Google’s developer version of the Chrome browser has made a significant change. In the URL the traditional first step, “http://” has been done away with. Thom Holwerda, of OSNews , had an idea why. “(T)he URL scheme bears little meaning to most people using a browser – they know it’s there and how to type it, but it doesn’t indicate anything to them. Since computing has been about abstracting away complexity for a while now, it was only a matter of time before browser makers started removing this piece of web history.” Sponsor There are problems with this change, as far as developers are concerned. The change itself was unclear. When developers started noticing it, they interpreted and reported it as a bug . It seems that Google perhaps did not converse with their developers prior to implementing this Although the http is hidden, it is not gone. So the change is a visual one, perhaps not a functional one. Some developers are worried about what will happen when working with the https or ftp protocols. This is not an agreed-upon move, industry-wide. A moderator on Google’s Chrome code forum said, “we include “http:// when copying the URL to the clipboard, so it will still appear when pasted elsewhere.” This is a function that is apparently not in working order for a number of developers. Discuss

Click here to read more

It’s human nature – we are wired to be averse to change. When something new comes into our lives, we inherently approach it with caution, and at times, with negativity and hostility; but if that change is fundamentally good and right, it will gradually become widely accepted. For startups, especially those in the early stages of existence, changes come frequently and now and then in large chunks, which can be jarring for users who may have just become accustomed to the previous version of a product. Sponsor Anyone who uses Facebook knows that even the slightest changes in UI or the shuffling of features can create a cacophony of public outcry in the form of “I Like The Old Facebook Better!!” groups. But the interesting thing about those groups is that they eventually fizzle out and people get used to the new version of the site. Change takes time. So what are startups to do when an updated version of their product or service sets off a firestorm of hate mail from previously pleased users? Well, for starters, make sure you’re not taking a Borg-like approach by assimilating customers into submission; forcing things on people never goes over well. Secondly, as crowdSPRING co-founder Ross Kimbarovsky advises, take the time to listen to your users; after all, they are the ones using your product day-to-day and they probably have a few good ideas. “You have to be patient, you have to give your customers and your community some room, some time to react, to criticize, to discuss, to debate,” says Kimbarovsky in a recent video blog . “You can’t harshly tell them ‘this is the way it is and that’s it’, because it will close off communications and make it sound like you don’t care what they say.” There also may be a chance to bring about the change gradually as to not upset your customers with sudden drastic changes. Kimbarovsky recounts an example in which eBay wanted to change its background color from yellow to white, so instead of flipping a switch, they slowly changed the background to a lighter shade of yellow day-by-day until the background was white. But for the most part, changes can’t always be long and drawn out like eBay’s color choices, so Kimbarovsky simply says to engage with your customers when they react and let their voices be heard. “After a short amount of time, if your change is good, if it’s reasonable and if it’s meant to improve as you believe it is, then your customers and your community will understand it,” says Kimbarovsky. “And if it’s not, then you will understand that it just isn’t working.” Discuss

Click here to read more

Back in early February, while aboard a red-eye to New York, Dave McClure wrote a long, humorous, rambling, profanity-laden rant of a blog post that focused on startup business models. While it makes for an entertaining read, McClure’s post is also very insightful and makes a solid case for why startups should shift from advertising models and instead build their new businesses on subscriptions and micropayments. Earlier this month I had the chance to visit the headquarters of ZooLoo , a startup that witnessed this very shift first-hand with their own business model. Sponsor During my visit I spoke with Aaron Baer, Director of Communications at the Scottsdale-based ZooLoo, a site that provides individuals with the ability to share and manage content on their own domain. Like many startups in the past decade, ZooLoo opened for business under an advertising business model, but eventually caught on to the changing trend McClure evangelized on his blog. “[ZooLoo's original model] was an advertising platform, we had a shopping page, we would do affiliate marketing, you could buy and order prints off of our website – we had a very broad business model,” says Baer. “We discovered that didn’t work.” They also realized that it wasn’t the model their customers wanted. Under the old model, users were presented with two options: a free basic service, and a premium service with more features in an “all or nothing,” fashion. Customers complained that they wanted to upgrade and purchase premium services, but that they weren’t willing to pony up the full price for a bunch of other features they didn’t want. In January, ZooLoo fundamentally changed their business model by creating a storefront through which customers could pick and choose features on a micropayment level. Now if a user wants to purchase their own domain name, but doesn’t want to pay for ZooLoo’s SEO services, they can do that instead of being forced into picking from a tiered package. While customer feedback was a substantial motivator for the change, Baer says that potential investors also played a role in the addition of the storefront. “The investors said, ‘You have a solid product, but I want to see you find a better way to package it, and a better way to sell it’,” he says. And the change worked. Since adding their micropayment storefront, ZooLoo has seen an increase in purchases of their premium services. The company is making more money marketing virtual goods in a micropayment system than they were when they bundled everything together at a higher price and relied on advertising and affiliate marketing. This is the exact paradigm shift in online marketing that Dave McClure preaches in his post mentioned earlier. “Gradually we are discovering that the default revenue model on the internet should probably be the simplest one,” writes McClure. “That is: basic transactions for physical or digital goods, and recurring transactions (aka subscriptions) for repeat usage.” Without repeat usage, McClure says that the biggest obstacle in the way of getting users on board with micropayments is that they forget their password. Honestly, if I was asked to login to my Amazon or PayPal accounts right now, I would be playing a guessing game with a handful of passwords because I don’t use those services too often. But for iTunes , Google and Facebook – the services McClure says will be the leaders in eCommerce login in five years – I use those every day, and surely remember my password. ZooLoo realizes this too, which is why they foster repeat usage by connecting their services with Twitter, Facebook, and other popular online social networks. Users can also log into ZooLoo using Facebook Connect, which eliminates the problem of remembering a less frequently used password. ZooLoo and Baer are fully on board with this emerging model, and suggest others hop on as well. “There is this social media bubble forming where all these services are saying, ‘We’re free, come use us!’, but eventually those services need to make money,” says Baer. “We think micropayments are the next big thing.” Photo by Flickr user r-z . Discuss

Click here to read more