Facebook Knows (and keeps, and reviews, and analyzes) all:

Fascinating article in a recent posting at The Rumpus.net capturing an interview among an unnamed Facebook employee and Phil Wong of Rumpus.net. The whole article takes place in a bar near the Facebook campus over a couple of beers...and seemingly shares some good insight on how the monolith that is Facebook actually operates.

What is most interesting about this article is the insight that it provides to the inner workings of Facebook, its operations, internal workings and morale. Clearly this is only one employee's perspective, but the discussion seems to be open and forthcoming. In fact, here are a couple of the nuggets that stand out to me:

1) Facebook keeps everything: It probably shouldn't be a surprise when you think about it, but basically every post, picture, comment, or change you make is kept by Facebook forever. While you may delete things, they don't...

2) Facebook employees can see everything: Again, should't be a surprise, but employees of Facebook have the ability to emulate your account and see everything as you do. This apparently used to be done with a "master password (keyword: Chuck Norris)"...but today is done through some portal tool (as well as, access to the back-end of the database). Of course, there are lots of good reasons to do this including researching issues, account hijacking, etc.

3) Facebook does seem to take some aspects of privacy seriously: While Facebook's CEO may seem to argue that everything you or I post should be made public, they do seem to have some internal procedures regarding why and how employees access an individual users account. In fact, while the interviewee admits to looking at accounts that she shouldn't have, she did make clear that if you get caught and can't explain why you are looking, you get fired. All-in-all, that is a good thing.

4) Facebook does seem to be more careful in launching new functionality: Given their history of missteps, this is a bit surprising, but of course, I am only sensitive to the screw-ups...not the things that work fine (e.g. location of a specific button). Lessen learned, I guess.

5) Facebook seems to value most getting things done: Admittedly, this comment is a bit self-serving (and if word-for-word, the interviewee may be a bit tipsy), but it is still good to know that getting stuff done is what counts in the Facebook world. Too many companies seem to forget that.

As for the veracity of the article, I will let you decide. Judging by the comments surrounding the article, a lot of folks question whether or not the article is real or a compilation by Mr. Wong based on rumor, theory, and postulation. Personally, I can't say one way or the other, but my gut is that there is a lot more truth than fiction in this article. None the less, you should decide for yourself here...

The Rumpus.net: Conversations About the Internet #5: Anonymous Facebook Employee

Seven Reasons Why Google Should Stay in China

 vs. 

There has been a lot of discussion recently regarding Google and its future strategies in China. The genesis for this debate was the recent admission by Google that its systems were recently hacked in an attempt to gain access to the gmail accounts of certain Chinese human rights activists and the possible theft of intellectual property. In response, Google has stated that they will no longer censor their Google.cn website. For those that are unaware, Google.cn is the local Chinese-language site of Google and is generally regarded as the second most popular search site in China behind Baidu.

While I appreciate the moral debate associated with Google's actions, I disagree with their decision to possibly leave China or change their policies regarding search censorship. I do not make this decision lightly, and I certainly understand why many will disagree, but I also firmly believe that Google's decision is short-sighted (at best) and possibly counter-productive (at worst).  

I have outlined below the seven reasons (in no particular order) why I believe that Google should stay in China below. As always, I appreciate my readers opinions and comments.


Seven Reasons Why Google should stay in China

# 1: "Don't Be Evil" is Not A Business Model (aka Your Shareholders Have Expectations Too): Last I checked, Google was a publicly traded, for-profit, shareholder owned corporation. While Google makes great products, and is generally beloved by its users, and has become an inconic brand, Google's purpose in life is to make money for its shareholders...not spread goodness and cheer around the world. Leaving what will soon be the world's largest Internet-user market because of a new-found sense of morality is not a reason for such a radical shift to business strategy. If I was a share holder, I would be asking big questions as to why such a well-known policy matter (search censorship in China) suddenly over road a major international business plan.

#2: Google Knew the Rules When They First Went to China: Nothing has changed since Google first entered China in 2006. For a world-wide phenomenon, I find it hard to believe that Google thought that the Chinese would treat them differently.  And if they did, that is perhaps the most naive thing I have ever heard.

For that matter Google, please stop couching the implementation of bad security policies and practices in your China operations as the excuse that is "driving" you out of China. Allowing penetration of your systems is a failure of security. The fact that they were under attack should not have been a surprise. Seriously, did you think that the Chinese wouldn't try to spy on you and penetrate your systems? At least 20 other companies were also attacked as part of the same effort. 

In case you were wondering, if you Google "China spying on us" you get 1,870,000 hits.

# 3: Some Open Internet in China is Better than None: If Google wants to do some good in the world, providing even a partially censored Internet in China is a very good thing. The fact that the Internet in China is heavily fire walled and restricted is no surprise to anyone. The fact that China market-leader Baidu willingly restricts Internet search to remove terms such as Falun Gong is equally not surprising. That being said, the Internet is a big place and there are still millions of web pages that remain accessible to the average Chinese citizen only via Google. Even censored, Google.cn still provides a great service to the average citizens in China...and that fact alone says Google.cn should stay in operation. 

(Note: For more information on how the Internet in China is censored, check out this Wikipedia page.)

# 4: Google, You Made Your Point Already (In Fact, Maybe Too Much of One) The press around Google leaving China has certainly been global, but now it is time to ratchet it back. While the Western World gets the moral issues associated with this topic, further embarrassing the Chinese leadership on this topic is counter-productive. In fact, the implications of continuing to push the way you have may be more damaging in the long run to a broad swath of companies and industries that want to operate in China.

Now is the time to back off a little bit and come to a resolution that makes sense for both parties. In fact, you might even be able to get some agreement with the government that allows for you to maintain your Do-No-Evil position with the Chinese Government's interests.

#5: You Don't Get to Score if You Don't Play in the Game: Pardon the bad metaphor, but simply put, if Google is not in China, then Google doesn't get to discuss Chinese censorship and policies. We all know that Google is a very influential player in the Internet (in addition to search, advertising, etc.), but that influence is based on participation and market share. One thing that is very true about operating in China is that public officials are sensitive to world opinion and the "face" that China portrays to its neighbors, friends, enemies, and competitors. 

Why cede the position of influence from the largest Internet market in the world? Sure, if Google leaves they will be applauded for their moral position by various members of the blogosphere, but they will also instantly become a non-player regarding Internet policy matters in this part of the world.  Doubt me? How influential is Yahoo on this matter? Not a whole lot given that they left China years ago.

# 6: Where Does it End?: Let's be honest...every nation on Earth has its own interest, policies, and approaches to the Internet and accessibility. While nations like North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are particularly restrictive, even here in the US, our government has acted to restrict Internet access, content, etc. If Google leaves China for a difference in moral opinion, why should it stay in so many other nations? In fact, if I am a country that has a restrictive Internet policy, I now know how to push Google around. Simply require them to restrict a few search items and then dare them to complain. What kind of items? Could be anything? And if Google doesn't like it, they can leave.

# 7: Search is Not, and Never Has Been, A Moral Issue: Google, stop wrapping the issue of search into terms usually associated with conflicts between Good vs. Evil. Search is a tool, only as good as the algorithm that supports it and the results that it provides. We all live most our lives quite well without using search to make our decisions. I don't need Google to know right from wrong, much less to know that it is wrong to steal. Associating the Chinese Government's restrictions on search at the same level as the challenges of living under an autocratic regime is ludicrous. 


And besides, what is the difference between not making a search result available (as in China) vs. only making a result available on page 300 of the search results? What's the difference among having a company pay for a search result to appear high on a list vs. never showing it at all? For that matter, who decides what exactly is click-fraud? Or even how does the Google search algorithm work and how does it prioritize results? I know there is a lot of grey in these questions, but there is no such thing as search purity and philosophically, I doubt the Chinese see much of a difference.

In China, we call manipulating search results to be censorship. In the US, we call it advertising. The fact it is, both are manipulations of a given set of data to serve a specific purpose.  Search, of all things, is not an either / or issue, so why are we trying to make search to be such a thing?  

Full Disclosure Statement: This blog was originally written on Google Docs and has been posted using a Google-owned Blogging tool that contains Google-supplied Ads.

How to Explain Twitter to others

As a regular user of Twitter, I am often asked to explain two things.  The first, is "what" is Twitter.  The second, "why" do you use Twitter.  Ehow users have done a good job explaining the second issue (why), but I wanted to put my own two cents in an effort to explain "what" Twitter is.  If you are a current user of Twitter, you probably don't need this information, but if you are not a Twitter user, a new Twitter user, or are just curious about Twitter, hopefully, this information can help you explain Twitter to your parents and friends

1) Twitter is the future of communication:  This is the most common explanation you read in the press.  Usually the explanation starts with something like Twitter is better than sliced bread and then continues with how it will solve world hunger.  Needless to say, most explanations create more confusion than Twitter itself...so I am not sure how good an answer they are.

That being said, I do believe that Twitter will play a *part* in the future of communication, collaboration, and messaging (instant messaging, email, etc.).  At its heart, Twitter does two things very well.  # 1...it accelerates communication: Because it is based on the fastest medium available, Twitter does a great job sharing immediate information with your "followers."  Sure, you could do email, etc. too...but IM is still the fastest way to communicate.  # 2...Twitter allows you to share (and redirect) information with a large population easily and quickly.  Not only is this sharing done with your followers, but by using the Hash (#) model in the Trending Topics and Search sections, you can literally share information with the entire base.

Here is another good explanation at Biznik. http://bit.ly/XCxPy  And by @Statsgirl. http://twurl.nl/fx0wdo

2) Twitter is a Food Court: This is actually one that I like to use. Basically, the theory is that everyone you are following and everyone of your followers have some common interest(s).  Like in a food court (common interest = hungry?), a Twitter user walks around and "finds" things of interest.  Those things of interest are then processed (e.g. bought) and those that are not, are ignored.  When you are "hungry" the next time, you go back to Twitter and see what is available. Admittedly, you have to stretch the metaphor a bit, but hopefully you get the basic idea.

3) Twitter is a Cocktail Party.  This is another example I like. Basically, like in a Cocktail Party, everyone is talking at the same time.  Like in party, you get the opportunity to listen to interesting conversations, meet new people, share information, etc. Everything...except no drinks, I guess. :) Anyway, replace conversation with tweets and you've got it.  For a better explanation, check out this link off of TwiTip. http://twurl.nl/muqtim

4) Twitter is the Pulse of the Day: The most fascinating thing about Twitter is how easily top trends / topics can bubble to the surface...almost completely on their own.  As mentioned above, the Search, Trending Topics, and # model allow for any topic of mutual interest to be shared globally almost instantly.  Sure, you can get a sense of key topics via CNN or MSNBC, but Twitter is one of the best to let you find a topic of global interest so simply.

5) Twitter solves business problems: No one is quite sure how Twitter itself is going to make money, but there is no doubt certain businesses are doing it already.  Two of the best are Dell and Comcast. Dell (@Dell) has made Twitter a key vehicle to highlight deals and drive traffic to their website. Comcast (@Comcastcares) uses Twitter to find and solve customer issues.  There is no doubt that Twitter can help solve customer problems and / or make money...though every business has to find their own approach. Of course, there are also plenty of "get rich quick" ideas...but I basically ignore those.

6) Twitter is a cool way to do Closed-user-Group (CUG) texting:  It is a pretty simple way to use Twitter, but there are a lot of groups that use Twitter as a simple way to have geographically unlimited Instant Messaging platforms.  While there are other choices available in the market (e.g. AIM, Google), Twitter is a great tool to give *everyone* a mechanism to do group IMs with few limits in time, place, or interest.

Hopefully, this help you with explaning Twitter.  Let me know if you have any other examples or ideas for this continually-changing medium.

The Craziest Way To Boost Your Mobile Internet Service

I have to admit it made me laugh to see how well 3G Broadband signals were boosted with the simple "addition" to his wireless modem. But, desperate times call for desperate measures, and it seems like this guy may have solved a desperate problem.

Of course, it does beg the question about what happens if your 3G mobile broadband needs are outside of the kitchen...but at least it is an option. Heck, it can't be any worse than what iPhone users currently experience in some cities. Only question is if the colander comes in Apple-white.

Enjoy...

Learnings in Twitter Advertising: Sponsored Tweets

This is part one of a series exploring the use of Twitter as an advertising medium. In particular, I will focus on how individual Twitterers can become part of the advertising movement. Comments, ideas, suggestions, or corrections are all welcome.

SPONSORED TWEETS: GREAT SITE AS LONG AS YOU HAVE LOTS OF FOLLOWERS

The Basics:
1) Requires that your account be at least 60 days old, have a minimum of 100 followers, and at least 100 Twitter updates.
2) Every post will include some type of notification that it is sponsored. Everything from "#Sponsored" to "#ad" can appear. This is a requirement of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
3) $50 minimum balance before you can withdraw money. About average for this kind of thing.
4) Uses a combination of different metrics from Klout, Twittergrader.com, etc. to measure the "quality" of your Twitter account.

The Pros:
1) It works. In short, yes, you will get paid for tweeting someone else's ads. Given the level of effort that entails, this is almost free money.
2) Account settings are simple to establish and update...including keywords and category.
3) Website does a nice job sharing stats (e.g. clicks) which gives you a good sense of how successful your tweets are.
4) Full control over price per tweet. Sponsored Tweets does recommend a price per tweet (roughly correlated to $1 / 1000 followers you have), but in reality, you can set any number you want. Of course, Advertisers still have to accept your price.
5) You almost always write the actual tweet. The advertiser always provides instructions (e.g. links, words, requirements), but you can put the actual tweet in your own words. This is a great advantage if you are trying to ensure the sponsored Tweets are consistent with your other tweets. Of course, you still only have 140 characters to work with.

The Cons:
1) No option to opt-into adds because Advertisers only solicit you directly. It sometimes feels like you are waiting for one of the cool kids to pick you for kick-ball.
2) Related to #1, it can be a long time between paid tweets. Best to keep in mind, that this is free money...not instant money.
3) Advertisers seem to favor accounts with very large followings. Twitter accounts with small followings may get few opportunities.
4) Very difficult (if not impossible) to become a celebrity or recommended account by Sponsored Tweets. You can try, but don't expect it.
5) Sponsored Tweets doubles your per-tweet price for Advertisers. Said another way, whatever price you set the advertiser will pays 2x.

The Verdict:
Join Sponsored Tweets. It may take you a while to grow your account to $50, but given the level of effort, opportunity to present your account effectively, and the results, Sponsored Tweets is worth your time. As noted though, you need to really grow your followers to make money.

To sign-up, you can click HERE or on the Sponsored Tweets panel at the bottom of this blog.

Five Changes That Apple Must Make to the iPad in Order for it to Succeed

January 27: Blog has been updated to account for the latest announcement from Apple regarding the iPad name and a photo of the device.
--------------

Well, it is official. On January 27th, Apple is set to announce their latest creation...which, assuming everyone has been correct, will be their new tablet PC the "iPad." In true Apple fashion, the combination of their carefully placed media management techniques and the love of all things Apple has brought the hysteria around this upcoming product launch to near hysteria. Of course, no one knows anything about the product itself, but the fact that Apple is about to launch a brand new product line has certainly gotten everyone excited.

So...will the iPad succeed? Will a new device by Apple that singly-handedly opens up an entirely new category of products and solutions that consumers the world-over enjoy?  Or will it be like the recent launch of Google's Nexus One? A good product, but certainly not iconic and with only limited appeal (more on what is good, bad, and indifferent on the Nexus One here). A device that could, should, and might be a winner, but the combination of hubris and mistakes in execution hurt its appeal? I am not talking Apple Newton here...more...well...Nexus One.

Well, without seeing the iPad, it is impossible for me to know for sure. I did postulate on its launch a few weeks ago, but regardless, I do believe the iPad could be a winner if the following five things are done.

1) Focus on the secondary computer market: Rumor has it that the iPad will be priced at around $1000 when it is first launched. While Macbooks have become the choice de jure device for techies everywhere, the fact is, they get away with this price because they are capable of being your primary computer. In my mind, the iPad will never be your main computer, but instead, has the possibility of being a fantastic second device. A device that you use for all sorts of reasons including watching videos, updating Facebook, Twitter, etc. and web browsing. In other words, take the lessens that made netbooks so popular and make the experience better.

2) Price the iPad under $500: It is virtually guaranteed that the iPad will cost around $1000. Frankly, that is way to high to make this product a must-have by a large enough percentage of the market to make a difference. Sure, it will sell...perhaps even a million (probably not)...but in a market where world-wide annual sales are more than 65 million the iPad will be a drop in the bucket. But it doesn't have to be that way. Price this device at $500 and I guarantee millions will be sold.

3) Embed the iPad with 4G wireless date: The iPad is rumored to include 3G services from one of the major wireless carriers, but that is not enough. 3G works pretty well, and has good coverage, but it is simply not capable enough to supply the download speeds of the multi-media / video capabilities that would differentiate a tablet in the market. Equally important, to take advantage of the 3G service, you will have to sign-up for an annual contract at ~ $60 / month. So, in addition to the $1000 device costs, you will be looking at another ~$700 per year just to use it! So where does 4G make a difference? Well, first it solves the bandwidth problem by supplying download speeds 3 - 5 times higher and second, the pricing model for 4G is significantly different (at least from Clearwire)...generally offering per-day and no contract options.

4) Run the iPhone OS: Admittedly this is a bit of techno-babble, but the fact is, the iPhone is incredibly easy to operate. So easy in fact, that millions of relatively non-technical individuals use it every day. A Mac OS? Well, not so easy. I am not saying it is impossible to use, but for people used to window-based PCs, the difference is significant. If the iPad used the iPhone OS a lot of those hassles would disappear and the potential market for the iSlate would significantly grow.

5) Include a keyboard: Admittedly this sounds counter-intuitive, but first of all, why can't a tablet be a tablet with a keyboard? After all, the biggest complaint about a tablet is its form-factor and associated user experience. Sure, it is awesome to watch a video, but type an email? Write a document? Or this blog? Not so easy. The iPad could solve a lot of these issues if it simply included in the package a keyboard. Sure, most people wouldn't use it for a lot of what the iPad is to be good (video), but when it came to writing-intensive activities a keyboard is the difference. And for a cost of $10 it seems worth it. Heck, including it would likely be hailed as another example of Jobs and his brilliance!

Let me know what you think of this list and any other ideas I missed. Of course, the list above includes some very "non-Apple" things....so the probability of them happening is very small. That being said, some of the technorati also have their own misgivings and recommendations, so perhaps my ideas are not so crazy after all.

Want a Nexus One? Shouldn't be a problem...but caveat emptor.

Fast Company just published some great data from Flurry (Mobile Analytics) that significantly questions that success of Google's Nexus One launch. While admittedly, it has only been one week since Google's self-proclaimed "super-phone" came to the market, there is no doubt that it has been a very hard week for Google. The combination of questionable go-to-market strategies (more here), terrible customer experience, and a so-so device (more here) has resulted in a very small success rate in selling this device to the market.

I know that Google is new to the mobile business, but I have to think that many of these problems have been self-inflicted. As I have noted many times, the Googleplex is full of very, very smart people, but the fact is, the mobile phone business is not measured by smart people...but by basic block-and-tackle execution and relentless focus on customer service.  Whether the folks at Google forgot those facts, didn't listen to others, or simply thought that their model for bringing products to market was superior is irrelevant (though not necessarily surprising), the facts speak for themselves. The launch of the Nexus One has been a disaster, and it may be getting worse. And more critically, if Google doesn't get these issues under control ASAP, not only will they likely submarine their whole hardware strategy for the future, but potentially damage their brand in a way that has far more significant implications for the future.

Is that too harsh? If you think so, let me know below:

Lane Kiffin, You are Now Officially...the Most Hated Man in Tennessee

A remarkable thing occurred yesterday. By taking the head job at USC, in one small action, Lane Kiffin became the most hated man in Tennessee. While to those that do not follow SEC football, that may be a confusing statement, but the fact is for the last 15 years Steve Spurrier has held that title. After all, it was Steve Spurrier who was born and raised in Tennessee, left for Florida to play college football (where we won the Heisman trophy) and then came back to coach at Florida where he won a national title, multiple SEC titles, and coached another Heisman Trophy winner...often at the expense of Tennessee. 

But all of that may be forgotten now. Where as Spurrier was hated by many, he was still respected by most, and as a member of the SEC family was always welcomed as a coach. You may not have liked him, and he sure was arrogant, but at least you could respect him for what he did, how he played, and that he won. But Lane...well...to paraphrase a distinguished gentleman from Texas...Lane Kiffin...you are no Steve Spurrier...and that is a very bad thing. 

I know that some are defending your actions to move to USC after one year on the basis that USC was your "dream" job, but that attitude is just a continuation of the apologist arguments that have followed you for many years. Yes, you spent six years at USC, and yes, you went to school in California, but the head coach of a UT (or any SEC school, for that matter) is not a stepping stone position, and certainly not something you disrespect by leaving after one year. Taking a job like the one at UT is like becoming the head of a religious congregation, with all of the obligations, responsibilities, and commitments to players, fans and the university itself. Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN may have said it best, "Kiffin is a used car salesman with a whistle. Wait, that's not fair to used car salesmen."

You have made your choice, and I wish you luck, but I am glad you are gone. You were already on the edge with me with your accusations of cheating by Florida and secondary NCAA violations, and so it is probably best that you go to a place that will most definitely have NCAA punishments and a program with border-line organizational control (see: Bush, Reggie). As Michael Rosenberg of CNNSI.com quipped, "what, did Barry Switzer say no?" Nope, but you are the next best thing. Good riddance.

ESPN Video:

----------------




Get your mom a plastic spoon

Give me Net Neutrality, Or Give Me Death - January 12, 2010

Interesting article this past week published in the National Journal describing how the debate around Net Neutrality has escalated into a "free speech" debate with each side citing 1st Amendment grounds as to why Net Neutrality (NetNet) rules should or should not be enacted. In particular, while one side is citing NetNet as required to *protect* 1st Amendment speech of individual users...the other side is saying that implementing this rule could in fact, infringe upon the free speech of content providers, ISPs, and portals. As summed up by National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Kyle McSlarrow:

Strict new FCC regulations might infringe on the ability of content providers to speak "how" they wish by preventing them from paying for better service; might prevent innovations by ISPs that would better facilitate free speech; could amount to "forced" speech; and might impact the delivery of high-bandwidth services such as video programming by laying a path toward government regulation of bandwidth use.
For the uninitiated, NetNet is a proposal by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that seeks to add certain principles to the regulation of US Internet Service Providers (ISPs) ensuring that all traffic sent over an ISPs "pipes" be treated equally. In effect, it would stop an ISP from stopping or preferring one type of traffic (e.g. Voice over IP) except in very specific circumstances.

On one side of the debate, proponents of the FCC's proposed NetNet rules believe they are necessary in order to preserve the free speech of individuals and keep ISPs from regulating, controlling, or preferring certain content over other content. In effect, this side believes that institutionalizing the open Internet is a cornerstone for the future success of the global network. It should be noted that the biggest proponents of NetNet are the large application and portal providers (e.g. Google, Yahoo, etc.) who say they are acting on behalf of the consumer. That is probably true, however, these are also multi-billion dollar companies with significant revenue and profit at stake.

On the other side of the debate, opponents of NetNet believe that the current Internet model works fine, and that the imposition of these proposed new rules is not only unnecessary, but also will restrict the future growth and development of the Internet. On the first point...they are probably right (the Internet works pretty well), though on the second, that is debatable. It should also be noted that the opponents of NetNet are the large Internet Carriers (who provide the backbone for the Internet), Cable Companies, and the large phone companies (e.g. Verizon, AT&T). Again, all companies with multi-billions of dollars at stake.

As for whether or not NetNet is a 1st Amendment argument, no one really knows. Critical to this question is whether or not a company even has 1st Amendment rights (or if these are only vested in individuals). Also, there are a lot of old court cases that seem to argue both sides of this question. None the less, it is clear that NetNet issues are going to be a source of major debate in 2010 and a topic of significant interest and debate.

LINK: National Journal: Net Neutrality Fight Turns To First Amendment

LINK: Wikipedia: Net Neutrality

Google Plays the Ad Game: The Most Remarkable Thing About the Launch of the Nexus One is not the Phone

An earth-shattering thing occurred this week with Google...and it wasn't just the launch of their mobile phone the Nexus One. Yes, that was interesting (more about that HERE), but it was the *way* in which Google brought this phone to market. While a lot of folks focused on the device's characteristics, or that it is unlocked, that is not what surprised me.

So...what did I think was remarkable? Well...

1) Google advertised the Nexus One on www.Google.com: While it sounds obvious to do this (after all, most companies do), this is a big change for Google. To-date, they have avoided selling any of their own products directly off of Google.com (e.g. Android, Adsense, Aps, etc.). Suddenly, the Nexus One appears on their home page directly promoting and enabling the sale of the device (And that doesn't even count what Google is doing as part of their own ad distribution network). That is not a minor change for the Googleplex.

2) Google is fulfilling the Nexus One directly: When was the last time you ever bought anything directly from Google and had it delivered to your home? Sure, you may have used Google to find something...and then bought from another vendor's site, but Google directly? And on those occasions where you paid Google (e.g. Google Aps), it isn't like something arrived in your mailbox. It is pretty remarkable that Google has built an infrastructure to deliver products. It will be interesting to see how good they are at this (and in fact, there are already complaints. See HERE).

3) Google is now competing against some of its best partners: For better or worse, Google has been very careful to avoid competing against its biggest mobile partners. To-date, they have stuck to selling Android as an operating system and striking search deals on mobile phones and websites. Sprint, Verizon and others sell a huge amount of Android-based cell phones which Google gets a share of. Now, they are basically introducing an entire line of products (e.g. it won't stop with the Nexus One) that could take share from their best friends.

So what is the impact of this change for the future? Well, time will tell. But among the questions I want to see answered are:

1) What is the future of Android? It used to be just about software on a mobile phone. Is that still the case? Or will Google build a whole line of its own devices that compete against the Android operating system.

2) What is the future of partnerships with mobile carriers like Verizon and Sprint? These two carriers represent fully 50% of the mobile phone business in the US. For the short term, I am sure nothing will change, but neither will look kindly on Google if they start to lose share to a directly sold Google phone.

3) Is Google about to "Yahoo" their website? One of the keys to Google's success has been their carefully constructed persona and strategy. Among that has been the simplicity of their website and the perception that they are not playing favorites (perception...because, of course they do play favorites). Will that still be the case?

4) Will they still be proponents of Net Neutrality? Google has been one of the biggest proponents of the FCC's proposed Net Neutrality legislation. Publicly, this is because they profess support for an "open" Internet...but like any large, for-profit company, also because the proposed legislation benefits them. It will be interesting to see if this proposal still holds. After all, now that they are in the hardware business, things are different. For instance, can someone use the Nexus One and make Bing (from Microsoft) the default search tool? What about other applications? Time will tell.

This Weeks' Links: January 7, 2010

This is a series consisting of articles and postings that I found interesting and worth checking out. I have written a blog or two on some of them, but for the most part, I am just providing the category, headline and link itself. Hopefully, you will find them interesting too.

Week's Links: January 7, 2010

Things you may have missed:

1) Joel Achenbach on the 2000s: The decade we didn't see coming:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/26/AR2009122601822.html?hpid=topnews

2) Google Rests Its Defense of Executives in Italian Privacy Case: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/technology/internet/24google.html?hpw

3) Avatar's 'ugly' message: The $500 million epic is setting the box office alight — but does it traffic in racist stereotypes?
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/104466/Avatars_ugly_message

4) The Battle for Tora Bora: How Osama bin Laden slipped from our grasp: The definitive account. http://www.tnr.com/article/the-battle-tora-bora

5) Never a Year Like '09: Jib Jab sums up 2009:
http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/never_a_year_like_09

6) "Someday, they'll simply be called phones...".Smartphones were the tech story of 2009: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122403323.html

Things you should know:

1) A Terrible Decade for Stocks -- and Reason for Optimism: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/12/24/a-terrible-decade-for-stocks-and-reason-for-optimi.aspx

2) Apple iSlate and What is a "Magic Slate?
http://www.macrumors.com/

3) The Shady Mainstream Media Payday of Flight 253 Hero Jasper Schuringa: http://gawker.com/5434950/the-shady-mainstream-media-payday-of-flight-253-hero-jasper-schuringa

4) The Exhaustive Guide to Apple Tablet Rumors:
http://gizmodo.com/5434566/the-exhaustive-guide-to-apple-tablet-rumors

Things you wonder about:

1) Why Handwriting Is History:
http://miller-mccune.com/culture_society/handwriting-is-history-1647

2) College Class of 2009 Doomed? Actually, the Recession Liberates Us http://mobile.chicagotribune.com/inf/infomo?view=opinion+article&feed:a=chi_trib_10min&feed:c=opinion&feed:i=51037113&nopaging=1

3) Change of mind: Meyer won't quit, will take indefinite leave instead: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/ncaa/12/27/meyer.indefinite.leave/index.html?eref=BrkNews#ixzz0azm0O0eO

4) 370 Passwords You Shouldn’t (And Can’t) Use On Twitter: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/27/twitter-banned-passwords/

5) "Quality content is not free (R.Murdoch)" and how @NYTimes sees the future of newspapers and the web developing.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/business/media/28paywall.html

Google...I am Officially Underwhelmed. Why the Nexus One is Not Iconic

So it was with much fan fair that Google announced the Nexus One today. After years and years of speculation, Google ended its position as a "simple software" company (or more accurately, an advertising company that uses software) to become a hardware company producing (along with HTC) its own wireless device.  Needless to say, there was much rejoicing in the blogosphere with rumors, write ups from Endgaget Endgaget and Wired (and even my own HERE), and postulations everywhere. 

So...what do we think of their first foray? Well...before we discuss that, lets focus on what we learned today.

What we now know and like:

1) It's Pretty: The Nexus One looks a whole lot like what every "iconic" device since the iPhone was launched. It is small, sleek, curvy and black. 

2) It's Android: This one was obvious. Google has apparently built its own version of its Android software to power this phone, but it is still Android. While Android isn't as popular as many other mobile OSs, it is still damn good and worthy of being the OS for this device.

3) It's got an awesome camera: Honestly, I still think that except for voice (and triaging email), the camera is the next most useful capability for a smartphone. At 5 megapixels and a flash, this camera really a legitimate replacement for anything but an SLR.

4) It's unlocked: More on the negatives of this later...but there is something to say about being able to buy this device contract and commitment free. This is the model for most of the rest of the world and I see no issues with this being an option in the US too. Of course, I am not sure how practical the benefits are.

5) You can buy it off the web: Getting one is as simple as going to www.google.com/phone and buy the Nexus One yourself. Admittedly, ecommerce is not magic...but given that I have never bought anything from Google you can touch, I have to give them props for trying this approach. Needless to say though, it will be a little interesting to watch what happens when there is problem with the mail.

What we now know and DONT Like:

1) The tag "Superphone:" First...just because you say something is "super" doesn't mean it is. Second...I am not sure the Nexus One is that much better than other Android-based devices already in the market from Sprint, Verizon or T-Mobile.

2) It's on T-Mobile: Umm...seriously? I mean, yes, they had the first Android phone...but if you want to launch an iconic device with incredible data / Internet capabilities, T-Mobile is not that carrier.

3) It's expensive: In Europe and Asia, buying a phone at full cost is considered normal. Unfortunately, that is not the case in the US. Here, even the smartest of smart phones are expected to cost no more than $250. It is great that Google has made the phone unlocked, but at $530 ($179 on a T-Mob plan) that benefit comes with a steep cost. Honestly, it strikes me as hubris (or naivety) that Google went down this path.

4) It doesn't allow tethering: WTF?!? If only to upstage the iPhone, this functionality should be in day one. Tethering is a key feature that many folks expect (especially the "prosumer" types who buy smartphones). To not have it speaks to unnecessary restrictions. And then no multi-touch either?!? Oh man...

5) It doesn't sync with exchange: Seriously? We all know Microsoft is the root-of-all evil, but Microsoft is still a necessary evil. Please tell me I am wrong on this one.

6) It is not iconic: Given the wait, hype, and emotion surrounding this launch I frankly, expected more. Not that the Nexus One doesn't seem to be a good device (maybe even great)...but it is not that different than Android phones that were available yesterday (pre-Nexus One). 

What we have concluded:

The one thing that I see the Nexus One as being a game changer is the fact that Google is now in the mobile hardware business. After all, even Microsoft, with its Windows Mobile / Phone and eponymous software never strayed into this line of business (maybe that now changes?). The fact that Google has decided to do so is a big deal...and one that will have long term implications to its other channels and partners...and potentially the very future of Android. I am sure that the folks at the Googleplex thought long and hard over this issue, but this change is momentous. 

As I noted in this title however, I am still underwhelmed with the Nexus One. Yes, it seems to be a cool new device, but that is about it. The hubbub around its launch was misplaced, as were the expectations. Whether this was because Google was so hands on in its design, or the US wireless market so restrictive, or HTC was holding back, I don't know, but in the end, what we got today was probably not well-aligned with the pre-launch expectations. 

The Battle for Tora Bora

Remarkable article last week in The New Republic detailing the battle at Tora Bora (Afghanistan) and how the US failed to capture Osama bin Laden. It is great read and has makes some interesting observations. Among these are:

1) At one point, US Special Operations personnel were believed to be within 2000 meters of bin Laden. If only we could have...

2) Also,at one point during the battle, there were more Western journalists on site than US soldiers / CIA operatives. I am not a soldier, and our guys are good, but that does seem to be a bit strange.

3) In the midst of the battle US General Tommy Frank was asked by Donald Rumsfeld to brief him on plans to invade Iraq. Any way you look at it, developing those plans took resources and ideas away from the Battle at Tora Bora.

Be warned though...like with any publication, you need to look through this with the right lens. Keep in mind, this article is:

1) Published in the New Republic. A publication with a particular bent.

2) Bills itself as the "definitive account" of the battle. Caveat emptor.

3) Relies on observations from some of the world's thugs and terrorists. Not exactly the bring-home-to-Mom type.

None-the-less, it is a worthwhile read. Enjoy.

LINK: The New Republic: The Battle for Tora Bora

--------------
A jazz lodges a transcript below a defensive hello.

Florida Gator Buzzerbeater Stuns NC State

If you didn't catch this from the weekend, check-out this amazing shot by Florida's Chandler Parsons to win the game over NC State. While we often see these kinds of shots at halftime or at the end of the game, they almost never go in...much less be the difference between winning and losing.

Needless to say, this is the best thing that ole Chandler has done for the Gators in his career...and it will probably immortalize him on YouTube for years to come. Given the way the Gators are playing this year, this shot and win could also be the difference for Florida in getting into the NCAA Tournament this year.

This Weeks' Links: January 1, 2010

This is a series consisting of articles and postings that I found interesting and worth checking out. I have written a blog or two on some of them, but for the most part, I am just providing the category, headline and link itself.

Unfortunately, you will have to copy and past the URLs (Blogger rules), but hopefully, you will find them interesting too.

Week's Links: December 25th, 2009

Things you may have missed:
1) Content-Search Deals Make Twitter Profitable: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091220_549879.htm
2) Investors Push Yelp To IPO: http://www.businessinsider.com/yelp-flirts-with-microsoft-ipo-2009-12

3) The U.S. Can Look To Europe To See What The iPhone’s Future Will Be Here: http://moconews.net/article/419-the-u.s.-can-look-to-europe-to-see-what-the-iphones-future-is-like-here/

4) The Top 10 tech trends of 2009: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/22/top.tech.trends.2009/index.html

Things you should know:

1) Why, exactly, do our siblings drive us so crazy?: http://www.slate.com/id/2239216/

2) Paying With Plastic to Please the Accountants: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/business/22road.html?_r=1

3) Social Media Experts Make Their Predictions for Trends in 2010: http://mashable.com/2009/12/22/social-media-experts-make-their-predictions-for-trends-in-2010/

Things you wonder about:

1) Holy Baboon! A 'Mystical' Moment In Africa: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121713610

2) The Science Behind Jabulani, Adidas's 2010 World Cup Soccer Ball: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/science-behind-jubulani-adidass-2010-world-cup-soccer-ball?page=