First off, I should probably come clean: Meebo doesn’t really suck. Actually, it is a very useful tool. However, the problem is that I can’t see it, or similar services, as anything more than a simple tool. Meebo is very useful if you are on a computer that you can’t install applications on – or would feel rude to install applications on, like if you are using a friend’s computer. Beyond that though, I see no reason to use it.

Meebo suffers from a major problem that I feel is pretty common among web-based applications: they’re trying to be … normal applications as opposed to taking advantage of what the web could provide. Meebo doesn’t reside on my desktop and should darn well act like it persists on a separate server.

Right now I am running a desktop application that does everything that Meebo does, plus extra features on top of that. It is no more difficult to use, with the exception that it does need to be installed – which isn’t a big deal, given that installing new programs is a pretty common thing for most computer users. Heck,  it even saves what services I use, login information, and what settings I have across any computer I use.

But what if, just maybe, when I closed my browser on a web-based IM application it just set me to ‘away’ but kept me logged in? What would happen if I were able to open the service on another machine, in another browser, and still have every conversation that was opened still open – with new messages that people sent me while I was away? Suddenly, web-based IM services would have a leg-up on desktop applications.

Admittedly, that would turn Meebo into a light version of Google Wave – which does exactly what I was referring to, and effectively hybridizes (casual) e-mail and IMing – but with the ability to easily connect to networks that people actually use.

So, that is my request for web-based applications: Make more use out of the web, don’t pretend you’re a desktop application, and just because I close the window you’re in doesn’t mean that I want you to stop functioning.

I’m not going to totally dive in head first with everything, though. For example: I’m not about to live with just Pandora and Last.FM when I have a perfectly good music collection. I’m also not going to be able to replace some applications like Photoshop, and many games. However, things like IM,  Twitter (although I am counting browser-plugins!), IRC, productivity software, e-mail, etc… will get moved over to help make the browser the main focus of what I am doing online.

So, while I already use Gmail as my e-mail client, and Google Reader for my RSS feeds, I’m going to try out a few other services.

• Google Docs will take over my productivity software (although Zoho might be a better choice), and while I have used it in the past, I haven’t much.
• While technically a browser-plugin, I am counting it… Yoono will handle IM, Twitter, and other social networks.
• Mibbit will handle IRC – and it seems to be doing a much better job of it than I could have ever expected.

So, while this isn’t a huge list – granted it covers most of what I do online/on my computer – I am interested in other options. So, if you know a spiffy web application, or any other neat web services, post it up in the comments! I’d love to give it a shot.

Autiofill is quite useful, of course, as it lets you quickly enter in information like user names, your address, e-mail, etc… and it is an excellent implementation of it, but something I was surprised Chrome didn’t have earlier. The ability to remove websites from your “Most Visited” list, which appears when you open a new, blank tab, is nice. However, I never actually make use of the opera-esque feature. If I could assign websites to each of the squares specifically, then I might. Otherwise, I’m scanning my bookmark toolbar first.

The new JavaScript engine and Webkit have certainly helped things out though, and the already-fast browser seems even more speedy. Over all, I’m pleased with the update and it is nice to see Chrome hit this latest milestone – although I still hope to see a Linux and Mac version soon.

I have been using Chrome as my primary browser lately and I’m actually finding myself being won over from Firefox. While there are still a few features I am missing – which will hopefully be fixed once Google implements extention support – Chrome offers up a number of its own benefits. The faster browsing, slick interface, and general usability is pretty nice.

I have had Twitter set up to not show me those replies for a while now, because sometimes it really can just cause a lot of noise that you don’t want to bother with. However, if you’re following a smaller number of people, it can be a real boon. Seeing the @replies sent out from someone you follow can help you find new people with similar interests that you can also follow. It is a nice discovery tool. It also lets you keep aware of interesting conversations, even if you only follow one person involved in it – after all, you can always check the profile of the other person involved to get both sides.

While I don’t use the option, I am sad to see it go, and I find it a bit puzzling why it is gone. There is something to be said about not overloading people with too many options (even if I’m not a Gnome user!), but Twitter isn’t packed with options as is, and it is a relatively minor option that provides additional functionality to people who want it.

This is a few interesting lessons to learn due to this situation. First off, removing options that already exist is probably a bad plan, as it won’t really affect anyone who doesn’t use the feature, and just harms those who do. There’s not a lot of benefit to doing that, unless it takes a lot of resources to maintain.

The other thing this points out, I think, is that options are, actually a good thing. Options are only bad when you force them on people en mass. I think having plenty of features is perfectly fine as long as the defaults are solid, people never have to tweak anything if they don’t feel like it, and you separate out basic and advanced options to keep a high level of usability.

Time Warner Cable is planning on expanding their bandwidth cap tests to include Austin, San Antonio, Rochester, NY, and Greensboro, NC. These caps will impose a 5GB limit per month on users, with the ability to raise the cap to 40GB a month, and the possibility that they may have a 100GB option in the future. This is likely both up and down combined. According to Ars Technica the reason for this is because they need the added revenue the caps would bring, as well as the curbed bandwidth, to cover the cost of their infrastructure. The same article is also highly – or deeply, as they state – skeptical about this.

I believe Scott Jennings does a good job of clearing up who is going to be affected by this new plan – and, admittedly, I certainly do fit into all three of the categories he lays out. When it comes down to it, as shown by DropTimeWarnerCable.com, there are an awful lot of things that one can do online that can quickly eat up bandwidth. Online gaming, streaming media (Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc…), downloading digitally purchased content (Steam, Amazon, iTunes, etc…), downloading open source software/Linux distributions, keeping your system up-to-date with patches/bug fixes, video conferencing, uploading files to your work server, uploading music. images, and/or video that you (if you’re an artist) created, and the list goes on and on.

I’m not just concerned about how this will impact myself and other users, but also considering the impact on businesses with essential Internet components – like many those that provide many of the services noted above. Google, Microsoft, Hulu, Netflix, Steam, Amazon, Apple, and many, many more.

When it comes down to it, I can actually understand charging high-end users more than light Internet users. I really can. However, they’re setting their caps quite low as well. I remember complaining about the 250GB cap that Comcast enabled when I was using them while in Michigan, but at least my monthly use was generally under that. Yet, the caps that TWC is instituting are going to be… difficult to stay under, to say the least. Not only that, but the prices that they are charging are excessively high for what they realistically should be.

Saldy, there’s few options for me to switch to where I’m at in Austin. I’m looking at moving over to AT&T’s DSL service, which is about 1MB/s less than what I get now for about the same price – not terrible, really. Once U-Verse comes here, then I know exactly what I’m doing.

It is interesting to me to see how much media center/server technology is developing lately and, while it is still restricted by a lot of draconian business practices in certain companies, I am very excited to see how it continues to evolve in the future. It is even better to me to see this usable on a game console, giving it far more use than it had before – even if that use was a good on its own. It is a bit like how the iPhone, which is already very useful as a multi-purpose device, but is becoming huge as a gaming platform.

After popping on Facebook the other day, I noticed there was a poll asking if users liked the redesign or not. apparently 94% said “no.” My first reaction to this news was “great, Facebook really is looking for feedback on their changes now,” followed by “and the result is exactly as expected.”

The result was expected, but not because I hate the redesign. I don’t find it to be terribly speical, but I don’t really hate it. I’m rather ambivalent. However, I’ve noticed soemthing after having a Facebook account for a while. They’ve changed the theme numerous times in the past, and the result is always the same: people complain about it. They always hate the new theme and they always claim that the old design was far better. They claim the new one is not usable and it will make using Facebook harder, etc…

Then suddenly they love it when the next redesign comes around, and talk about how much it was better than this latest one. I remember the last time Facebook did a redesign, and it was largely the same: people frickin’ hated it. Now, I do think that there are some issues with the new design, certainly, but the problem isn’t actually design issues. The problem is change. People don’t like it.

Every time Facebook changes the design, people have to relearn it. By the time the next design comes around, they’re all very happy with the current theme they had been using for so long, because they’re simply use to it. They know how to navigate it and do what they want. With the new design, they get confused. This is just a basic part of Human nature – I know, I feel the same way often.

So, I suspect that with the next update of Facebook, unless it gets rolled back, people will complain again as usual, and this current theme will be praised as superior.