Short Critique/First Impressions on Joost
A Short Survey
After four days of using Joost unfettered, a survey was sent out. It was very brief, asking only two questions. The second question was: What do you think of Joost? I attempted to write a brief assessment since the comment box was small, but its still turned into this monster:
The picture quality is a bit fuzzy. I have not had a chance to delve deeply into the Joost website yet for details on the audiovisuals, but considering the amount of data transferred, I would conclude that the programs could be compressed to the same size with a higher resolution. I realize this is still beta, so there is time to hash out the details.
As for variety of programs, I hope to see an increase in what is offered. National Geographic has always had high standards, but it looks like Comedy Central turned Joost into a dumping ground for their discontinued and unpopular shows. No SciFi for the U.S.? That seems way off target. Look at the general demographics for people who will soon be plugging into Joost: tech savvy, democratic in nature, and critical thinkers- usually big fans of SciFi shows.
I like the brief advertising. I know advertising is a necessary evil in exchange for free services, but the networks have gone too far. I shut off my cable service because I was watching more TV commercials than I was actual shows…it was ridiculous. Kudos to the Joost team for keeping the advertising precisely targeted and sweetly short per hour of programs watched.
More kudos for using open source technology, by the way. I just wish the developers were not so closemouthed about the manner that they deliver the content. I’m guessing a little p2p mixed in with streaming content direct from the servers. Give us tech nerds/geeks a little more brain candy then that. It will help when it comes to immediate expectations about performance. I came in with the giant wash of invitations handed out on last Thursday. I expected immediate, gratifying performance, but did not get it until 3 days of letting my bandwidth be borrowed. I do not want the down and dirty details, but letting your users know that performance will improve after p2p kicks in would be nice.
Related links:
Joost Beta Testing!
I received an invitation to beta test Joost last Thursday. I am writing up/editing a preview of it for this Thursday’s post. Hoping to get some invitations to send out soon too!
Related links:
The Click Here Bane
I really don’t like the click here syndrome. It drives me nuts. In school the “click here” problem was joked about, but I never thought I would come across a folder at work filled with click here materials. Yes, I renamed it- it was mostly filled with pdfs and random documents. Thought I would share the silliness before a nice Good Friday off. Enjoy 
What is it? Keeping up with Web Technologies
I keep hearing about AJAX, Ruby on Rails and Web 2.0 along with a myriad of other buzz words mentioned in podcasts and blogs alike. What are they and why are they important? Five second answers for people with no time or patience to find it.
AJAX: Asynchronous JavaScript and XML. Yeah, I know. An acroynm inside of an acronym. How short on time are we?! AJAX uses these web development ingredients: HTML, CSS, JavaScript, XML, XSLT and the weirdly-named XMLHttpRequest object. It’s important because AJAX uses existing technologies and new methodologies – meaning now there are quicker, better ways to develop a web site while using the same old materials.
AJAX and Ruby on Rails are competitors.
Ruby on Rails: A web-app framework written in Ruby. It’s development ingredients are: Ruby. Ruby is a programming language (like Python, Perl, etc.) that was used to build the web application framework. It has to be supported on the server and using it means learning the language.
The difference between Ruby on Rails and AJAX: you code in each element (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, XML) using AJAX; you use a single technology and call functions/methods/classes using Ruby on Rails. The upside to AJAX is that it uses existing technology. The downside is building your frame work from the pieces. The upside to Ruby on Rails is using an existing framework. The downside is implementing support for a new technology.
Web 2.0: Originally, I thought it was the kitschy-design look. Starbursts with gradients, gradient backgrounds, colors that are all pastel or the bold primary colors. Don’t get me wrong – I’m a sucker for any website that looks happy and cheery – but Web 2.0 is really the next generation of web services. It encompasses applying technologies like AJAX and Ruby on Rails, which are used to create new web applications (wikis, social sites and any other sites that rely on user-created content).
So there you have it. Maybe not quite five second sound bytes, but close enough.
