Although HTML 5 is still a draft specification, it's impact is being felt across the technology landscape as this is written. In creating a new standard, the W3C was mindful of the latest developments in applied web application technologies, such as the growing popularity of media-rich Web sites over static brochure-ware, and innovations like AJAX.  I say applied because one of the key drivers behind the new specification was the understanding that the last decade or so of web development can be summed up as "forcing browsers to provide an experience they were never intended to," as I often mention to my colleagues. Anyone who has worked as a web developer can sympathize with the amount of hacks, workarounds and plugins needed to deliver a modern, interactive experience. And that's just within a single browser, let alone making your site cross platform. Hopefully, HTML 5 can begin to address this quagmire by making the underlying markup both relevant and applicable to what the web is actually used for these days. I won't go into detail with regard to the specification and it's potential,  but instead focus on how it will change the game specifically for the CMS software industry. So how will this impact authors, administrators, contributors on the web? Let's dive into the features and see how. Clearer separation of navigation, header and footer elements With the new elements types for navigation items and such, you'll not be surprised that browser safe, standardised and design-agnostic navigation can be provided out of the box in CMS. With standards around the underlying HTML of the navigation, CMS vendors can reliably provide more advanced site creation, navigation management wizards without having to worry about supporting the top 15 AJAX libraries and approaches out there. This portability can be achieved today with good effect using CSS and List elements, but these new elements should also help put to rest the debate about what type of navigation model to use and perhaps more importantly, provide the syntactic sugar to help search engines understand your site structure that much easier; for example, without the need to generate an XML sitemap. Local storage database Arguably the most obvious benefit to software vendors of all types is the local storage facility. No longer do we have to worry about flaky connections and long-workflow-abandonment. With local storage comes the promise of authoring web pages while on your flight to Texas, replying to blog posts in the train tunnel and a slew of other offline scenarios. Immediately, the mobile application development realm becomes far more interesting as offline caches can be stored in the device for interrogation when not connected, and in general, a faster experience when checking the local cache for your documents, as opposed to constantly "pulling" from the web server.  Long, multi-step online business processes won't be abandoned as often when users realise they can pick up right where they left off. Essentially, web apps will behave much more like desktop applications in their statefulness. I expect the memory allocation for each domain to be increased quite quickly, as pressure from vendors to store local caches of binary documents and other rich media will quickly surpass the 5MB suggested limit. Flash, Silverlight and Applets, oh my! The impact of web sockets, or the ability of web pages themselves to call and respond data sources, based on the socket pattern. If that sentence just flew right over your head, think about chat or instant messaging applications. They have traditionally been implemented in Flash or other RIAs du to the in built capabilities of the 3rd party plugin to supply the infrastructure. Although corporations like Facebook and Google have overcome this with their COMET based chat clients at significant development cost; this new infrastructure provided in the specification, could level the playing field for everyone else that is not as fortunate. "Essentially, what it does is lays the groundwork to have equivalent functionality that Flash or Silverlight provides," says RedMonk analyst Michael Cote. With the addition of new elements or tags for video and audio, the specification is pointed squarely at vendors like Adobe and Microsoft in an attempt to swing the balance back in favor of Google, who employ's HTML 5 lead editor Ian Hickson open standards. What does this mean for CMS software as we know it? For one, vendors will have an option outside of siding with Adobe or Microsoft, avoiding allegiance and licensing headaches when it comes to picking a video player of choice. Outside of the media player debate, CMS vendors can hope to bring a level of control and configuration not found in RIAs today. Most CMS struggle with anything besides supplying a basic XML file for Flash objects to ingest. That's about as far as they go today. With the new specification opening up the breathing room a bit, we could see a standardised approach to feeding parameters, content and even deploying objects within the RIA. CMS are great when it comes to deployment, rollback and versioning of code, and up until now, CMS functionality has been for the most part shut out of the equation because it had to hard stop at the executable level: the .SWF file. It was impenetrable. Now, CMS vendors can perhaps go deeper into the actual DNA of the RIA and allow authors to probe, create and adjust the contents and interactions just as richly as pure HTML or any other text markup. As with most trends, we'll have to watch for the final evolving uptake and following impact of these new standards. If the mind-bending Jedi tricks AJAX developers have crammed into ailing browsers is any indication of the future, we're sure to see many uses no one can anticipate right now. What are some ways in which you think the popular CMS platforms will be affected by the coming of HTML 5?

Amen to this article on the market

segmentation of smartphone users into discreet pools of consumer and business demographics. I posted way back that BlackBerry wouldn't make a consumer friendly phone, and although they did in the Pearl, which has a camera and MP3 player, there's no way it could touch the iPhone on the digital media capabilities. Don't get me wrong, I love my Pearl, but I do so because it's my "killer work email smartphone with a camera and MP3 player on-the-side" workhorse. And, as suspected, iBankers haven't been given the liberty to choose the Pearl's slim form factor option as a corporate-sponsored phone because it lacks the QWERTY keyboard. If you haven't noticed, QWERTY spells PRODUCTIVITY ON MY DIME. Sorry Goldman interns. Now, key to Apple's success in this venture is to make a killer email integration. I can't emphasize how important this step is. Without it, the iPhone is not a smart phone. I would imagine that Apple is going to be smart enough to recognize the demographic split as mentioned, and create seamless integrations with GMail and Yahoo, that leverage a UI that is iPhone specific (read: NOT GMail Mobile). At the same time, it will draw competition from RIM to enhance their media solutions, but this is inevitably in the pipe. Obviously a fool's bet to say that RIM will outplay iTunes, et al. but they need to improve just to stay competitive. However, that doesn't mean that Apple couldn't move into the business user space, but they now would have to replicate BlackBerry server functionality, and that's not in Apple's ballpark to focus on B2B services. Personally, I wish that RIM would get bankrupted by patent lawsuits and then once that's cleared, Apple could make a hostile takeover while RIM is cashless... cruel, but man, how perfect a device would be born out of that fire. No for the Boodos. WHAT IS UP WITH APPLETV? This product has got to be the weakest modern Apple product launch to date. Just when Apple seemed to be poised to  be the only  big player capable of preventing Microsoft from taking over our living rooms, internet television and subsequently... the world; Apple dropped the ball! Apple failed on this version of AppleTV because:

1. It doesn't stream videos from your desktop...
2. It doesn't stream videos from your desktop?
3. It doesn't stream videos from your desktop!?!?!
4. Doesn't let you purchase from iTunes
5. ....

Long term, Apple will correct these, but it's funny how analysts have just figured out how pervasive the internet TV

revolution could be on marketing, advertising and literally up-end mass media as we know it... because while Apple is just scratching this surface with AppleTV vision, guess what, Microsoft already has the hardware, distribution mechanism and loyal base of installed users. It's called the Xbox 360, and it does everything that AppleTV doesn't do yet .... today. I am utterly amazed by how ingenious the Xbox team are in creating this internet TV settop box, hidden and originally sold in a video game console's skin, that  has silently and subtlety made bill Gates the next Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch. I should also point out the extreme luck that enabled this clean sweep. Sony failed to maintain their title of console king by absolutely blowing the PS3 campaign, from just about every perspective from design to operations. This opened the door for Microsoft to saturate the market, err, steal  the market from Sony. And now, Apple just helped by coming up short on the typically stellar launch of the AppleTV. The paradigm shift that traditional print media faced when the internet grew as a medium is a drop in the bucket, ad -dollar-wise, compared to the disruption the internet will bring by eclipsing TV. That's like hockey taking over major league baseball as the top sport in America. Again like the RIM quandries for the iPhone, you can parallel the differentiators for Microsoft XBox 360 and AppleTV. Apple has the content and licensing  model in iTunes, where Zune and whatever unheard of DRM platform Micrsoft has is infantile (can you smell a partnership?). On the other hand of the corollary, Xbox has the added benefit of appealing as a console to young gamers as well as a perceived cost / value benefit in that it serves as the dual use internet enable home theatre device. AppleTV, not so much on serving multiple age groups. Expect them to use the  iPod / iTunes community as leverage into the youth demographic. I end with a quote that I actually agree from Bill Gates (or I should say whatever visionary in his digital staff prepped him for) : "I'm stunned how people aren't seeing that with TV, in five years from now, people will laugh at what we've had."

Interesting how just weeks ago, before the fed rate pause, analysts were hammering Apple's price target down to 60. Some even had worse sentiment not mentioning, becuase it simply shows how narrowminded analysts can be. In fact, I love playing against the analysts advice. I love gaming analysts. Opportunity is found in what the market is not paying attention to, or has got all wrong. I ask myself if any of the analysts assigned to Apple even own an iPod or really are inspired by the business model, the process, the creativity. One of my biggest rules to investing is to only invest in tangible companies: one's you have first experience with, be it on a consumer or professional level. I guess I can't blame the analysts, as they have to play risk-averse ball in order to appease the masses. No one wants to lose their retirement on tech (again) right? I don't have to play no contact, however, and if the anlaysts had picked up on the subtle clue in the quarterly report given by the Apple CFO that the iPhone was indeed a reality, you could have caught Apple at low 60's. Now, Apple does happen to be up 8% in two days

since the announcement of the iPhone, and the analysts are of course, upgrading after the stock has already gone up. Thank the analysts when the stock pulls back as most would after such a rally (hint: if I bought Apple at 50, its recent 52 week low, I would consider selling at 72, lest I be considered greedy. You can't beat 50% in 3 months on a blue-chip). I set my target price for Apple at 75. I'm going to play hardball and ride it out to 85 just to save commissions on the sale. I strongly believe in setting targets for stock plays, as opposed to Index funds. Set a goal, score and go home. Don't expect lightning to keep striking in the same place indefinitely. Same goes for any gamble. That's why I've never lost money gambling. I wish I could say the same for the stock market. :) And yes, I'm even more excited about the iPhone! My mobile contracts about to expire and my beloved SE t610 is on it's last legs after 3 years of dutiful service.

I guess you have to be careful what you wish for. My buddies at Engadget report

on a quote from the Q3 earnings call I listened to yesterday from CFO Peter Oppenheimer:

"As regards cell phones, we don't think that the phones that are available today make the best music players. We think the iPod is. But over time, that is likely to change. And we're not sitting around doing nothing."

Not a big surprise to the Apple following, but this is a considerably firm public statement regarding direction from management, which for Apple, is rare.

On a side note, Apple stock rallied in after hours trading, making for aboot a 13% gain in 2 days. Incidentally, I bought Apple stock at 60 and was a inch away from doubling down when it hit 50 a share. Had I been a more seasoned investor, I think I would have taken the plunge. At least its good to see that my fundamentals are inline. Next time!

Sanebull

is an innovative and functional desktop for active traders. I thought I was in love with Google Finance, but this takes a drastic leap forward in terms of creating a unified dashboard. Although I'm a big fan of the live updates, until charting is implemented, I can only bank on this site for it's potential. I'm looking forward to account management features, as reentering your stock picks is less than ideal. More than just targeting the finance sector, which is IMHO the wisest of decisions when creating incubator software for a specific audience, I really enjoy the overall framework built for window management. By far the best implementation I've seen to date.

We have yet to be offered a true contender for a highly consumer-friendly MP3 Phone. Apple needs to do this. And they need to get on this one... now. I'm really disappointed that Motorolla beat them to the punch with the V3 RAZR.  Playing MP3's on your phone old hat? Absolutely, Motorolla's V3 RAZR is not new, but it combines an already market-proven phone with a convergence idea that is golden. It trumps Cingular's play with iTunes, since its not iTunes that's going to sell cell phones. iTunes didn't sell me, or anyone, on the iPod at the first glimpse. Sarcastic voice, fist-shaking: "It's the design and interface of the product you fools!" The marketing, people, the product marketing... not tech. Someone please tell Microsoft that in regards to their magic WiFi bullet. I swear to god, the white earbuds have done more for capturing initial audiences than any other feature of the iPod, as it is immeidately recognizable. It's the Bently logo on your MP3 player's hood. Will the V3 dominate? I'm not certain that 1 commercial of a dude on a treadmill is going to rock the USA. Trendsetting consumers don't pay attention to cell phone commercials, becuase, well, they come off like car commercials, and we're all trained by the age of 3 to completely ignore those on a subconsious level. We do live in America, right? What makes people buy consumer electronics? By and far, things that are adopted by the uppoer crust as having adequate cool factor. Edit: Schomer raises a good comment about iTunes solid synchronizing capabilities having sold him on the sexy iPod (two points for alliteration?). Granted that this is a good thing, I think this more or less fulfills a customer's expectation more than exceeding one. I think grandpa would expect the synchronizing feature to work seamlessly, it's just such a fundamental requirement to any nontechnical person who can't appreciate the engineering feat. I think Apple did however exceed everyone's expectations on making MP3 player's and other tech paraphernalia sexy, which is critical for consumer products. I guess the real question is to counter Schomer's point, would the iPod have taken control of the market to the extent it has if it had iTunes, but had as lackluster an appearance and usability as an iRiver? I couldn't disagree more Market Trendsetting There's something to be said about convergence and the market forces... I know it's not as big a deal to most middle-Americans who can stuff several items in their pockets if only for the morning and afternoon walk down the driveway to their car. But for urbanites on the move, the thought of being able to haul around one less piece of techmass in their suit pants on the subway is priceless. Elitest, yes, but priceless. ;)  And we know from the cultutal dynamics of capitalist nations that the elite trends are often mimicked by the masses.

So, where are the problems for the V3? Not having a true competitor, I think the V3 will continue the bestselling trend of the RAZR. But the tipping point question is:

Is Motorolla really monetizing convergence as much as an Apple inspired iPhone would?

In this case, the consumer benefits more than the corporation, in the long run. Only Apple has the potential to benefit from convergence to such an extent to build synergies with music ordering, as V CAST is a joke compared to iTunes. I don't think there's any customer loyalty being built from a lifestyle standpoint. If someone comes out with a smaller, sexier phone and a challenging cell provider has equivalent support, I don't see a compelling reason why the elite will stick with the provider (assuming that cell phone coverage becomes a commodity over time, which it will. Go to Europe for proof, this is is not a long term competitive advantage.)

Grand Unified Lifestyle Theory

Now, on the other hand, if you tie in the lifestyle choices, the marriage to iTunes for your pod-casts, music, etc. you create glue. You stick the consumer to your service because there is a value add outside of the hardware itself. Obviously, this is highly dependant on what Apple can bring to the table in terms of an integrated electronic lifestyle. Given that it's common for consumers to not have a ShackleBerry, the lack of Office features on a mass consumer phone developed by Apple is not troubling. I'm of the faith that there will always be a divide between work and play computers, evidenced by console gaming vs. business machines.

Can Microsoft compete in this space? Sure, they can provide competitive forces, but given their recent track record of failing (read: Microsoft Live) all they will do is keep Apple on it's toes, perfecting their existing model, while Microsoft realizes they still operate like a enterprise software vendor. Untill Microsoft develops core values that recognize (and actually cater to ) the consumer mind, I think they're SOL.

I think what's more intriguing is the long term prospect of adopting a more (gasp) Web 2.0 mindset when developing consumer products. No, I don't think WiFi is here yet, we need better data plans in the US. But the prospect of incorporating aspects of iLife and iTunes on your cell phone are promising. I think if Apple can leverage this trend by realizing that they cannot limit to iLife, but instead should work this angle to leverge best of breed web applications, much in the same way Vox has (shameless plug!)

Why not  have Flickr house your cell phone wallpapers? Why not have your cell phone photos immediately sent to Flickr instead of sitting on your phone memory? Why not support mobile photo/video blogging (really support it, that is)?

Failure to Launch

As far as failing to move on the iPhone, who knows why. I do know that it's unfortunate that Apple didn't partner with Motorolla... just think of a white, iPod-esque RAZR as the Stage 1 iTunes phone. Why would this be better than Cingular's push? Well, the phone Cingular pushed stinks... it's an outdated clamshell. That's not iPod-sexy enough to make someone change cell phone plans and jump contracts, not by a freakin' mile. For now, I guess we'll have to sit on our hands, as perhaps Apple is focusing on their Windows MediaCenter counterpunch. Controversially enough, I'm a big fan of MediaCenter, despite the occasional freezing up, that is, of course. :)