With the launch of Facebook Places, theres a lot of talk about it being creepy or a potential security nightmare. I think all of that is and will continue to be largely overblown. That said, Im also sure there will be legitimate causes for concern with the feature but mainly because people arent using Facebook the right way. Nor do I think Facebook actually wants them to.

You see, Facebook really did used to be all about friends. As in, your real-life friends that you could connect with online. But in their drive to be the center of the social web and promote sharing (of links, of data, of information, of everything), Facebook is mutating. The problem is that the original social graph isnt built for this mutation. And were going to see that very clearly with things like this new location element.

Facebook wants us to share things more openly, but with Places, they have launched a feature that most people will want to keep close to the vest. They cant have it both ways, right?

Well, actually they can. But they need to fundamentally change the way their social graph works. Its a move that would be controversial but hell, all Facebook moves are controversial. I think ultimately, this would be very beneficial to both Facebook and the users.

Facebook needs to adopt a friend/follower system.

What I mean by this is that there needs to be a two-tier system for Facebook. On one level, you have the things you share with your friends. On the other, you have what you share with your followers (including your friends). To some degree, you can already do this. But it involves befriending everyone and using Facebooks convoluted lists to distinguish your real friends. No regular user is going to do this. Ever.

Or, you can use the everyone setting (now the default) in your status updates. But Im still not clear that anyone ever looks at these everyone updates besides Facebook, advertisers, and search engines. Facebook needs to allow you to have followers to make this data meaningful.

There should be a simple switch or button on the Status area (and not in some drop-down) that lets you determine if what youre about to share should be with your followers or with only your friends. And the default should be to share with only your friends (unless you change that in the settings).

Basically, this would morph Facebook into Twitter on one level, and back into the old Facebook on the other. Ive brought this up before but again, things like Facebook Places are making this more important.

And it needs to be simple. Currently, the Facebook privacy settings remain a nightmare. Things need to be simplified further into a followers or friends sharing scheme. All people would be followers unless you marked them as friends. And again, all updates would be done with a big, clearly-labeled switch in the update area do you want to share this with FRIENDS or FOLLOWERS? It needs to be crystal clear.

Others actually have this sort of system in place. One perfect example that isnt widely used is Foursquare. The app has a little-known celebrity mode feature which allows famous people who sign up for the service to have both friends and followers. Followers are people that you dont have to explicitly approve, theyre just following you if they choose to. Friends, you still have to explicitly approve. With each check-in, you can chose whether to send the update to just friends or to all those followers. Its so simple that I almost cant believe Facebook isnt doing it.

But again, I wasnt actually friends with these people, so Im not sure I want them seeing my location updates or pictures from my vacation. Id like them as followers, that I can interact with if I chose to.

I know, I know. Fan pages. Facebook fan pages are bullshit. Pure and simple. The fact that Facebook makes you create another profile page that you have to update entirely separately is just lazy. Worse, these pages are crippled. Theres no good way to bring tweets into them (though you can pump them out from the page), nor is there a good way to share your content. Theyre just awful. A hassle nothing more.

So again, why not just befriend everyone and use the lists to managed who can see what? Because thats also a hassle. And theres the ridiculous 5,000 friend limit. Can you imagine if Twitter had that?

Its simply time for Facebook to evolve the social graph. If they want to be the social center of the sharing web, they could do that with such an option. Forget the silly everyone button move to the follower model. Allow people to opt-in to following others but allow that user to determine if theyre actually a friend, and as such, open to moreinformationthan a regular follower.

Obviously, this is more complicated than Im making it seem. But it really doesnt seem all that complicated. It would just mean a changing of the social graph once again. It would be messy at first. It would mean backlash. But ultimately, I think it would truly make Facebook the center of social sharing.

Until then, all these other networks are going to stick around and continue to grow. Not that theres anything wrong with that. But I like the idea of Facebook taking it to the next level. I like the prospect of a network with over 500 million users being open to the concept of following. We would all gain a lot of new followers and also find a lot of new people to follow. More importantly, we would all gain and share a lot more information.

It would be a better-designed Google Buzz with 500 million users built-in. It would be a richer Twitter with five times the users. It would be a preemptive Google Me-killer. It would be great.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

With the launch of Facebook Places, theres a lot of talk about it being creepy or a potential security nightmare. I think all of that is and will continue to be largely overblown. That said, Im also sure there will be legitimate causes for concern with the feature but mainly because people arent using Facebook the right way. Nor do I think Facebook actually wants them to.

You see, Facebook really did used to be all about friends. As in, your real-life friends that you could connect with online. But in their drive to be the center of the social web and promote sharing (of links, of data, of information, of everything), Facebook is mutating. The problem is that the original social graph isnt built for this mutation. And were going to see that very clearly with things like this new location element.

Facebook wants us to share things more openly, but with Places, they have launched a feature that most people will want to keep close to the vest. They cant have it both ways, right?

Well, actually they can. But they need to fundamentally change the way their social graph works. Its a move that would be controversial but hell, all Facebook moves are controversial. I think ultimately, this would be very beneficial to both Facebook and the users.

Facebook needs to adopt a friend/follower system.

What I mean by this is that there needs to be a two-tier system for Facebook. On one level, you have the things you share with your friends. On the other, you have what you share with your followers (including your friends). To some degree, you can already do this. But it involves befriending everyone and using Facebooks convoluted lists to distinguish your real friends. No regular user is going to do this. Ever.

Or, you can use the everyone setting (now the default) in your status updates. But Im still not clear that anyone ever looks at these everyone updates besides Facebook, advertisers, and search engines. Facebook needs to allow you to have followers to make this data meaningful.

There should be a simple switch or button on the Status area (and not in some drop-down) that lets you determine if what youre about to share should be with your followers or with only your friends. And the default should be to share with only your friends (unless you change that in the settings).

Basically, this would morph Facebook into Twitter on one level, and back into the old Facebook on the other. Ive brought this up before but again, things like Facebook Places are making this more important.

And it needs to be simple. Currently, the Facebook privacy settings remain a nightmare. Things need to be simplified further into a followers or friends sharing scheme. All people would be followers unless you marked them as friends. And again, all updates would be done with a big, clearly-labeled switch in the update area do you want to share this with FRIENDS or FOLLOWERS? It needs to be crystal clear.

Others actually have this sort of system in place. One perfect example that isnt widely used is Foursquare. The app has a little-known celebrity mode feature which allows famous people who sign up for the service to have both friends and followers. Followers are people that you dont have to explicitly approve, theyre just following you if they choose to. Friends, you still have to explicitly approve. With each check-in, you can chose whether to send the update to just friends or to all those followers. Its so simple that I almost cant believe Facebook isnt doing it.

But again, I wasnt actually friends with these people, so Im not sure I want them seeing my location updates or pictures from my vacation. Id like them as followers, that I can interact with if I chose to.

I know, I know. Fan pages. Facebook fan pages are bullshit. Pure and simple. The fact that Facebook makes you create another profile page that you have to update entirely separately is just lazy. Worse, these pages are crippled. Theres no good way to bring tweets into them (though you can pump them out from the page), nor is there a good way to share your content. Theyre just awful. A hassle nothing more.

So again, why not just befriend everyone and use the lists to managed who can see what? Because thats also a hassle. And theres the ridiculous 5,000 friend limit. Can you imagine if Twitter had that?

Its simply time for Facebook to evolve the social graph. If they want to be the social center of the sharing web, they could do that with such an option. Forget the silly everyone button move to the follower model. Allow people to opt-in to following others but allow that user to determine if theyre actually a friend, and as such, open to moreinformationthan a regular follower.

Obviously, this is more complicated than Im making it seem. But it really doesnt seem all that complicated. It would just mean a changing of the social graph once again. It would be messy at first. It would mean backlash. But ultimately, I think it would truly make Facebook the center of social sharing.

Until then, all these other networks are going to stick around and continue to grow. Not that theres anything wrong with that. But I like the idea of Facebook taking it to the next level. I like the prospect of a network with over 500 million users being open to the concept of following. We would all gain a lot of new followers and also find a lot of new people to follow. More importantly, we would all gain and share a lot more information.

It would be a better-designed Google Buzz with 500 million users built-in. It would be a richer Twitter with five times the users. It would be a preemptive Google Me-killer. It would be great.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

With the launch of Facebook Places, theres a lot of talk about it being creepy or a potential security nightmare. I think all of that is and will continue to be largely overblown. That said, Im also sure there will be legitimate causes for concern with the feature but mainly because people arent using Facebook the right way. Nor do I think Facebook actually wants them to.

You see, Facebook really did used to be all about friends. As in, your real-life friends that you could connect with online. But in their drive to be the center of the social web and promote sharing (of links, of data, of information, of everything), Facebook is mutating. The problem is that the original social graph isnt built for this mutation. And were going to see that very clearly with things like this new location element.

Facebook wants us to share things more openly, but with Places, they have launched a feature that most people will want to keep close to the vest. They cant have it both ways, right?

Well, actually they can. But they need to fundamentally change the way their social graph works. Its a move that would be controversial but hell, all Facebook moves are controversial. I think ultimately, this would be very beneficial to both Facebook and the users.

Facebook needs to adopt a friend/follower system.

What I mean by this is that there needs to be a two-tier system for Facebook. On one level, you have the things you share with your friends. On the other, you have what you share with your followers (including your friends). To some degree, you can already do this. But it involves befriending everyone and using Facebooks convoluted lists to distinguish your real friends. No regular user is going to do this. Ever.

Or, you can use the everyone setting (now the default) in your status updates. But Im still not clear that anyone ever looks at these everyone updates besides Facebook, advertisers, and search engines. Facebook needs to allow you to have followers to make this data meaningful.

There should be a simple switch or button on the Status area (and not in some drop-down) that lets you determine if what youre about to share should be with your followers or with only your friends. And the default should be to share with only your friends (unless you change that in the settings).

Basically, this would morph Facebook into Twitter on one level, and back into the old Facebook on the other. Ive brought this up before but again, things like Facebook Places are making this more important.

And it needs to be simple. Currently, the Facebook privacy settings remain a nightmare. Things need to be simplified further into a followers or friends sharing scheme. All people would be followers unless you marked them as friends. And again, all updates would be done with a big, clearly-labeled switch in the update area do you want to share this with FRIENDS or FOLLOWERS? It needs to be crystal clear.

Others actually have this sort of system in place. One perfect example that isnt widely used is Foursquare. The app has a little-known celebrity mode feature which allows famous people who sign up for the service to have both friends and followers. Followers are people that you dont have to explicitly approve, theyre just following you if they choose to. Friends, you still have to explicitly approve. With each check-in, you can chose whether to send the update to just friends or to all those followers. Its so simple that I almost cant believe Facebook isnt doing it.

But again, I wasnt actually friends with these people, so Im not sure I want them seeing my location updates or pictures from my vacation. Id like them as followers, that I can interact with if I chose to.

I know, I know. Fan pages. Facebook fan pages are bullshit. Pure and simple. The fact that Facebook makes you create another profile page that you have to update entirely separately is just lazy. Worse, these pages are crippled. Theres no good way to bring tweets into them (though you can pump them out from the page), nor is there a good way to share your content. Theyre just awful. A hassle nothing more.

So again, why not just befriend everyone and use the lists to managed who can see what? Because thats also a hassle. And theres the ridiculous 5,000 friend limit. Can you imagine if Twitter had that?

Its simply time for Facebook to evolve the social graph. If they want to be the social center of the sharing web, they could do that with such an option. Forget the silly everyone button move to the follower model. Allow people to opt-in to following others but allow that user to determine if theyre actually a friend, and as such, open to moreinformationthan a regular follower.

Obviously, this is more complicated than Im making it seem. But it really doesnt seem all that complicated. It would just mean a changing of the social graph once again. It would be messy at first. It would mean backlash. But ultimately, I think it would truly make Facebook the center of social sharing.

Until then, all these other networks are going to stick around and continue to grow. Not that theres anything wrong with that. But I like the idea of Facebook taking it to the next level. I like the prospect of a network with over 500 million users being open to the concept of following. We would all gain a lot of new followers and also find a lot of new people to follow. More importantly, we would all gain and share a lot more information.

It would be a better-designed Google Buzz with 500 million users built-in. It would be a richer Twitter with five times the users. It would be a preemptive Google Me-killer. It would be great.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

With the launch of Facebook Places, theres a lot of talk about it being creepy or a potential security nightmare. I think all of that is and will continue to be largely overblown. That said, Im also sure there will be legitimate causes for concern with the feature but mainly because people arent using Facebook the right way. Nor do I think Facebook actually wants them to.

You see, Facebook really did used to be all about friends. As in, your real-life friends that you could connect with online. But in their drive to be the center of the social web and promote sharing (of links, of data, of information, of everything), Facebook is mutating. The problem is that the original social graph isnt built for this mutation. And were going to see that very clearly with things like this new location element.

Facebook wants us to share things more openly, but with Places, they have launched a feature that most people will want to keep close to the vest. They cant have it both ways, right?

Well, actually they can. But they need to fundamentally change the way their social graph works. Its a move that would be controversial but hell, all Facebook moves are controversial. I think ultimately, this would be very beneficial to both Facebook and the users.

Facebook needs to adopt a friend/follower system.

What I mean by this is that there needs to be a two-tier system for Facebook. On one level, you have the things you share with your friends. On the other, you have what you share with your followers (including your friends). To some degree, you can already do this. But it involves befriending everyone and using Facebooks convoluted lists to distinguish your real friends. No regular user is going to do this. Ever.

Or, you can use the everyone setting (now the default) in your status updates. But Im still not clear that anyone ever looks at these everyone updates besides Facebook, advertisers, and search engines. Facebook needs to allow you to have followers to make this data meaningful.

There should be a simple switch or button on the Status area (and not in some drop-down) that lets you determine if what youre about to share should be with your followers or with only your friends. And the default should be to share with only your friends (unless you change that in the settings).

Basically, this would morph Facebook into Twitter on one level, and back into the old Facebook on the other. Ive brought this up before but again, things like Facebook Places are making this more important.

And it needs to be simple. Currently, the Facebook privacy settings remain a nightmare. Things need to be simplified further into a followers or friends sharing scheme. All people would be followers unless you marked them as friends. And again, all updates would be done with a big, clearly-labeled switch in the update area do you want to share this with FRIENDS or FOLLOWERS? It needs to be crystal clear.

Others actually have this sort of system in place. One perfect example that isnt widely used is Foursquare. The app has a little-known celebrity mode feature which allows famous people who sign up for the service to have both friends and followers. Followers are people that you dont have to explicitly approve, theyre just following you if they choose to. Friends, you still have to explicitly approve. With each check-in, you can chose whether to send the update to just friends or to all those followers. Its so simple that I almost cant believe Facebook isnt doing it.

But again, I wasnt actually friends with these people, so Im not sure I want them seeing my location updates or pictures from my vacation. Id like them as followers, that I can interact with if I chose to.

I know, I know. Fan pages. Facebook fan pages are bullshit. Pure and simple. The fact that Facebook makes you create another profile page that you have to update entirely separately is just lazy. Worse, these pages are crippled. Theres no good way to bring tweets into them (though you can pump them out from the page), nor is there a good way to share your content. Theyre just awful. A hassle nothing more.

So again, why not just befriend everyone and use the lists to managed who can see what? Because thats also a hassle. And theres the ridiculous 5,000 friend limit. Can you imagine if Twitter had that?

Its simply time for Facebook to evolve the social graph. If they want to be the social center of the sharing web, they could do that with such an option. Forget the silly everyone button move to the follower model. Allow people to opt-in to following others but allow that user to determine if theyre actually a friend, and as such, open to moreinformationthan a regular follower.

Obviously, this is more complicated than Im making it seem. But it really doesnt seem all that complicated. It would just mean a changing of the social graph once again. It would be messy at first. It would mean backlash. But ultimately, I think it would truly make Facebook the center of social sharing.

Until then, all these other networks are going to stick around and continue to grow. Not that theres anything wrong with that. But I like the idea of Facebook taking it to the next level. I like the prospect of a network with over 500 million users being open to the concept of following. We would all gain a lot of new followers and also find a lot of new people to follow. More importantly, we would all gain and share a lot more information.

It would be a better-designed Google Buzz with 500 million users built-in. It would be a richer Twitter with five times the users. It would be a preemptive Google Me-killer. It would be great.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Its backer, state senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), says that the old laws against fraud or defamation just aren’t cutting it anymore. “In the age of the Internet, pretending to be someone else is as easy as using their name to create a new e-mail account. When that is done to cause harm, folks need a law on the books they can turn to,” he said. “New laws are needed to crack down on this form of harassment.”

California already has such a law, but it dates to 1872 and only covers faking someone’s signature. The new bill extends the principle to Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail, and it makes “e-personation” (yes, we’re groaning, too) a misdemeanor punishable by up to $1,000 in fines and a year in jail.

The bill’s text is brief. In an effort to carve out freedom of speech exceptions, the bill outlaws only “credible” impersonations, and the impersonation must be done “for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.” Fake Steve Jobs should be OK, but “harm” is a fairly nebulous standard.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation sees obvious potential for abuse here as corporations target those who might seek to parody their actions or impersonate them as a political gesturein other words, the Yes Men. The Men (and presumably, some women) have pulled off a couple of terrific events in recent years, including one last year where they impersonated the US Chamber of Commerce, rented the National Press Club, and issued a major announcement reversing their current global warming policies.

The hoax fooled a number of real reporters, garnered tons of attention, and ended in bizarre fashion when an actual Chamber of Commerce employee showed up and tried to shut down the whole proceeding. The Chamber eventually sued the group.

Could similar online events be illegal under the new bill? Should they be? “Temporarily ‘impersonating’ corporations and public officials has become an important and powerful form of political activism, especially online,” says EFF today. “Unfortunately, the targets of the criticism, like the Chamber, have responded with improper legal threats and lawsuits. It would be a shame if Senator Simitians bill added another tool to their anti-speech arsenal.”

As for the issue of “credible” interpretations, EFF says “that argument misses the pointidentity correction depends on initial credibility, just as it also depends on prompt exposure.”

The bill awaits Governor Schwarzenegger’s signature. EFF encourages him not to sign.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Its backer, state senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), says that the old laws against fraud or defamation just aren’t cutting it anymore. “In the age of the Internet, pretending to be someone else is as easy as using their name to create a new e-mail account. When that is done to cause harm, folks need a law on the books they can turn to,” he said. “New laws are needed to crack down on this form of harassment.”

California already has such a law, but it dates to 1872 and only covers faking someone’s signature. The new bill extends the principle to Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail, and it makes “e-personation” (yes, we’re groaning, too) a misdemeanor punishable by up to $1,000 in fines and a year in jail.

The bill’s text is brief. In an effort to carve out freedom of speech exceptions, the bill outlaws only “credible” impersonations, and the impersonation must be done “for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person.” Fake Steve Jobs should be OK, but “harm” is a fairly nebulous standard.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation sees obvious potential for abuse here as corporations target those who might seek to parody their actions or impersonate them as a political gesturein other words, the Yes Men. The Men (and presumably, some women) have pulled off a couple of terrific events in recent years, including one last year where they impersonated the US Chamber of Commerce, rented the National Press Club, and issued a major announcement reversing their current global warming policies.

The hoax fooled a number of real reporters, garnered tons of attention, and ended in bizarre fashion when an actual Chamber of Commerce employee showed up and tried to shut down the whole proceeding. The Chamber eventually sued the group.

Could similar online events be illegal under the new bill? Should they be? “Temporarily ‘impersonating’ corporations and public officials has become an important and powerful form of political activism, especially online,” says EFF today. “Unfortunately, the targets of the criticism, like the Chamber, have responded with improper legal threats and lawsuits. It would be a shame if Senator Simitians bill added another tool to their anti-speech arsenal.”

As for the issue of “credible” interpretations, EFF says “that argument misses the pointidentity correction depends on initial credibility, just as it also depends on prompt exposure.”

The bill awaits Governor Schwarzenegger’s signature. EFF encourages him not to sign.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tip Your Editors:
moc.odomzig@spit

Editorial Director:
Brian Lam |

liamE

Editor:
Jason Chen

liamE | AIM | Twitter

Features Editor:

Joe Brown

liamE | Twitter

Senior Contributing Editor:

Jesus Diaz

liamE | AIM | Twitter

Reporters:

Matt Buchanan

liamE | AIM | Twitter

Brian Barrett
liamE | Twitter

Contributing Editors:

Adam Frucci

liamE | Twitter

Kat Hannaford
liamE | Twitter

Contributing Editor, Weekends:

Jack Loftus

liamE

Junior Reporters:

Rosa Golijan

liamE | Twitter

Kyle VanHemert
liamE | Twitter

Editor-at-Large:

Joel Johnson

liamE | Twitter

Contributors:

John Herrman

liamE | Twitter

Mark Wilson
liamE | AIM | Twitter

Bryan Gardiner
liamE | Twitter

Contributing Researcher:

Don Nguyen

liamE

Contributing Artist:
Chuck Anderson

Interns:

Casey Chan

liamE

Ryan Salerno
liamE

Jeremiah Dobruck
liamE

Christina Bonnington
liamE

Heroes and Friends

Comment Account Questions:
Community Guidelines

moc.odomzig@stnemmoC

Popular Posts:
Last 24 Hours
Last 7 Days
Last 30 Days

Media Requests:

moc.odomzig@aidem

Facebook

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Android’s Market app could be a lot better. AppBrain makes it better, faster, and more search-able, and loads it with savvier recommendations. The basic AppBrain app provides a good search and categorization for Android apps, but more importantly, the ability to sync your list of installed apps two ways to your Google-linked web account. Pick out a bunch of apps on AppBrain, and you can have them installed (or removed) all at once on your next sync. Because many veteran and enthusiastic Android users are hooked into AppBrain, the recommendations and popular app listings tend to be much better than the Market. [AppBrain App Market]

Fast Web InstallerThe Fast Web Installer app hooks into AppBrain to make the installation process instantaneousclick “Install” on an app on AppBrain’s site, and your app starts installing on your phone as soon as your eyes shift from monitor to phone. These apps made this list possible in some ways, and we highly recommend installing both to make installing everything else very easy. [AppBrain]

Astro File Manager:

You usually won’t need it, but a good file manager is handy to have when you need to install an unofficial app, send a file into a particular app, or just open a PDF. Astro lets you comb the contents of your microSD card and act on the files there, whether to move, delete, open, or otherwise tinker. [AppBrain]

Barcode Scanner:

Until the Market updates with Google’s plans to provide over-the-air, instant browser-to-phone app installation, Android enthusiasts have taken to scanning quirky barcodes, or QR codes, to quickly install an application from a blog or print magazine recommendation. To grab those QRs, you need Barcode Scanner. It also offers some basic Google search functionality, but there are better shopping apps, one covered in this list in particular. [AppBrain]

Google Chrome to Phone and Android2Cloud:

They’re two sides to the same very futuristic-feeling coin. Both require the use of Google’s Chrome browser. Chrome to Phone sends links, Maps locations, or text from Chrome right to your Android phone, while Android2Cloud does the opposite (via the Browser’s “Share” function). They save everyone a lot of typing, self-emailing, and other awkward moments by naturally linking Google products together. [AppBrain: Chrome to Phone, Android2Cloud]

Dropbox:

File-syncing app Dropbox is so good at doing so many things, but at its most basic level, it seamlessly syncs file across all your devices. On an Android phone, that means making fewer cable transfers necessary, easy installation of non-Market apps, and a way to take pictures, video, or sound recordings and have them instantly available on your desktop or other devices. [AppBrain]

Swype:

Keyboard-replacement Swype has previously been available as a limited-time beta (as well as a clandestine off-Market installation), and may come back to be offered in beta preview again. It’s also installed by default, but not always activated, on a few Motorola and Samsung phones. But if you can get it on your phone somehow, it’s worth it. Swype is a great keyboard idea, especially for one-handed text jobs. Simply run your finger over the letters of a word, and for the vast majority of entries, Swype gets it. If it doesn’t get it, its suggestion list almost always has the right word. If it has no idea, you type out the word manually, and Swype stores it for next time. The newest versions also include the Voice Input key missing from earlier betas. Here’s hoping Swype gets itself onto the Market soon, because we know plenty of customers willing to pay.

Tasker:

If you had to name one app that delivers on the promise of Android’s open, customizable nature, Tasker would be it. The automation utility can pull off any tasks you can put your mind to. Want to have your phone turn on GPS and Bluetooth, raise the ringer volume, and automatically launch the Navigation app when you’re in the car, but turn everything off and silent when you put your phone face-down at work? You can do almost anything with Tasker. [AppBrain]

Voice Actions / Voice Search:

Create and send text messages and emails, launch Navigation directions, search the web, leave a note for yourself, and play MP3s or streaming music, all with your voice. That’s the promise of Google’s Voice Actions update to the Voice Search app, which is free but requires Android 2.2. Once more bugs get worked out, Voice Actions will be a pretty amazing service. In the meantime, it’s a nice preview of great functionality to come. [AppBrain]

Google Goggles:

When Googles works, it feels like living in the future. Snap a picture of an object, a bar code, a piece of art, or something else recognizable, and Googles will harness the power of Google to bring you back as much information as possible on itwhere the logo comes from, when the painting was made, etc. It doesn’t always work, and it definitely doesn’t work with people you see in-person (yet), but it’s a neat app to keep in your pocket for finding out more about that great great bottle of beer you just put down. [AppBrain]

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Let’s take a look at each of these reasons in turn.

Security is Job One

At the most recent Intel R&D day, Intel CTO Justin Rattner did a Q&A session with the press in which he was asked something to the effect of, “What do you spend most of your time working on these days?” Rattner didn’t hesitate in answering “security.”

He then told an anecdote about how he was watching Intel CEO Paul Otellini being interviewed by Charlie Rose, and Otellini told Rose, “I’ve given our company a charter to make [security] job one.” Rattner laughed and told us that this statement seemed to come from out of the blue, and it took him and other Intel execs by surprise. But from that day forward, Rattner was focused on security.

Rattner then went on to discuss just what a complex problem security is, and how the company is turning over every rock to come up with ways that it can contribute to making systems more secure. And, like Otellini did in this Charlie Rose interview, he referenced the Aurora attacks against Google and other tech companies as a kind of call to arms for Intel.

From Rattner’s comments about the Aurora attacks, it was clear that he and his team at Intel had looked into them closely, and he indicated that the sophistication of those and subsequent attacks he has seen was insanely high. Rattner told us that the attacksboth the Aurora attacks and others that he has seen more recentlyhave had such a high degree of sophistication that they’re clearly not carried out by garden variety criminals and vandals. He also said that the attackers are constantly upping their game.

Rattner described a few chip-specific efforts that Intel was making in the security arena, such as an on-chip random number generator and a crypto acceleration module. But these were just a small glimpse of what Intel had in mind for security.

Moving up the stack, and then off the stack

Intel’s years of experience with vPro and its predecessors have no doubt confirmed to the company that providing silicon-level support for advanced security and remote management technologies is a waste of time if no systems integrator or popular software vendor implements them in some kind of consumer- or business-facing product or service.

At the 2008 Intel Developer Forum, I interviewed Intel’s Andy Tryba, who was the director of marketing for the digital office platform division. The interview is worth revisiting from the perspective of 2010 to see what Intel’s expectations for vPro were and how they have yet to pan out.

I asked Tryba how I, as a consumer, was supposed to use vPro to do basic troubleshooting and support for family and friends, given that,at the time,there were no consumer-facing services built on top of it. “My point,” I said, “is that this isn’t just a technology issue; it’s a broader ecosystem issue. How are you guys trying to address that?”

Tryba responded: “I 100 percent agree with you, and what we’re trying to do is offer the building blocks for services also. If you take a look at the embedded security and manageability on the box itself, that’s great, but you do need some type of service to run on top of it. So what we do is go one layer up also and provide building blocksnot trying to touch the end usersbut to work with people who are trying to build a business model. So we work with a lot of the guys who are going toward home IT automation and services to build a business model and use our building blocks to take advantage of the hardware capabilities.”

I pressed him to name names, and to give examples of services that were going to be announced soon that would bring the power of vPro to the general public, but he wouldn’t give details.

Two years have gone by since that interview, and vPro still isn’t in common use for remote troubleshooting and general software security. Much of this is Intel’s fault, of course, for making users pay extra for vPro-enabled processors (it should come standard across their product line), but I haven’t really seen much in the way of what Tryba describedi.e., people building new home IT automation and tech support services and business models on top of vPro.

However, one of the big software vendors that did take up vPro and try to build consumer-facing products and services around it was McAfee.

Why they did it

In explaining its purchase of McAfee, Intel has clearly indicated that the real impact of the purchase won’t really be felt in the computer market until later in the coming decadethis is a long-term, strategic buy. This statement fits with the idea that acquiring McAfee is Intel’s way of bringing vPro and subsequent security efforts directly to businesses and consumers by just buying out the middle-man. The McAfee purchase gives Intel an instant foothold on countless PCs, a foothold that Intel itself would have to spend years building (if it were even possible).

Intel’s decision to keep the McAfee brand intact and run the company as a wholly owned subsidiary lends further support to the idea that Intel has just bought its way up the stack and directly onto the consumer’s hard drive.

This new foothold on the end-user’s hard drive is exactly thata small place from which Intel can now advance, pushing further out into the end-user’s networked computing experience by offering as-yet unannounced and undeveloped applications and services that will (ideally) make that experience safer.

In the end, the McAfee move isn’t some triple bank shot, where Intel is trying to out-security ARM in the mobile space, or whatever else the pundits have dreamed up to explain the purchase. No, it’s pretty much what Intel’s press release says it is: Intel wants to be (and feels that it needs to be) in the security business, period. The company thinks that they can do security better than a software vendor alone could, and they believe this because they know that security is about systemsnot just hardware or software, but services, practices, policies, and user experiences and expectations.

And to make secure systems happen, Intel has to get closer to the user and to have a more pervasive part in more aspects of the user experience than it can as a parts provider. McAfee gives Intel that missing consumer-facing piece, and that’s why they’re buying the company at such a large premium.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

We put all four phones from Samsungs Galaxy S series side-by-side to see which comes out on top when theyre compared spec by spec.

Samsung launched the Galaxy S series of smartphones as four slightly tweaked models across the four major carriers: Vibrant (T-Mobile); Captivate (AT&T); Fascinate (Verizon); Epic 4g (Sprint). While this makes it very confusing for shoppers, it also offers lots of options, if youre not locked into any one carrier. Looking at the Galaxy S line, but having trouble pinpointing the differences between the phones? We have you covered. Despite the common bloodline, all four models offer distinct features that set them apart from each other. Weve laid out our impressions and the specifications side by side, so you can see which phone wins out in this Samsung civil war.

Samsung Captivate

If youre an active social networker and video watcher, the Captivate probably makes a better choice than the iPhone 4, especially if youre concerned with iPhones antenna issues. If youre more concerned with speedy Web surfing, image and video capture, and video chatting, the iPhone 4 is the only choice. All other things being as equal as they can be (including the $199 price tag), the iPhone 4 is still the AT&T superphone champion, with performance superior in head-to-head comparisons with similar functions on the Captivate. But the margins are narrow enough not to make Captivate an uncomfortable non-Apple choice.

Samsung Epic 4G

Even if you dont or wont have 4G service, the Epic is a flexible, light, fun and easy-to-use superphone. The Epic might be a value match for the EVO, thanks to its super-bright super AMOLED screen, slide-out keyboard and pre-installed 16GB microSD card, and even taking into account its minor operational annoyances and comparative specification failings in camera MP and hotspot connectivity. But given you can buy a 16GB microsSD card for around $25, the Epic isnt worth an extra $50 unless you absolutely need a slide-out QWERTY keyboard. So far, the Epic is one of the best phones on the market today.

Samsung Vibrant

T-Mobiles best all-around Android phone has been the Motorola Cliq XT. It has the same 5-megapixel camera as the Vibrant, only with a flash. But its slower for surfing and loading apps than the Vibrant, it has just a HVGA video recorder, a smaller QWERTY, less memory, and a screen nearly an inch smaller. But its also $70 less than the Vibrant. If you can afford it (and dont take many indoor pictures), the Vibrant is definitely worth the extra dough.

The Samsung Fascinate is set to be released in early fall, check back for impressions.

Spec comparison

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.