How to transfer iTunes music from an old to a new computer

How to transfer iTunes music from an old to a new computer

Note: eHow has recently canceled its writers program and I am republishing on my blog here. All comments and edits are welcome.

Difficulty: Moderately Easy 

Things you will need: 

1) Old Computer 

2) New Computer External drive

3) High capacity USB drive

Instructions:

The iPod has become an iconic device for consumers. So many have been sold, that it seems everyone has one. And even if you have one, a new version comes out every year virtually assuring you will upgrade and buy a new iPod.

Apple makes it very easy to switch out or add a new iPod, but what happens to all of when you buy a new computer? What happens to all of those songs, video, and podcast iPod files on your existing computer? Do you have to start over?

Thankfully, moving files from one computer to another is almost as easy as moving from one iPod to another. Of course, you need to stay in alignment with Apple's policies...but the technical solution is pretty straightforward. This eHow should assist in taking those steps.

Old Computer New Computer External drive or High capacity USB drive

1) Download iTunes onto your new computer. You can find this application on www.apple.com or www.itunes.com. The link to download should be obvious on both sites.

2) On your "old" computer, find the file named "iTunes." On a Mac, this file should be in your Music folder. On a Windows PC, it should be on the Music or My Music folder.

3) Plug in your external drive / USB thumb drive into your old computer. Open up this folder on your computer.

4) Copy the "iTunes" folder in the Music / My Music folder of your old computer onto your external drive / USB thumb drive. To do this, simply select that iTunes folder, right-click "copy" and then "paste" the file into the external drive folder.

5) On your "new" computer, find the music / My Music folders. You can use the computer's search capability to do this, or on a PC, look in the "My Documents and Settings" folder.

6) Once you find the Music / My Music folder, delete any "iTunes" folder that exists. Don't worry about losing anything. Since you haven't transfered files yet, there should be nothing in this folder.

7) Unplug the external drive / USB drive from the old computer and plug it into the new computer. Select "My Computer (or the "C" drive) on the new computer and find the file entitled "My Music." Open the external drive and find the folder you just copied from the old computer. Select that file and choose copy from the FILE menu (or via a right click). Now Paste that file into the My Music file on the new computer.

8) Start iTunes on the new computer. iTunes should automatically find your files and show them in the application. Now, all you need to do is plug in your iPod and set your iTunes preferences again. Now you should be ready to use your new computer with your iPod.

Tips & Warnings

1) Be sure to confirm the size of the iTunes folder before copying it over to the external drive / thumb drive. Songs, video, podcasts, etc. can be very large files. If you have a substantial amount of music / videos, you will need a large external drive.

2) A good rule-of-thumb to decide how large an external drive / USB drive you require is to look at the iPod you own. If all of your files fit on your iPod, your drive does not need to be any bigger that your iPod. Said another way, if you have a 16G iPod, and the iPod has all of your files, you only need a 16G external drive. If you have a 1G iPod Nano...a USB thumb drive should work.

3) If you have bought iTunes music from the store that are not unlocked, you will have to authorize those files for the new computer. ITunes can walk you threw that.

4) Be sure to confirm that all songs, videos, MP3s, podcasts, etc. are in the Music / My Music folder of your old computer prior to moving the files to the new computer. If files are in different places, move them to the Music / My Music folder. This way, when you follow the directions above, you will capture all of the files.

DIY Post: How to Use a Cell Phone on a Cruise Ship

Everyone loves to go on vacation...and one of the best vacations is to go on a cruise ship and enjoy the relaxing environment, great weather and incredible food. Even though you are on vacation though, many people still like to be able to keep in touch. Sometimes staying in touch may simply be for making sure the kids can call you, or other times work (for that "emergency"), but regardless, having access to your cell phone can be just as important on the ship as it is on land. 

Thankfully, using your cell phone in cruise ship is very easy, but there are still things to consider. While most any US cellphone from Sprint, Verizon, or AT&T will work, the differences are significant and there are major issues to consider when it comes to cost, convenience and flexibility. To help with this problem, I have written-up this short how-to guide which I published on eHow.com. These guidelines should help ensure that not only will your cell phone service works, but using your phone while on a cruise ship is a positive experience.

LINK: How to Use a Cell Phone On a Cruise Ship

D-Day Arrives. Will the iPad Win the Day or be Pushed Back into the Sea?

(Thanks to TechChunks for their great pic)
Amazing! Incredible! Laptop Killer! Absurd! A giant iPod Touch! A waste of money. Which of these terms defines the iPad to you? Or do you have a definition of your own?

One of the most amazing things about the arrival of the iPad's arrival is how *everyone* seems to have an opinion about it. Ever since it was first announced, the blogosphere has been a flutter about whether or not the iPad would be as "amazing" as Steve Jobs said it would be and create an entirely new market segment for consumer tech (see video at bottom). Or, would it fall short of its goals and become another interesting, albeit small part of the Apple product portfolio.

With the imminent arrival of the iPad to users around the US, David Pogue of the New York Times gets into the game by professing its well...its own indecision by writing not one, but two reviews of the iPad. The first, a "review for Techies" basically sums up the iPad as "basically a gigantic iPod Touch." While Mr. Pogue says a lot of positive things, he also makes clear his "techie" feelings in the following quote.

The bottom line is that you can get a laptop for much less money — with a full keyboard, DVD drive, U.S.B. jacks, camera-card slot, camera, the works. Besides: If you’ve already got a laptop and a smartphone, who’s going to carry around a third machine?

The second review "for everyone else" is far more kind. As Mr. Pogue also notes, in some cases, bigger really is better...especially when bigger means supporting maps, books and movies much, much better than any other Apple device to-date. Also, he gives fair credit to some of Apple's attempts at pricing and contracts for 3G wireless that are admirable. Equally important, Mr. Pogue notes that the "The iPad’s killer app, though, is killer apps." And on that, I don't think there is any doubt.

Still, put succinctly, the review can be summed up in one sentence. "The haters tend to be techies; the fans tend to be regular people." 

So what are you?

For me, well, I am firmly in the techie category. While I love the idea of the iPad, I hate what came out...at least in version 1.0. The device is unquestionably cool and useful for many things (e.g. music, movies, and Internet), but it is also unquestionably useless for many others (emails, multi-tasking, business applications). It is also very expensive, limited in capabilities, and has a number of feature deficiencies. Does that mean I won't buy one ever? Not at all, but until many of the gaps are fixed from my previous blog on this topic (The iPad Cameth. And...I Am Not Sure It Mattered), it won't be any time soon.

So what do you think? Anyone already have an iPad? And what do you think? Even if you are not sure where you stand, be sure to check-out Steve Colbert's iPad experience below.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Stephen Gets a Free iPad
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Twitter is DEAD! Long Live Twitter! Thoughts on Scott Fox's Recent Post.

Great post and great series of question from Scott Fox regarding Twitter and if it has "jumped the shark"...making itself irrelevant in the future of online communication and marketing. Entitled Twitter has Jumped the Shark, Mr. Fox lists five reasons why he feels that Twitter is "over" and this is the beginning of the end. His reasoning is very interesting...and includes (along with the great Among his reasons are:

1. Twitter's usability threshold is too low: Basically, the combination of 140 characters, zero cost, and semi-legal moral standing has overwelmed the benefits of the service.

2. Twitter's value assumes synchronicity...where in reality, it rarely is. In short, Twitter requires both parties to be actively involved to be valuable. That is very hard to do given the world we live in.

3. Twitter is ruled by the elites: Those that "have" thousands (or millions) of followers get proportionally better clicks / follow-up. Those that don't...well, don't. Given that no one auto-follows anymore growing beyond a few thousand users is an almost impossible feat.

4. Twitter is F*ing everywhere: Twitter's APIs are awesome...but the tools that have spawned from this level of access are almost out of control. As Mr. Fox notes, "it easier than ever before to pre-schedule, re-tweet, and manage multiple Twitter accounts with little added value (or human presence!)."

5. Twitter things it should advertise too: It was one thing when individual Tweeters made money through the likes of Sponsored Tweets or Be-A-Magpie, but now Twitter itself wants in the game. All that means is more noise in the already crowded Twittersphere.

So...what do you think? I think Mr. Fox has done a great job asking if the Emperor really has no clothes, though I am not sure I would declare Twitter dead just yet either. From a business standpoint, I find great benefits with Twitter in finding new ideas, sharing thoughts / articles / blogs and finding new contacts and professionals in my area of expertise. Yes, a lot of this communication is "one-way"...though that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Frankly, I don't always want (or need) a two-way conversation and Twitter helps me share information in a reasonable manner. While occasionally I may "miss" something on Twitter, I have learned that the most interesting things tend to show up more than once...and sooner or later I catch on.

That being said, do you agree with Mr. Fox? Is the future what he stated: "Will Twitter evolve to be just another alerts service? Or simply a quick delivery mechanism for 140 character teasers of meatier content posted elsewhere?"

Why the iPhone User Experience Really Struggles. Response to Ars Technica's Recent Analysis.

 VS 

Great article last week from Ars Technica postulating on one of the other major reasons why iPhone users are having problems with their network service and performance. Entitled "How smartphones are bogging down some wireless carriers," Chris Foresman hypothesizes that the real cause of the iPhone problems on the AT&T network can be traced to the way in which the iPhone pulls information in "short bursts" from the AT&T network for texting, web browsing, etc. According to Mr. Foresman's theory, it is this move among active and dormant state...which also helps to preserve battery life...that results in the widely recognized poor user experience that many iPhone users (especially in large cities) complain about.

As for what I think of this article, from a purely theoretical basis, I think it is a fun read. It draws on some interesting tidbits regarding the deployment of the iPhone globally and an interesting engineering-level perspective on how wireless networks operate. It also draws out some nice commentary regarding network design.

From a practical level however, I think that the proposed hypothesis is frankly, bogus. Blaming the atrocious experience that some iPhone users experience in cities like New York and San Francisco with the way in which the iPhone moves among active and dormant communication states on the AT&T network is not grounded in the reality of wireless networking. This opinion is centered on three main facts. 

# 1...If the problem was this simple, it would have been fixed by now: If this network switch was the real cause of poor performance, don't we really think that AT&T or Apple would have made adjustments by now? Especially given the incredible pressure to improve user experience? Fact is, wireless carriers and their device suppliers spend an inordinate amount of time stressing over the balancing act of performance vs. battery life. If the powers-that-be could fix their performance issue with such a relatively simple fix, it seems to me that they would have done that already. Yes, it might impact batter life of the iPhone, but poor battery life is a whole lot better than poor service altogether.

# 2...Why aren't all iPhones (throughout the US) having this problem? By all accounts, the worst iPhone experiences are in the largest US cities like New York and San Francisco. iPhones in Tampa, Washington, D.C., and Poughkeepsie seemingly have no issues. Frankly, if Ars Technica has found the magic iPhone glitch, then one would assume that all iPhones everywhere would have the same bad experience. Since they don't, it must mean that there is some other cause.

# 3...But wait, what about O2's network in the UK? I am no expert in the O2 network, but the fact that their users in the UK (specifically London) are experiencing the worst service speaks most strongly to the fact that this is not an active / dormant state issue. In fact, this seems to prove the idea that there is combination of other impacts that are resulting in bad user experience. In particular, network capacity and management (combined with high numbers of users) resulting in network stress.

So, does that mean the switch among active and dormant state is not an issue at all? In fairness, there is probably some kernel of truth, but I would offer that it is probably one of the smallest impacts related to user experience. More likely, this is a classic case where the writers are making the mistake of concluding that correlation implies causation. Yes, it sounds a bit strange that AT&T and O2 would have similar issues...but it is highly doubtful that the iPhone's switch among active and dormant state would be the reason. 

In fact, the more likely reasons for service problems with the iPhone can be gleaned from where the biggest complaints occur. After all, the common denominator with this problem is not the iPhone...but the use of the iPhone in a large city, with lots of users, challenging spectrum / coverage models, highly centralized user base, limited RF spectrum, and difficult economic considerations impacting network upgrades. These characteristics are all things that New York, San Francisco, and London share...and likely the cause of the poor experience for iPhone owners in these areas.

Why Google Wants to be Your Home Broadband ISP

Based on the recent announcements coming out of Mountain View, one might think that the folks at Google are in a race with Proctor and Gamble to launch new products. In one six-month period, Google has entered more new markets than it probably has entered in the last 5 years. First it was being a mobile provider (Nexus One), then becoming a TV advertiser (Google.com / Super Bowl Ads), then their entry into Social Media (Google Buzz), and now, they want to be an Internet Service Provider (ISP).

So what does this latest announcement mean? Well, there is certainly an element of publicity, but I do think they are making these moves to try and ensure a stake in the larger question of where the Internet is going and (hopefully for them), drive other carriers to improve their infrastructure / speeds. Given whom they are partnering with, and the relatively small number of potential end-users, they will not make a big dent in this space…at least on a nationwide basis (For comparison, Comcast alone has ~13M broadband subscribers), but that isn't why Google is making this move. In fact, I would postulate that they can disproprotionately influence the market simply by showing what is possible (1G speed! HD Video! Etc.) and use those successes in public discussions around Net Neutrality, etc. In this way, they hope to improve the US Internet as a whole…and by extension, the services that they can provide to Google-users everywhere.

So what are the top 5 reasons for Google becomming an ISP? Here are mine.

1) Google has lots of money, so why not experiment: This effort may costs billions, and will likely be heavily subsidized, but it won't be free (Google defines it as "competitively priced") and even so, Google has the money to burn. In fact, one of the truisms of technology is that there is only so much that can be done in a lab. Now, if that "lab" has 50,000 - 500,000 users, actively using the Internet / applications / technologies, well, you can certainly learn a lot. To a certain extent, you will only create a Disney World-like environment, but that is certainly a valuable way to learn.

2) Google doesn't want to be your ISP, they want your ISP to be better: As PCWorld correctly stated, the goal of Google is not to become the underlying broadband provider for the US, but to show what is possible from an Internet delivery standpoint.  The fact is, even if they had 500,000 customers (high end) for this experiment, they would barely be in the Top 10 of ISPs in the US. So...what is their goal? Well, I believe a main driver for this activity is that they want to "show" the world (and the FCC) how backwards the US broadband market it and try and drive its improvement. And if they succeed, Google is betting that any improvement to the Internet (especially in speed and quality) will ultimately benefit them by allowing for more and better uses of the Internet (that Google believes it will lead).

3) Don't be Evil is just a Guideline, not a rule (at least when it comes to making money): Back in September 2009, a small but very important change occurred in Google's traditional DbE rule. Specifically, on the corporate web site, Larry Page posted a document entitled Ten things we know to be true that outlined Google's official philosophy on a number of core assumptions and ideas. Most were the same as we know, but # 6 was the most interesting. Specifically, it stated "You can make money without doing evil" and then went on to outline how (shock!) Google, is a business...and like any business is out there to make money. Google Broadband (and the Nexus One, and Google Buzz, etc.) are examples of that.

4) Influence the Net Neutrality debate: Google has been one of the strongest proponents of Net Neutrality, but time will tell how successful they are on this issue. Fact is, Net Neutrality is has a lot of detractors...and those detractors are among the largest companies in the US. At best, Google may get only some broad principles approved and not real change. One way to change that trajectory? Become an ISP and show the FCC how other ISPs are BS-ing the establishment. After all, if Google can show it is possible to consistently deliver 1 Gbps of capacity to the home...why can't Comcast offer 50 Mbps? Or 100 Mbps?

5) Learn what it means to have actual customers: I don't mean to say this lightly, but Google's greatest weakness is that they don't have many customers of their own. Sure, they have millions and millions of users (me being one of them), but they don't really have many that fit the legal definition of a customer (that is: "some one who pays for goods or services"). In fact, the only real customers they have are those that pay for Google Aps or Advertisers who use AdWords to push ads to folks like you or me. In theory, this means that at any point, an individual could stop using Google and only Google would suffer. One of the great learnings that could come out of this exercise is how to directly engage with their customers, provide good customer service, and also, generate new services that are then available elsewhere. To-date, they have not done well here (see: One, Nexus)

Has Google Lost its Mojo? Google Buzz is Another Misstep by Google

The last few months have been very strange for Google. For an organization that has been admired by many for their success in execution and product development, they seemed to have well, slipped a bit. Sure, they have continued to be embarrassingly profitable, and if anything, their advertising business has been growing and growing, but what about the rest of their business? Well, those efforts have not been nearly as successful.

In fact, if it was any other company that had made these misteps, the blogosphere would be all over them (not to mention, Wall Street). So what have those misteps been? Well, first there was the launch of Google Wave: (which sure sounded cool, but alas was not), then the very blah launch of the Nexus One, and then the whole "China is spying on me" episode, followed by the realization that in wireless, customer care is critical and now, we have the announcement of Google Buzz.

What is Google Buzz? Well, according to Google, it is what social media is supposed to be...at least from Google's perspective. What does it do? Well, some neat things like sharing photos with friends, interfacing with Twitter, etc., but I gotta admit, I don't see this as particularly earth-shattering. Still, you can decide for yourself by watching the video below.

So, what is going on? I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems like Google has well, forgotten what made them Google. In fact, even their competitors seem to sense that based on the latest responses to Google Buzz. For me, as an outsider, it is hard to say why this is the case, but my two cents is that Google is falling prey to two mistakes. 

The first, is the classic big-company problem of thinking they are smarter than everyone else. Don't get me wrong, Google is very smart (and has lots and lots of smart employees), but that doesn't mean they are infallible. More importantly, for these new lines of business, the details really matter and just being smarter than everyone else doesn't mean you have a good product.

Second, I think there is a real challenge among the vision of the Google leadership team. Schmidt, Brin and Page are deservingly gods in the search and ad space, but they have limited / no experience in wireless, customer care (until today, anyone ever tried to call Google?) and even collaboration / social media. Already, a lot of writers are declaring that Buzz is "boring"...and worse, out-of-touch with what customers want.  Personally, I agree. And in fact, I am much more excited about the recent update in Google Aps that allows you to share files!

So are the wheels falling off in the Googleplex? Of course not...but they still need to stop and rethink some of these recent efforts and new business areas. In business, past success does not beget future success and the recent track record has been pretty ugly.

Why Handwriting Is Dying...which is both a good and bad thing bad thing.

In an outstanding essay last week, Anne Trubek explored how the art of handwriting may have died...but that it is not going away anytime soon...nor is it a bad thing. While historically, hand-writing has been associated with intelligence, education, and position in society (aka the "good hand"), today, that is no longer the case. None the less, as she notes in her essay, "handwriting is not going away anytime soon, but it is going" and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

On this topic, I am truly torn. For starters, I truly value the speed, efficiency and capabilities that modern technology has brought to communication. Everyday, I use a cellphone, internet, instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook, email (about five accounts), and of course, this blog. Unquestionably, these mediums have allowed me to do more and communicate better and more efficiently than ever before. Yes, I occasionally also send a letter or two...but that is usually because the person I am communicating with doesn't use one of the above options (call this the Grandma rule). In fact, Ms. Trubek rightfully notes that it is speed, and to a certain extent democratization that these new mediums have given us and we should not forsake the benefits of these technologies for some nostalgic view of handwriting.

On the other hand, I do agree that the loss of good handwriting is a bit sad. For starters, we still write things all-of-the-time in our daily lives. One example, some of my notes when preparing for this blog. Additionally, there is still something to be said about sending a hand-written note for correspondence, etc. For me personally, I view my lack of skilled handwriting as embarrassing. Sure, I still manage on a daily basis, but I do regret never learning to properly write in cursive and instead, reverting to a lazy (and barely legible) print every time I need to write something down.

Frankly, I do have a bit of jealousy for those people that write well and ummm...attractively. The irony all of this is that the reason I never learned to write well was that during that class in Elementary school, when every one else was learning proper penmanship, I was pulled out for a "gifted and talented" class. Yep...at my elementary school, if you were GT, you basically were not taught how to write.

In my opinion, the real challenge to the brain of the youth today is not handwriting vs. technology...but how the advent of the spell checker eliminated the need to know how to spell. Maybe that is the reason why we have all embraced technology. After all, no one has invented the spell checker for handwriting. Perhaps a topic for another day.

LINK: Miller-McCune: Handwriting is History

The iPad Cameth. And...I Am Not Sure It Mattered

Last week was another big Apple moment. In classic Apple fashion, Steve Jobs announced the launch of the iPad. Over the course of 90 minutes (though only once some of the giggling stopped (insert feminine hygiene joke here), the audience was given the traditional Jobs-show on how this new tablet-based PC would create an entirely new market segment....which of course, Apple would dominate.

So what does the bloggerati think about the iPad? Well, there seems to be a split decision regarding whether or not the iPad is the "magical" device that Steve Jobs described, or something neat, but not nearly that interesting. Some, such as Slate, love the device, covet it, and want it. Where as others media outlets such as PC World, Wired, CNN, and CNET express disappointment and raise lots of questions regarding the iPad, its positioning, and even the existence of the market for which it is targeted. In fact, even Gizmodo, one of the biggest "Apple polishers" that exists, expresses some reservations regarding the iPad.

What do I think? Well, frankly, I side with the disappointed crowd. As I first wrote a few weeks ago, in order for the iPad (I called it the iSlate then) to be a success, Apple needed to create something remarkable. In order to create something remarkable, Apple would also be required to do some very un-Apple things. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Apple took that "advice" and so I am left wondering how the iPad will fit among the crowd of gadgets that we all can choose from today. 

It is not that the iPad isn't interesting. And admittedly, they did get a lot right (For instance, Apple did decide to rely on the iPhone OS for this device and they also priced the basic version of the iPad under $500 (just barely)), but there is a lot missing from the iPad too. In fairness, the iPad does have some unexpectedly cool things too (such as its ability to play games and watch TV), but I am not sure that those things are enough. 

Certainly one could argue that this is just the first version of an entirely new class of devices, but given Apple's stated interest to entirely redefine the market place for computers, this was not the time to be shy.  In fact, I see a lot of real misses in the iPad 1.0 such as:

1) No Flash: This is a huge issue. 99% of what makes the Internet go around is flash dependent. For a device that is supposed to be basically a computer, not having flash is a major bust.

2) No USB: Again, a huge gap. Why? Well, the iPad may be a great device to access the Internet or App store or viewing pictures, but it sure makes it hard to add things to the Internet (e.g. upload photos from your digital camera). This is one example where I think Apple took the "big iPod" theme too far.

3) AT&T: I am really not an AT&T hater, but it stuns me that they would continue down this path with a new device line up. Perhaps their contract with AT&T required it, or perhaps AT&T made it really worth their while, but fact is, this was the change to break lose and drive users in another direction. I wasn't in the room when this fact was announced, but apparently, there was an audible sigh of disappointment when it was announced. I don't blame them.

4) No Camera / Video Conferencing support: So...this is supposed to be the computer of the future but it doesn't take pictures? Or support video conferencing? Huh? This alone would be a major reason to keep me from moving to the iPad.

5) Closed Application Environment: I love the App store. Its awesome. But I also like the option of using other applications. The iPad doesn't do that. When you buy an iPad you basically become part of the giant Apple environment. Fine if that is all you want to do. Ugly, if you want to do something else.

6) Pricing: $499 is a good starting price, but practically speaking, that doesn't give you much. If the goal of the iPad is to displace Netbooks as a choice, it is already on shaky ground at $499...and way out of market at $829 (64Gig and 3G wireless). If they wanted an entry-level model, they needed to do better on that one.

7) No GPS (if you don't buy 3G):  Maps and presence are the new "killer app," but their relevance is directly related to how they interface with GPS. Yes, you can get that with a 3G card embedded, but honestly, paying that much more ($139) for just a 3G card seems ludicrous.

8) Strategy / Positioning: Jobs made a point of positioning the iPad as a cross between the iPhone and a Mac book. I don't think that makes sense. The iPad is really a cross-between an Amazon Kindle and a Sony PS2. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but lets not try and sell this device in the wrong place.

Time will tell if these issues are minor bumps in the road, functions of iPad 1.0, or major issues. Right now however, it seems to me that it is best to sit out this version and wait for the next version of the iPad to come out.

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...

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.