While I don’t claim to be particularly adept at web design, especially compared to the other two featured individuals (Tim Van Damme and Rogie King), my use of Ajax to display a status indicator was highlighted.

Since that time, I’ve had numerous people inquire as to how I added this functionality to my website. In response, I’m supplying the source code that I use. Download: web-presence.zip

Each of the instant messaging networks I have an account on (AIM, Google Talk, Windows Live, Skype, and Yahoo!) have some form of API or web-based badge which can be queried using HTTP. On my server, I am running PHP code which issues requests to the particular service and translates the response into a JSON object. When my page loads, Ajax requests are made to retrieve these JSON objects. Based on presence, the image is updated to reflect whether I am available or away.

For those interested in implementing similar functionality, this code should get you off the ground. Remember to use the required credentials or keys for your account. I’ve made notes where insertions are necessary. Good luck!

The initial focus and reaction around Google Wave centers, rightfully, on communication. In particular, the real-time aspects were highlighted and comparisons drawn to Twitter and FriendFeed. Some even tout it as the “one true” communication tool.

It’s important to note, though, that different people have different needs. For example, both Scott Rosenberg and Fred Wilson find the interface to be complicated. Fortunately, under the open development model Google is taking, others are free to design simpler interfaces.

Looking at things from a technical perspective, the communication-centric mindset is noticeably absent. The general architecture is nothing more than an instantly distributed version control system, complete with access control and an extensible content model.

True, that forms a solid foundation for Google Wave the communication tool. It also forms a solid foundation for myriad other applications, including those yet to be imagined. (I’m starting a timer; stop me when the first FUSE file system is released.)

While its interesting to explore the impact of Wave on existing ideas, I also think its important to step away from drawing comparisons. The “killer app” for Wave is likely something that doesn’t exist currently. The synthesis of features in the underlying technology will allow something new to germinate.

It’ll be interesting to see how this evolves. I fully expect to see many front-end interfaces to Wave designed. Some of those will certainly not be geared toward communication uses for the back-end.

A concise description of what Wave is, exactly, seems to be hard to formulate. You have to see it to understand it seems to be a growing consensus. That is a bit frustrating to those trying to conceptualize, but it may be appropriate if Wave truly is a leap forward for communication.

Tim O’Reilly has the best description I’ve come across:

Jens, Lars, and team re-imagined email and instant-messaging in a connected world, a world in which messages no longer need to be sent from one place to another, but could become a conversation in the cloud. Effectively, a message (a wave) is a shared communications space with elements drawn from email, instant messaging, social networking, and even wikis.

TechCrunch also has an extensive rundown of Wave and the capabilities that were demonstrated today.

Wave is the result of a two-year long effort led by Lars and Jens Rasmussen, the creators of what became Google Maps. Their success on that project gave them the opportunity to pursue this open-ended idea. While they have raised the hype meter to new levels, only time will tell if they have another hit on their hands.

Wave remains in the prototype stage at this juncture. It was announced at a developer conference for a reason: feedback is needed from the engineering community. For it to gain public acceptance, developers will need to embrace it and build capabilities around it.

My interest has certainly been piqued. I’ve spent the day reading articles, watching videos, and researching specifications. Expect follow-up posts with more detailed thoughts.

One of the more interesting articles I came across in the days preceding the release, was on Technologizer, which asked How Long Does Google Baby the iPhone?

I am, however, fascinated by one thing about it: The fact that it’s debuting on the iPhone. It’s the second interesting Google app to do so in recent weeks. (Google Earth made its mobile premiere on the iPhone back in late October.) The iPhone is a terrific platform for mobile apps, so there’d be nothing noteworthy about this except for one thing: Google has its own terrific platform for mobile apps, Android.

The answer to the question, in my opinion, is simple: as long as iPhone is a first-tier mobile platform (read: forever).

To Google, the only platform that matters is the web. That is one of the key aspects to their success, and it is ingrained deeply in their culture. So much so, that any software platform developed by Google is done so under the primary goal of advancing the web itself.

Android as a mobile operating system is, clearly, the most overt platform play from Google to date. However, if mere in-house control of a platform exerted influence on support for third-party platforms, Google’s web strategy would begin to decay.

I suspect Google realizes this tendency, which is one of the reasons why Android is completely open source. No company, not even Google, its primary creator, can claim complete control. The act of open sourcing the platform created a level playing field, perhaps most importantly within Google itself.

Contrast this to Microsoft, where support for any non-Microsoft technologies is met with overwhelming resistance. Through their subsidiary Tellme, Microsoft had the capability to beat Google to the iPhone with this technology, and gain ground in the mobile search arena. That didn’t happen.

Microsoft sees the web running on top of its platform. Google sees platforms running on top of the web. Advantage: Google.

I initially wondered why Google saw fit to define a binary serialization format, when both XML and JSON are suitable and human-friendly. But it didn’t take long to see the benefits, considering the scale at which Google operates, and the sheer amount of data it wrangles.

I’ve done a cursory read through of the documentation, and while there are some features I’m not sold on, it looks solid as a whole. I’ll be experimenting further, in order to add it to my toolchain, and see where I can apply it to my projects.

This release also solves one outstanding mystery for me, which originated a couple weeks ago when Chris Messina tweeted:

Apparently XML gives Google indigestion. They convert all XML to binary but the crap it all over the web.

Google’s massive data centers consume similarly massive amounts of energy. In constructing them, they’ve gained experience in designing efficient facilities. They are now looking to turn the tables, and apply their ideas to the generation of electricity.

It’s both exciting and inspiring to see technology companies focus attention on energy issues. Global warming is, obviously, one of the major challenges of our time. It requires forward thinking from across the spectrum of society, including governments, corporations, non-profits, and individuals.

Google clearly gets this, and has made their commitment clear. In classic Google fashion, they are also embracing openness while approaching the issue, as highlighted by Bubblegeneration Strategy Lab.

After all, as TechCrunch’s Erick Schonfeld muses:

Solving global warming is just a big engineering problem, right?

Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, had the following statement regarding Gears:

“With Google Gears, we’re tackling the key limitation of the browser in order to make it a stronger platform for deploying all types of applications and enabling a better user experience.”

The web browser is becoming the dominant application platform, one on which Google is very comfortable. By actively working to extend the functionality of the browser, Google is making a profound impact, both for users and developers.

Web applications are very convenient, offering many improvements in ease of use and anywhere access. However, their biggest drawback has been non-existent functionality in the absence of a network connection.

Gears solves this problem, by providing access to a computer’s local resources when the remote server is not available. Gears consists of three primary components, a server, database, and worker pool for executing long running tasks. Web applications can utilize these resources in order to provide offline capabilities.

Google is seeking to evolve Gears into an open standard. Towards that end, they are working with Adobe, Mozilla, and Opera. They’ve also released the code under a BSD licence, and are encouraging developer feedback during the beta period.

Despite being the largest technology company in existence, Microsoft’s latest products fail to generate the enthusiasm or disruptive impact of competing offerings. Apple is consistently defining the cutting edge of user interface and experience, Google is conquering the Internet and distributed computing, and open source development is rewriting the rules of software engineering.

Two interesting articles, both from SeekingAlpha, highlight the change that is underway. The first, Vista: End of a Revolution by Carl Howe, recounts the dawn of the PC era, a revolution that Microsoft helped usher in. Since then, time has passed, Microsoft established its dominance, and a new power structure emerged:

What began as the democratization of computing … has now become a distraction from getting work done. Rather than freeing …, PCs now are the policemen …, ensuring that no one moves too fast or too far from what’s approved.

Today, a different revolution is underway:

It is time for another worker rebellion. But this time, the tools are different. … Today’s rebel is wearing a Google T-shirt, carrying an Apple laptop and promoting their company from a Linux infrastructure they don’t even own.

Dan Farber picks up with Google’s enterprise efforts. He quotes Kevin Gough, enterprise product manager at Google.

“At Google Enterprise we look at consumer technology and figure out what is relevant for business.”

A true revolution brings power to the people. This time it is the Internet and Google, not Microsoft, doing just that.

Read/WriteWeb has a wealth of information about JotSpot, past and present. JotSpot’s product and engineering strengths will fit nicely with various Google offerings, including Docs & Spreadsheets and Groups. Of course, the future implications are what make this move interesting.

Google is making designs for enterprise software, pushing further into Microsoft’s territory. Niall Kennedy presents his theory on how the pieces are falling into place, and it appears compelling.

Thus far, Google’s enterprise strategy has consisted of appliances and hosted services. Appliances, like Google Mini, can be deployed on a company’s private network, indexing internal documents. Hosted services, such as Apps for Your Domain are prime candidates for transition to an appliance as well.

Another component is the software installed on individual computers, Google Desktop and Google Talk being two indispensable applications. A bit of integration, utilizing standard protocols like XMPP, could link everything together. Data could transition seamlessly from the desktop, to the internally deployed appliances, and out to the Google-powered cloud. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

(Aside: Is it just me, or is Google second only to Microsoft in poor product naming? I’m not here to criticize brand strategies, but Writely was a fantastic name. Google prefers Google This and Google That, and when those don’t work out, they go and spend $1.65 billion on YouTube, a site in which a good portion of the value lies in the brand. I don’t get it.)

Both Om Malik and Steve Gillmor are blogging the conference. Om claims the office 2.0 idea need refinement, and has to move away from away from traditional notions. Gillmor, as he regularly does, recognizes what is not being said and points in the direction things are moving.

The typical corporation is heavily wrapped up and invested in “process management” and “workflow solutions.” These solutions often have their roots in purchasing decisions made a decade ago, when a corporate network was just that. Data is siloed up in proprietary databases with arcane access restrictions, more often that not a hindrance to modern “workflow.”

Today, the Internet has allowed Google and others to bring communication and collaboration tools directly to the individual. Documents no longer have to be copied, or locked, or hand merged. In a networked world, they can be linked to and edited by multiple people. They can be chat rooms, where changes are discussed before being committed. The documents are the collaboration. They are the workflow.

It’s the difference between centralized and decentralized thinking. Corporations and their enterprise software vendors have a hard time getting beyond rigid, restricted processes. They need to change their mindset, and quickly. Better, more efficient tools are being piped directly to every employee’s desk from beyond the corporate firewall.