Browse through Netcraft’s May webserver survey.  Scroll down to the bottom.  Where the “million busiest websites” are.  See on the top, holding steady at over 66% market share: Apache.  Microsoft IIS down at just under 16%.   But look at the trend: since 2008 apache has remained steady at around 65%, but IIS has been steadily declining. Interestingly, nginx seems to be gaining what IIS is losing.

Discuss.

Big business has a herd mentality.  It seems all the financial institutions I use, and other large non-financial institutions I use, all use Epsilon.  I can’t see a reason for it except that they’re all acting like sheep.  Over the past two weeks, I’ve received three or four emails about Epsilon stealing my data. And I’m thinking, why is it that the big companies always screw us over, and then try to hide what’s been going on?

Now, I understand that shit happens.  Data get breached.  Of course, data don’t breach themselves.  And breach didn’t just come down about the data like a plague of locusts.  ”Data” are not “breached”.  Systems are.  ”Data breach”  is a blameless way of saying your shit got hacked.  This could be because of lax data, systems, and security practices.  Or it could not be.  It seems to me when this happens to big companies, two themes repeat themselves:

1. They try to hide or sugarcoat the problem
2. They care about the bottom line more than they care about me
3. They’re pompous bastards (maybe I can’t count)

On the other hand, the small guys, the startups, innovators, mom-and-pops…what ever you want to call them, really care about their product an their client.  Some of them fail because they spend more effort into creating a superior product than selling it.  And of course, we too are susceptible to “data breaches.”  But, to the one, we give it to you straight, we work with you to solve the problem, and we eat several helpings of humble pie.

I guess the difference is simple:  We are proud of our work.  Big business is proud of their bottom line.

Discuss,

Shantih,

—mickey

First some background for the uninitiated:  ”111 8th,” or 111 8th ave, Manhattan, NY, is one of the biggest office buildings in Manhattan, occupying an entire city block. It is also one of the biggest “carrier hotels” in the east coast.  A “carrier hotel” is an office building that tailors to network providers.  These buildings and data centers are where what make the Internet run: they’re were internet traffic changes hands from one provider to another.  So: why is this a big deal?

Better question: is this a big deal? or business as usual?  In an attempt to help you decide, here’s a bit of discussion on Google gets by buying a carrier hotel. Perhaps it’s better to start with what Google does not get, namely a way to directly affect internet traffic on one of the biggest peering points in the the US.

What google gets is pretty important:  A “campus” in Manhattan, with plenty of room to grow both its staff and its network.  As owner, it also gets priority access to additional capacity, connectivity to other network providers, and connectivity to building facilities such as electricity and cooling.  Of course, as owner, Google also has the ability to prioritize which other tenants get their requested access to these building facilities.  But that wood be evil.

Lastly, Google gets a pretty neat building.  Built in 1932 to house the Port Authority of NY and NJ, the building has 15 foot ceilings throughout, great views, and plenty of load capacity.  It is the 3rd biggest building in Manhattan.  It includes elevators that can fit entire semi trucks.

So: room enough to expand its staff, all the bandwidth it needs, and a cool building to boot.  What else could Google want?

I participated in #Blogchat this past Sunday and the morning after I saw this post by Allison Boyer from Blogworld, inspired by a Tweet I wrote, “Whatever you do, you can’t make everyone happy.  If you got a hater or two, you’re probably doing something right.”  Following is excerpt from her post:

Easy enough to say, but I also definitely understand why some people get upset when a hater starts leaving comments. We put a lot of work into our blogs, to the point where they feel like our children. If someone doesn’t like our child, that’s anger-inducing…but when someone makes fun of our child? Well, I don’t know about you, but it makes me want to lash out right back.

It pays to remember what @EGlue mentioned – if someone is hating on you for some reason, it’s probably an indication that you’re doing a good job with your blog in general. People may not like a certain post you write or a certain decision you make for your blog, but they feel connected enough that they have to leave a comment. You want your community to feel so invested in your blog that they leave emotional comments when they don’t like someone. If you’re community’s reaction is, “Meh,” that’s probably an indication that you’re not doing a very good job connecting with them.

And remember too, there’s a difference between a hater and a troll. A hater might hate you, but they make valid points or actually have something to say, even though it might come out in a not-so-nice way. A troll, on the other hand, is just trying to piss you off (or piss off another commenter). They don’t actually care about your blog, your community, or even, in many cases, the topic. Haters warrant a response, though do so tactfully. Trolls rarely warrant a response and sometimes even warrant being deleted, depending on their comments and your blog’s policies.

The bottom line? Although negativity often hurts, try to find the constructive criticism in it and remember that just because someone has a different opinion doesn’t mean that you’re doing something wrong as a blogger. Work on building up that thick skin and keep moving forward. – Allison Boyer, Overhead on #Blogchat: Haters (@EGlue)

Yep, 140 characters doesn’t leave us much room to elaborate does it?  Thanks for the post Allison!

I like her distinction between a troll and a hater.  She is absolutely right, that trolls are only interested in getting you to react.  But “haters” are people that care (a lot) about the topic, or at least care enough about your treatment of the topic to let tell you a thing or two.

A tip here to keep in the back of your mind (or as a sticky note on your monitor) is that no matter what, your initial reaction to any criticism is naturally always going to be to go into “defensive mode” and that’s likely to be the wrong reaction.  Take a break.  Step away from the computer.  Think about the value of addressing valid criticism and disregard any haters where the middle ground simply won’t be found.

One of the tips we give give to our clients at Infamia is to stick to addressing the facts and leave subjectivity out of the discussion.  Everyone has an opinion, not everyone is going to feel the same way about it.  However, addressing the facts as to how you came to your conclusions and claims, is insightful and lets them know that you are listening.

Ultimately, knowing your haters is going to make you a better writer, decision maker, business person, leader, etc. in that you will be well aware where the friction exists between you and your readers. The haters that bothered to leave you a piece of their mind, gave you invaluable information as to where you might want to consider focusing and improving your message.

These are opportunities to truly show that you do in fact care.

BTW, a word to any would-be haters out there: it’s far easier to destroy than to build.  There is no real value in being a critic, unless you’re also willing to provide an alternative solution.

Most of us in the technology world found out that Michael Arrington, editor and founder of TechCrunch, sold it for $40 million to AOL last week.  Sarah Lacy, a writer covering Silicon Valley wrote an interesting piece about how she feels that the second wave of technology has crashed.

Great, what took so long!?

If the crash is true, Lacy’s lament of a generalized malaise happening in Silicon Valley is not just her personal sadness for TechCrunch selling out, but rather a sentiment that’s spreading across many of the west coast startup companies.

Recessions have a way of doing that and thank goodness!

Kevin Rose, founder of Digg.com, a “seminal” figure for the Web 2.0 fad, at one point had a $40 million dollar buyout offer.  He, unlike Michael Arrington, turned it down.  When entrepreneur founders are turning down that kind of money because THEY THINK they and their companies are worth hundreds of millions more, there is a problem.  A big problem.

It’s amazing how Silicon Valley’s echo chamber of nonsense causes so much madness in the heads of these founders that they would turn down life-changing amounts of money because they believe they are worth more.  The only exception to these disillusioned entrepreneurs are the lifestyle & bootstrapped companies whose owners/founders are in it for the love of the work and are not getting caught up with looking for an early exit strategy.

Startup founders that write blueprints for 3-year exit strategies when they haven’t even penned their own business plan or worse, actually have a paying customer, are simply delusional.  Business is HARD.  Wake up.  An offer that puts any multiple of a “million” in your pocket is your once-in-a-lifetime offer.  Take it and run.

You could point out that many of these companies have had significant investments from outside investors, that they have diluted the pool of shares to the point that, for the founders, an exit strategy of $100 million or $1 billion is the only possible way for them to see any significant share of it.   To those founders, I say, that’s too bad.  You’re clearly in the wrong line of work, otherwise you wouldn’t have been in a business that required so much outside investment.

Silicon Valley needs to look outside of its little world, and see that there are many other types of businesses and opportunities that are both lucrative, life changing, and fulfilling. Since when did following the herd ever become a good idea when it comes to building a business, anyway?

Assuming that money is more important to you than the work itself, take the money and run.  I’m glad to see this Lesson 2.0 for Silicon Valley.

Related articles

• If Web 1.0’s Kryptonite Was the Bust, Web 2.0 Kryptonite Was the Grind (techcrunch.com)

This is where I normally rant about “big Telecom”, and how contracts with AT&T and (my otherwise favorite mobile provider) T-Mobile have prevented the local Starbucks stores from doing what every other coffee shop has done since the invention of Wifi.  But I won’t.  This is not a time for bashing: it’s a time to appreciate the little victories.

So I say: let other bloggers figure out their N reasons Why.  I’m going to go get a cappuccino and enjoy a victory for the free WiFi movement.

It took about half a million gallons of oil spilled on the gulf, and the release of Froyo, but Adobe and Apple are finally hugging it out.  So of course it’s time for my timely thoughts on the subject.  But first, some disclaimers.

I’m a big fan of Apple—no secret there.  I touch my MBP before my first cup of coffee.  Second, I think flash can die a slow, painful death.  I’d have removed flash from my computer long ago, if it weren’t for that whole “Internet” thing.  And third, perhaps most important, I’m a big fan of both standards and “Open”.    So when Steve Jobs gave “open” and ’standards” as his arguments for not supporting Flash, I drank that kool-aid, too.

But then it hit me like an (Android 2.2-powered) brick.  So here it is:

Apple’s whole rhetoric is Orwellian bullshit.  It is not “open”.  It’s controlling and patronizing. Yes, it’s 1984. Switch to camera two:

In the Open world, we like “free” a lot.  Free software, free beer.  But there’s a “Free” in the Open movement that has an uppercase F:  Free as in “Free Speech.”  Free as in “Live Free or Die.”   I appreciate Apple’s contribution to the Open Source world, their devotion to HTML5 and Open Standards.  But part of being open and free is giving the consumer and the developer a choice. A freedom, if you will, to choose.

While Apple was riding its “open standards” high horse and claiming that Flash is too bloated to run on a wimpy phone, along came Google.  Android is open-source, committed to open standards, runs HTML5 just fine, thanks.  Oh, and it runs flash.  And Hell has not, to my knowledge, frozen over.  All these convincing arguments Steve Jobs put forth in his “open letter”?  Not so convincing any more.  Except of course for the whole “internet” thing:  Let’s call it by its real name: porn.

While Apple doesn’t want you sullying its precious hardware with porn (or political campaigns, but that’s a different story), millions of open-source, open-standards geeks around the world are now able to happily surf porn on their Androids.

So, to sum up: Apple is Orwellian, Adobe is in the sidelines, and “open” means letting people watch their porn.

via smashingmagazine.com

This is an excellent article giving examples and best practices of “call to actions” buttons. It’s important to periodically review and compare your organization’s website pages to current industry trends.

The reason for this that professional top quality web design and development is never about making things pretty; it is all about maximizing opportunities to convert every day visitors into long term and devoted customers, members, supporters, and fans. That’s a learning process the industry has been on since the creation of the first browser. Make sure you site is kept up or it will be your organization that is left behind.

Posted via web from I work for Infamia.com

Posted via web from I work for Infamia.com

via sethgodin.typepad.com

Always chasing new contacts? This is a good reminder that your time is better spent connecting with your closest friends.

Posted via web from I work for Infamia.com