles of the past which left us with personal computers and increased internet infrastructure, we may now be in a bubble based on social networking that might leave us with very little if and when it goes pop.

While Vance’s article was informative, it left me skeptical. I’m not an authority on market bubbles, but I’ve lived through some and the seemingly endless parade of socially networked services and blind desire to add social functions to apps and websites does seem to portend a social network bubble. But if this is a bubble, I don’t believe its bursting will, as Vance put it, “leave us empty-handed.”

The intense growth in popularity of social networking could be traced back to 2005 with the explosion of MySpace and outgrowth of its competitor (and eventual successor) Facebook. Like any ecosystem, social networking became rich with niches—photography, music, microblogging, video, travel, etc. Most of these subjects had been explored on the web in the past (remember Webshots?) the increased desire for social networking and cross-site integration created an entirely new crop of services. While some of these sites were powered by subscriptions, the majority relied on the Google-pioneered model of contextual advertising. In fact Vance’s article explores the data mining behind this advertising in intriguing detail.

But the rise of social networking isn’t the only legacy of the first decade of the 21st Century. While most of our gadgets have gotten much more social, they’ve also grown smaller and more portable. My first cellphone made calls, received text messages, and allowed me to play Snake. My present phone has a higher clock speed and more RAM than my first Gateway PC did in 1997, takes fairly good photos, browses the web, plays games… in short, the advances of this “tech bubble” now allow me to literally carry a computer in my front pocket.

But cellphones are not the only devices to shrink in size. Laptops have also gotten smaller, but not merely due to the tendency over time of more processing power fitting in ever tinier containers. The rise of the netbook, and more recently the tablet, speaks volumes about our changing consumer needs. These computers are smaller in part due to miniaturization, but also due to the realization that we no longer need portable computers to do everything that a desktop can do. Most users don’t need to run resource-hungry programs on the go. This conscious reversion back to less powerful machines reflects a maturation of the information society as a whole.

But scaling back the abilities of our portable computers would not have been possible without the most important legacy of the current tech period—cloud computing. Our harddrives can be smaller because files can be stored remotely; the presence of DVD drives is waning in favor of USB-connectable memory; our processors can be less powerful because many resource-hogging programs are now available as streamlined web-based applications; programs in general can be smaller and more targeted to a smaller set of tasks due to the availability of downloadable apps. In short, we’ve taken the computer and distributed it onto the internet, and now require only a smaller, less powerful machine to interact with those distributed components.

If we are in a new tech bubble, driven by social networking, and if this bubble does pop and wipe out a large number of social sites, we will still be left with our advances in computer portability and cloud distribution. We’ll merely be visiting fewer social music discovery and photosharing sites with our ultra-potable machines.