Mr. Aggarwal

HTTP

• Web-based email
• Not made for access other than the web
• Some HTTP accounts can be checked given the right client tool (like Outlook can check Hotmail)

POP

• Not made for keeping multiple computers/devices and web in sync
• Generally, mail is downloaded from the server upon checking it (unless you use a tool like Outlook which has the ability to leave it on the server)
• Even if you leave messages on the server, if you delete on remote device, it will not delete on the server (unless you have a client tool like Outlook which will give you some options)
• If you send from remote device, it is not pushed to a sent items folders on the server
• Only brings messages down in the Inbox (not sub-folders)
• No good push capability for mobile devices (as of this writing)
• POP is low cost
• Most personal email accounts use POP (i.e. Gmail)

IMAP

• Keeps multiple computers/devices and web in sync
• Mail is left on the server when checked
• Inbox and sub-folders are brought down to client machine/device
• Push mail available on mobile devices, but many complain of poor support
• Newer than POP
• Catching on among personal users who do not have Exchange

Exchange

• The most robust email platform
• Mail is kept on the server
• Allows calendar, tasks, notes, etc. in addition to email
• Allows group collaboration of calendars, etc. when used in a group environment
• Excellent about keeping everything (PCs/mobile devices/web) in sync
• Push email for mobile devices (Blackberry and non-Blackberry with Exchange ActiveSync)
• Pretty much the standard for medium size and enterprise email/collaboration
• Expensive 
• Gaining popularity among small businesses and personal users as it becomes more affordable

…maybe, one day, I’ll turn this into a more complete chart of features to allow for generic comparison.  But I will note, that there is a different connotation, a different aura that doesn’t fit into a particular feature list about each of these.  For now, I will suggest that you should use Exchange since you are a blog reader of mine and are therefore technically-savvy, business-savvy, and/or someone who copies what I do since I know what I’m doing.

You will really enjoy the content and quality of this video.

So, what is a Portal, again?  And what is a content management system?  And while we’re at it, what is a web site?

It seems the simplest of terms get very easily confused.  In fact, it might be true that the simpler the term, the more easily confused it becomes.

Everyone used to know what a Portal was.  Or so they thought.  And content management system (CMS), a word still widely used today, was also a tool that could be used in a specific manner.  And somehow, these were at one point, different from just a “web site”.

Well, I am here to contend that they aren’t very different at all.  Like many semantic discussions, you can argue that they mean just about anything.

Here are my definitions:

Portal - a web site that allows a user to log-in and experience something specific to them.

Content Management System (CMS) - a web site that has an administrative interface which allows the content of the site to be managed

Web Site - any set of pages accessed from a sigle domain

Yes, these are generic, as I believe they should be.  The reality is that different people use these words for different things.  I’m sure you know people who call MyYahoo a Portal in the same way they call their corporate Intranet (which consists of static HTML with links to Weather.com) a “Portal”.  Now, even I think that is  a stretch, but I believe my above definitions have legs because they are generic: not specific enough to get a huge amount of hate mail, yet not so broad that anything fits.

The commonality I find interesting is that none of these terms actually “made it” from a marketing perspective in my opinion.  Especially “Portals”…

(more to come soon)…

Good question(s).  Web 2.0 is something “some” people have begun referring to as the next “version” of the web.  Of course, there is no “new release” that has happened, nor will it happen.  Nothing about “the web”, the Internet, etc. will actually get “rolled out” like a software version would be.

However, Web 2.0 is an interesting idea that identifies with some of the capabilities, technologies, and uses that the web has come to allow (which it wasn’t typically known for in the past — perhaps you might call the past Web 1.0).  These concepts include more dynamic websites with content tagging capbilities to allow for a richer administration and user experience.  For example, this blog would be considered Web 2.0.

There is much more that can be said about Web 2.0, some of which is more technical, but I think it is really up to each of us to determine how far we take the whole Web 2.0 “idea”, since that is all it really is - an idea.  Perception is reality as it is said in business, and quite a bit in consulting, so if people perceive a Web 2.0, then I guess it is and/or will be a reality indeed.

Following is an image I found online that helps describe some of the key aspects of Web 2.0.  Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.  In this case, there is no debate since this picture is basically an image of one thousand words (okay, I didn’t count, and yes, it does look like less than 1,000 words, but you get the idea).  Note how they are arrayed in a radial, tag-cloud like manner (I have implemented dynamic tag coulds, but it might be interesting to try one that is laid out radially like this on an actual implementation rather than just a static image):

Okay, everyone should take the “Yahoo Challenge”: try to find something using Google, and then take the same search term and try with Yahoo.  Report on which engine gave you better and more pertinent results.  I have to say, I am getting less quality with Google these days which has left me to try Yahoo and MSN from time-to-time — they actually are quite a bit better sometimes.

I am a pretty big Google fan (and I’m sure they will come up with another huge revenue stream like they did with AdWords), but Yahoo! et al are coming out with some really nice, user-friendly offerings that are worth noting.  And perhaps more importantly, the perception (and perhaps reality, since in business, they are no different), is that Google is not making as many strides as Yahoo!/Microsoft on their core search engine offering.

My opinion: Google will need to hit it fairly big on their next revenue stream bet or we will see them take a hit.

If you haven’t tried it, you really should: http://maps.google.com.

I have been using Google Maps to find businesses for a while now because it is fast and I can see an AJAX-draggable map right when I find them.  I used to pick up my cell phone and call them right afterwards, but now, I don’t even have to dial their number.  Google Maps will remember my phone number and I can click one button so that Google can connect me with the business.  For free.  Now, that rocks!

For people that get charged or have limited long distance calls, the soft savings expand to hard savings.

Also, when the call comes into your phone, caller id shows up with the actual phone number of the business you will be speaking with (rather than some random or meaningless number).  So, just “add to address book” if you’d like when the call is over.  This really is a cool service.

“The web” is only getting bigger….

And how does the web get bigger?  With more content.

And what kinds of companies win when more and more content needs to be delivered?  Companies who focus on getting content delivered effectively and efficiently.

And what are two of those companies that I have been tracking?  Akamai (AKAM) and InterNAP (INAP).

Read about them.  Yes, they have both had growth — Akamai in particular has had some explosive growth — but perhaps not at the rate of growth that rich content is being delivered on the web.

Disclaimer: I do not buy/sell stocks for a living and my opinions, although I think they’re good, should not be used as the sole criteria for investing (or not investing) in a company.  Bottom line — I’m not responsible for what you do in case that needed to be said.

Very interesting. 

Collaborate online with others.  Save as Word documents or Excel.  Heck, you can save documents as PDF.  Have your docs available online (all the time, from anywhere with a connection).  Okay, we can ask, what if we don’t have a connection?  Yes, I am more concerned about my ISP dropping a connection rather than Google’s servers.  But that is just something we need to get used to as more and more of what we do is done online, so no, that doesn’t yet seem to be a valid argument (and I’m sure they’ll end up with some sort of auto-save so you can work offline if needed — maybe that will be a feature they charge for).

Well, at least check it out:http://docs.google.com/

Did I mention it’s free?  Now you have no excuse.  Check it out and we’ll talk later.

I’ve got to say that tag-based filtering of data on the web might just be near the top of the “next big thing” list.  I see people and websites leveraging it all over the place.  CompUSA now uses tag-based filtering on their site along with other big names.  I actually think it’s pretty cool and user-friendly……….or do I?

Cool? Yes.  User-friendly? At first it might seem as such, but when I really want to do something tag-based filtering won’t allow, I get very annoyed.  For example, let’s say I’m browsing laptops at CompUSA, and I want to pick any that have AMD processors as well as 15.4″ OR 17″ monitors.  Tag-based filtering will not allow this.  I pick 15.4″, and then I have to go back to pick and view the 17″ monitors separately. 

What happened to simple, tabular reporting with multi-select?  What was wrong with that?  I could pick whichever options I wanted, it took up less screen real estate, and it required much fewer clicks.  I’ve even played with tag-based filtering on a few web applications and web sites.  It is definitely cool and simple, and if you know that filtering will be a straightforward and easy task for your users, it might even be a good choice.  And, chances are, if you didn’t use any reasonable means of filtering data, tag-based might be a great way to go.  But, be weary that it might spark your users’ interest like it did mine and make them wonder why the filtering couldn’t be just as powerful and easy as it was in the ”old” days.

I don’t title this blog entry to literally compare social networking and reality television…we all know what they are.  I title this to compare the subtle differences between their explosive popularity, addiction induction capability, coolness factor, etc.
 

I don’t have any viewership/usage statistics (was trying to find some), but reality shows have been very popular — okay insanely popular — for years now.  I think it’s safe to say, at least as of today, people spend more of their leisurely time in front of their TV’s than in front of their computers.  And when people are watching TV, there’s a very good chance their watching a reality show.  Yes, I think that trend will shift to where people are spending more time in front of their computers.
 

For the people that “hang out” with their computers, I think many of them are likely gaming (the average age for gamers is much higher than you might expect), many of them are shopping, and many of them are just “surfing” for whatever they want.  I hate to say it, but I’m sure a fair number are looking at pornography as well, considering I heard it is an industry that brings in more than double Hollywood’s revenue.  But, social networking is really, REALLY popular.  And perhaps, more importantly, a few of the concepts are sure to only trend upwards exponentially since they are so addictive.  I think the addiction to social networking is similar to reality TV; people want to see, learn about, and “connect” with other real people.  And in social networking, everyone can be part of the show; everyone can have their own personal “place” on this massive beast we call the Internet.  So, what’s cooler in the end, watching the 0.01% of the population have their 15 minutes of fame or participating yourself?  I think social networking is here to stay — some say the bubble is bursting, will burst, or has already burst.  I think we will only find more and more people participating personally on the web, and I’d be surprised to find anyone who sincerely disagrees.  I do think, however, think that social networking will become even more personal and professional as more people become tech savvy, and pro blogging will become the norm rather than reserved for the more technically competent and/or serious — I’d like to see it take over social networking (since the tools that exist today have given themselves a connotation of fun and useless content).
 

By the way, I think the topic of ethics as it relates to these should get an honorable mention.  There is, and has been, much debate about ethics related to supporting television programming that profits from taking sincere people through emotional roller coasters.  (When I say “sincere”, that still includes those who intentionally join these shows just to give their film/acting/singing careers a boost.  In fact, I refused to watch the Bachelor for a while when it hit me how similar it was to the Zimbardo-like role-playing experiments (specifically, his famous Stanford prison experiment) which were considered unethical many years ago.  I could just see those 25 women getting wrapped up into the role they were expected to play for the bachelor.  Of course, with social networking, you have 1) the sick people that post crass content on the web, 2) the even sicker people that use social networks for stalking the people in category 1, and 3) the true “sickos” that use social networks to find people to commit crimes.  With the cult-like popularity of both of these, though, I think we really need to ask not “if”, but “how” exactly they are changing our society and they way we communicate with, feel about, and treat one another.

I remember a time in enterprise technology when developers, albeit a small percentage, were “cowboys” - you know, people who “shoot from the hip”.  I’m not talking about the irresponsible, incompetent people, but instead the people who knew what needed to be done, knew how to do it, and wouldn’t wait for other people to make it happen.  Yes, a bit uncontrolled, but insanely, insanely productive.

I can’t help but feel an overarching culture shift in technology from ROI to security.  This special “security beats ROI” mantra was always reserved for the most uncool, slow, unproductive organizations (and unfortunately, it seems government always got the brunt of that since they were never driven by profitability).  Well ironically, the trend seems to be reversing.  Many areas in government seem to be taking a customer-focused, run-our-organization-like-a-business approach, while some businesses are taking a do-it-securely-and-perfectly-even-if-profitability-is-at-risk approach.  Now, I am not saying that either is right or wrong.  There are certainly reasons to focus on profitability that need not be explained.  And the argument to focus on security and risk mitigation is also valid that need only be explained in one word: Enron.

But, I guess the part that I miss is that rogue developer who would come up with something cool and amazing [in the enterprise] every few months just because he wanted to make an impact.  You know where all these developers have gone?  Google and small businesses/startups.  Google makes everything a beta product, they charge the public for almost nothing, and most importantly, they make enough money in their advertising that they can splurge on cowboy developers.  Thus, you can be a developer at Google and work for years without touching anything that would be considered a material risk to the business.  It is no surprise that they are attracting so many of the smartest.  Part of me hopes that the security-beats-ROI trend in the enterprise is balanced back just a little so we can see our cowboys flourish again.

For someone who implements and appreciates technology as much as me, I avoided a personal blog for quite some time.  I have participated on community blogs and written articles on sites that presented information in a blog-type fashion, but I haven’t buckled down and done one for me.  So, now that I am writing in my own personal blog, I have to ask myself if this is all it’s hyped up to be…

The answer: Yes.  The second answer: Ask me in a few months when the novelty has worn off.

I have been creating and running forums, blogs, and group/community sites for years, but I must say, there is something a little enticing about having your own blog, that only you contribute to.  At this point, I only think it will only become more popular.  It’ll be interesting to see what percentage of people have their own blog and a trend on that figure.