Everyone knew about the iphone before it came out, but no one that I talk to outside the tech world knows what android is - most within don’t either. That’s a fundamental difference in google and apple. Apple is known for big build ups to releases and for big ad and pr campaigns. Google isn’t. Instead google is known for launching quietly and then crushing the competition with superior products. But apple is known for crushing competition too. The difference is really one of style.

So now, the question has to be what happens when two heavyweights colide? My guess is that the world won’t blink at android. My guess is that it won’t be half as asthetically appealing as the iphone. However, my guess is that over time it will crush the iphone.

Why? Not simply because it’s google. I know as well as anyone that google can’t win on name alone. If that were true a mass conversion to google docs would be underway. Google will win because its strategy is better and its better fit for this medium. Mobile isn’t about phones. It’s about the web and messaging. Right now apple’s biggest advantage is its ability to combine two devices into one. But as the way we use our phones evolves the google brand will be the one users are most drawn to. It may be a few years off, but in the long run I believe the mobile world belongs to google

There are really just two choices, the front and the back. If you put the brand name in the back, there is a chance a searcher might miss it. They might go to your site and never remember the name because it didn’t make that first impression. They remember the content, but not the brand.

On the other hand, putting the brand in front means giving up valuable keyword real estate. You are potentially sacrificing the only few words a user will ever see to get your brand name out. If it’s an unknown brand, there’s even a chance that will induce someone to skip your link.

So what’s worse? Well, I think our narcissistic and English basis makes us think that the name should come first. We read left to right, and from a hierarchical standpoint it make sense to use: site - section - page. It’s just the way we think. And we certainly don’t want to risk an opportunity to throw our brand in everyone’s face. Consider that and the fact that every uber brand in the world uses this structure (plus some very popular content management systems like wordpress) and you have a fairly compelling argument for placing your brand name first in your title.

But wait… you’re not an uber brand… at least most likely you’re not. So there’s a good chance you’ll benefit more from keywords first. Well… maybe. You don’t need to be Facebook SEOmoz to warrant the brand first title tag, but you also shouldn’t just go for it because that’s what SEOmoz does.

Unless you are well known in your target market, you really shouldn’t be putting your name up front. The key isn’t size, it’s brand awareness in your target market. If your name already means something throw it up front. If it doesn’t (which can be hard to admit) it gets the back seat to content.

Updated: I changed my example from Facebook to SEOmoz. I think this post is more relevant with this example, because SEOmoz is really using its brand recognition in the field to drive clicks.

1. Continue using my “Stealth Blog” only
2. Use the same software as the stealth blog and create a new blog
3. Keep this wordpress blog and moblog on wordpress… and keep the stealth blog

The third option seems like the best though I have some good ideas for a new blog name which would be my reason for number 2… 2 or 3, I plan to try to get back into public blogging…. just hope some readers come back.

If you have a combination of niche content and mainstream content (say you write a blog about music) if you only listen to analytics, you will kill your site. The web is built upon a foundation of availability of all types of content. Naturally mainstream content is searched for more than niche content, and you may see more pageviews for you mainstream content. It may not event be mainstream, it may just be your most popular content. The point is you can’t let the popular content become the only thing on your site.

Why not? Why not just make your site focused on the popular? A few reasons really, 1: niche content will be easier to win in the competition for traffic (even if it comes from a smaller pie) 2: Saturation makes the web dull - and 3: I don’t like it.

Lesson: don’t just blog about apple and google… it’s really boring.

xobni didn’t take the same approach of trying to build a social network from the ground up - xobni built off a tool that was already social in nature, but that completely lacked social features. That’s the pitch anyway, but I could honestly care less about the social aspects of xobni - I love it because it makes outlook interesting and more useful. Improved search, conversational organization, easy file view and most importantly - intelligent presentation of information (which might just be where the ‘plug-in’ company turns into a business).

xobni’s not predictable, it has nothing to do with the semantic web or the mobile web, it’s not the next facebook or the next google, it’s not something anyone said would be the next big thing - it’s not trendy, it’s just brilliant (though the micorsoft move may have been stupid (even if I do like the company more for it)).

I think we’ve hit a wall. Not that I haven’t said this before, but I think my viewpoint has changed a little. Before when I complained about an innovation downturn it was based on a lack of independent startups that I found to be interesting (there are plenty of good independents - but I still haven’t seen a lot of great ones lately). The problem as I see it now, is with a general sense of contentment with the largest “Web 2.0″ sites.

The problem with moving from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 is that people just generally don’t care. They don’t think Google is broken, they don’t think Facebook is broken and generally they don’t care about the difference between machine readable and machine understandable. The difference between machine readable and machine understandable is the key difference in Web 2.0 and web 3.0 (well at least in one generally accepted understanding of 3.0) - if there isn’t demand, it’s tough to get supply. Most entrepreneurs, in my opinion, are focused on getting quick run away success with a quick exit. Tough to get quick run away success if people aren’t craving what you’re making.

I understand wanting to see some gain from the time put into your endeavor, but if we keep focusing on the same things we can’t move forward. It seems people have gotten used to using a certain set of web apps/sites and aren’t really looking for anything new. So, developers keep making the same things and making incremental gains. This has lead to an overall downturn - a downturn in innovation and not surprisingly a downturn in financial investment. We’re seeing small ideas, not big ideas. There’s a general sense of what people like and startups make copies and incremental changes.

I know I say this every five posts or so - but it’s not all gloom. There are some things that are exciting to me right now. Chief among them: mobile and microformats. The mobile web is really starting to take off - I honestly believe that personal web browsing (not business) will be conducted more on mobile devices than computers within 5 years. Microformats are exciting… or at least they could be. I’m excited about companies that are trying to interpret them, not those that are merely adding them to their sites (though that is important too). A downturn may even be good for the web. If the possibility of financial gain decreases, fewer people will try to create me-too startups and those that are creating truly innovative applications will once again stand out.

Of course, there is a chance that mobile and microformats really won’t take off. If you would have asked most people what they thought the next big wave in the web would be after the first crash my guess is most would not have said social applications.

What do you think? Is innovation slowing? Is it good?

I won’t pretend to have the answer and I think it is different depending on the type of social network - a network that includes localized content obviously has different monetization opportunities than a network that has a more generalized focus. However, it seems to me that the focus really isn’t in the right place. Text ads work on search because they are almost the exact same thing a person is looking for when they do a search - if you’re searching you’re looking for links to relevant content, and that’s what text ads provide. When you’re on a social network you’re looking for information about people and things you care about. That’s not as easy to monetize - you can’t expect one of your “friends” to pay so that their photos are given priority over another one of your “friends.” It’s tough because you don’t care who views your content on most social networks that aren’t for businesses. This changes when you either have a social network that people are using for business, or when you let others develop on your platform. Let’s face it - I hate platforms - but I also think they might just be the best way to monetize social networks.

When facebook added the developer network and then the app platform they created something that they can get businesses to pay for. It’s all free now, but if Facebook charged fees for setting up apps, fees for premium placement of apps, a fee per user, or any other fee based on their apps platform - companies (and some people) would pay it. The true value of facebook NOW is it’s ability to expose new ideas to a large audience. You can’t monetize the content created by individuals for their “friend” individuals - you can monetize providing companies access to a huge network - and I won’t be surprised to see it.

But… what do you think?