More Digital blog

It’s one thing to run the risk, using the internet, of being hacked or being somewhat exposed in general over the worldwide web. To me, it’s quite another to feel comfortable about Facebook after learning about the unethical and underhanded practices of CEO Mark Zuckerberg (while still recognizing the tendency towards college hijinks by college students). Revealed today in Business Insider, Mark Zuckerberg used Facebook login information to hack into the accounts of writers’ at Harvard’s Crimson. This would be during an ongoing investigation into whether he had stolen ideas from fellow classmates while commissioned to build their site ‘UConnect’. I parenthetically comment on ‘college hijinks’ because at the time of these ’scandals’, Zuckerberg could not have been more than 20 or 21 years of age, and hacking into email accounts for some might seem sport, particularly at that age. Given the amount of press and commentary the past months (perhaps years) over Facebook security, very little has been mentioned of FB users’ privacy concerns against FB itself.

Great, one more thing to worry about.

I don’t like to get to stat heavy unless I can tie those statistics to something interesting or useful, but the latest released statistics from Mashable on internet usage and social media was pretty mind blowing and the video was well done and good to watch. What I would like to know is what it all means for communication between humans in the physical world. Interestingly enough, I was watching a commercial on tv this weekend (who watches live tv anymore? This girl.) for an upcoming film release with John Cusack, ‘Hot Tub Time Machine’. I happen to love John Cusack, not for nothing, no matter how many crap movies he makes. The movie takes the four main characters back in time, to 1986, via a…wait for it…hot tub time machine. The reference between technology would obviously run deep (as with Back to the Future), but within the course of a 1.5 minute trailer at least 5 or 6 social media references are made about face to face communication and how ‘exhausting’ it is. Laugh at me if you want but I think it will probably be a fairly interesting commentary (accidentally or on purpose) on communication and social media. I plan on seeing it and wonder what we’ll be looking back on in 10 or 20 years.

I know, I know. I like talking about Google being ‘the man’. But it seems that everywhere I turn my favorite sites are talking about the latest addition from Google, how google is king of the universe and wants to deliver us from evil. I am wondering, more than a little now, if Mashable has a partnership with Google or some sort of major investment because I can’t read five tweets of theirs without at least two of them being about Google. Are there no innovators out there besides Google? Today’s news sites (InformationWeek, Mashable) report that Google has just received the ok to buy wholesale electricity. When they start buying water reserves (not that you can do that, that I know of) and islands I’ll really be concerned (it’s all sounding so very 007 to me at this point).

In other news, I saw a post/poll on ReadWriteWeb about MySpace that got me thinking again about the future of the interweb. The question was ‘What would it take for you to start regularly using MySpace again?’ My initial tongue in cheek response was ‘Change their name to Facebook or Twitter. But not Buzz’. However, if MySpace really wanted to make a go of it, the only thing that would truly interest me is if they did what I would like Facebook to take a stab at: building in a Second Life type of interface. While Second Life is mostly just creepy as it’s own entity, I can imagine a completely different experience with Facebook. I’m telling you folks, you heard it hear first, it could be massive. If MySpace made the first stab at it, I would give them a shot.

Finally, I’ll wrap it up on a Google note. Changes and adjustments to Buzz, to Google’s credit, have been quick. Not quick enough to get me using it, but I am glad to see they are making changes based on user feedback. When I find that they’ve made posts collapsible (lordy, if you follow mashable you can pretty much forget about seeing anything else on screen), they’ll have a good chance of getting me to take a second look. I would much prefer, also, of choosing my view, by user, by date or by popularity. Finally, if they really don’t want to make enemies they will not make Google profiles dependent on whether or not you use Buzz.

Facebook has become the second most popular website in the US according to Web analytics research by Compete.

The social media giant moved up one spot in the rankings pipping Yahoo for monthly usage in the United States. Internet juggernaut Google managed to maintain its strangle-hold on the number one spot but some of the statistics coming out of the study will no doubt have them looking over their shoulder.

Compete reported that Facebook had 133 million unique visitors in January 2010, ahead of Yahoo who had 132 million. Google’s web dominance was evident as they recorded a staggering 147.8 million unique users. I also must mention that while Twitter only had 21.79 million it’s rapid growth will surely be causing some concern at the top.

The question now is whether or not Facebook can mount a serious challenge for the top spot? Don’t be ridiculous, right? Not possible? Well actually, if you look at Facebook’s growth trajectory, it may not be out of the question.

Interestingly, Facebook does trump Google in one of the findings and it does it by some margin. Compete revealed that when it comes to the amount of time people actually spend online, Facebook is king. The website held a whopping 11.6% of all time spent online compared to 4.25% for Yahoo and 4.1% for Google.

Ok seriously. You turn your head for two seconds and there it is: another product from Google. As it happens, I was thinking about creating an entry based on an article I read about Googling v Binging when BUZZ, out of seemingly nowhere, pops up. Following the Tweets and FB comments along the way, the biggest questions seem to be ‘What is it?’ and ‘Are you going to use it?’

Upon its release and my discovery of said release, Buzz had not been activated on my Gmail account, but within about an hour it was (upping my Google paranoia). Since then (it’s been three days) the majority of posts I’ve seen have come from Mashable. Mashable and I are really developing quite a relationship, I’d say. Good old Pete. I commented on a couple of their posts, read a bunch of the articles about Buzz that they have posted, read a couple more articles from other sources and have basically been sitting on the topic for a couple of days.

I must admit that I’m starting to feel anxiety over the pressure to ‘get’ new products and understand their usefulness. This anxiety is greatly reduced as I read comments on FB status and within Twitter – my personal fave at the moment is from John_Cleese: ‘Do not, I repeat, do not, confuse me with this Buzz stuff’. You said it, John. First reviews indicate that it doesn’t integrate with FB, as Twitter does, and as AOL is starting to as well. However, Buzz does integrate with Twitter so your Twitter posts can automatically go out to your Buzz contacts, but that’s not 100% integration so you still have to have both accounts. The question remains, why would I start using Buzz when I already have Twitter? Because it’s integrated into my gmail? Well…hmmm. I’m already annoyed that the few responses to comments I have made have gone directly into my email (you can set up a filter and that won’t happen, but I think messages should, by default, land in a separate location. This makes me want to treat Buzz like email, or IM. And, as if to illustrate this, when I posted ‘Why would I use Buzz over Twitter?’ the response I got was from a friend (who doesn’t use Twitter) saying ‘So we can talk like this now, too’. I had to explain that if she wanted to talk, we could IM through gmail, email through gmail, or even speak through gmail, but that Buzz was meant for a different purpose. The purpose that Twitter has already established, I think. Why didn’t Google just BUY Twitter? Furthermore? Visually, Buzz is messy. Following Mashable means that I have to scroll, forever, to get to other posts from my other contacts. On top of Mashable’s posts, I also see all of the 458 comments on said post. Seriously? No thanks.

Interestingly, while Twitter’s inception was based on the question ‘What are you doing?’, it seems to have evolved into ‘What’s going on?’. That seems to be where it’s most useful. Not to digress TOO much, but this morning, from the window of my hotel room, I could see a massive plume of smoke (that was precipitated by a huge flame) and wondered if it was a fire or if I was seeing things, again. Within 10 minutes of noting it, Newyorkology retweeted a post that there had been a transformer explosion, causing a fire in the exact location where I had seen the smoke (and fire). Further proof I can be as nosy (and lazy) as I want from the couch of the hotel room.

All this to say that if Twitter can deliver that to me – faster than a Domino’s pizza? Why would I switch to Buzz. Just so I could start saying “I’m going to Buzz that”, I guess. I never have been a fan of the Twitter usage of the word ‘Tweet’.

A Neilsen study conducted in December has returned some very interesting statistics on the world’s social media usage. Apparently, it is not the Americans or the British spending the most time on sites like Facebook and Twitter, believe it or not, that title belongs to the Australians.

The global comparison study revealed that despite all the sunny weather and beautiful beaches, Australians on average spend 6 hours and 52 minutes each month on social media websites—some distance in front of the United States and the United Kingdom who spend 6 hours and 9 minutes and 6 hours and 7 minutes respectively on these sites.

Here’s the full list (h:m:s):

1. Australia – 6:52:28
2. United States -6:09:13
3. United Kingdom – 6:07:54
4. Italy – 6:00:07
5. Spain – 5:30:55
6. Brazil – 4:33:10
7. Germany – 4:11:45
8. France – 4:04:39
9. Switzerland – 3:54:34
10. Japan – 2:50:21

Doesn’t make sense, right? How can Australian’s who have such a major outdoor culture be ahead of these other countries? Well, being Australian and a social media frequenter myself, I think I can come up with a few reasons why.

Firstly, I think the biggest reason for their heavy usage is due to the fact that Australians love to travel. It’s pretty much tradition to fly off somewhere as soon as you finish your education. Actually, Australians will take advantage of any chance to jump on a plane and an interesting little statistic is that around 5% of the Australian population is abroad right now as we speak. Anyway, in the words of Andrew Weiner, “social media is to world travelling as steamed lobster is to hot drawn butter”. It simply is the best way to stay connected and share photos while you are overseas and Australians are making the most of it.

Some other reasons are Australia’s geographical isolation, its mateship culture and, I hate to say it, its laziness. Some people have also mentioned that it’s too hot to go outside while others like andymurd believe Australia’s internet speed is to blame. He writes, “Maybe Australians spend so much time on social networking sites because our internet is so slow – we’re just waiting for the page to load”.

If you want some more reasons, Ross Dawson on his blog has come up with a rather comprehensive discussion on the subject and it is definitely worth a read.

Another equally compelling statistic that came out of the Neilsen study was that social media traffic worldwide had surged 82% over the past two years. The global average of time logged onto social media has jumped to 5 and a half hours—that’s two and a half hours longer compared to the same statistic two years ago. Nielsen also reported that there are now 300 million social media users worldwide and Twitter was the fastest growing social media network.

Very interesting indeed. No doubt these statistics will have digital marketers across the world drooling all over their keyboards.

Back to Mashable again today, it’s quite the addiction, like Huffpost or Apple Rumors. I was reading through the media updates for the day and came across an entry on Bccthis, a new way to incorporate or add BCC conversations to Twitter and Outlook.

I admit I have only come to really use Twitter in the last year, though I’ve had my membership for almost three years. In fact, I just went through my posts (the first from April, ‘07), it’s interesting watching the evolution of ’status update’ a la Facebook to posts with actual content with references and links. I can see from looking at those early day posts that the reason I didn’t use it so much before was because I couldn’t see the point of it when I can use email and FB. I usually find myself asking ‘Why?’ and ‘What’s in it for me?’ whenever something new comes along. And admittedly it can take me some time to come around or find an application useful to me. Certain applications, though, like Skitch, a great screen capture tool that came out about three years ago, I was so interested in I was on message boards trying to get someone to give me one of their invites. Looking back, I can’t really imagine why I was that anxious to have it, though at least I use it often. Come to think of it, I’m a bit of a glutton for new apps, even the ones I don’t use. I loved xoopit (it compiled ALL of your pictures in gmail for easy access), I gave a real shot at using ‘Remember the Milk’ (only I never remembered to use it), and if I could remember that I have Ubiquitous installed and could remember the commands, I am sure I would be a lot more efficient in sending maps, events, pictures and doing random other things. But, yes I am a geek and yes, I have too much time on my hands.

But, here I am again and I’m wondering about this new app, Bccthis. My initial thought was that it looked pretty cool, not difficult to use (though really, do I need yet one more plug in on Firefox so it can crash another two or three times a day) and definitely rates on my ‘cool new tricks’ meter. But. Here’s the thing. Bcc already exists. And, so does forwarding. And, to boot, doesn’t the very nature of Twitter make it seem sort of silly to be sending specific bcc messages? I can see branching off being a cute thing to do once in a while, but if you are going to start a message as a bcc, why not just use email. I mean, people do still use email, right? The application looks more useful within Outlook, where you can add a bcc within an email. In any event, I installed and tested it, but if I have to be on bccth.is in order to see my responses, it’s really not worth it for me. I already tend to have two browsers and ten to fifteen tabs open at any given time. When it comes down to it, I WANT new apps, but I want them to be so integral to the way I work that I can’t live without them. And if they could make my coffee, too, all the better.

When Steve Jobs revealed the name of his highly anticipated tablet computer I think the whole world let out a collective “what the…?”.

For months all sorts of rumours flew fast and furiously around the web about the possible naming of Apple’s new baby. Would it be iTablet, iPad, iNewton or iSlate? Of the four, we were all certain it would be iSlate. Makes sense right? It sounds cool, describes the shape, blah blah blah. Apparently, Apple even sneakily registered iSlate.com a few years ago.

“We want to kick off 2010 by introducing a truly magical and evolutionary product today,” said Chief Executive Steve Jobs at the launch event in San Francisco last Wednesday, “And we call it…iPad”.

Honestly, my first reaction was along the lines of “they called it what? Cue the feminine hygiene jokes”.

Ipad? I mean, sure the name works on a few levels, but…at the same time it is like calling your son Richard Head and then sending him of to school expecting him not to be picked-on. Of course people were going to make the link.

Minutes after the Jobs announcement the jokes began to run thick and fast (no pun intended) on social media pages and blogs. In fact, the term “iTampon” quickly became the top trending topic on Twitter.

“The mocking goes along the lines of: Yes, the iPad is small, lightweight and slim. But can you swim with it?” wrote the Los Angeles Times’ tech blog.

Anyway, I could go on and on about the many jokes flowing out there, but that’s not really the point of this blog. My question is- surely Apple was aware of the connotations associated with the name, so is this all just a big marketing ploy to get the world talking?

I got thinking and came up with this conclusion. I’m of the opinion that Apple knew exactly what they were doing and simply thought the name was better suited to the product and the Apple brand than the others. Plus, what’s the harm in a bit of free publicity, anyway?

Ultimately, the jokes will get old, and the name will eventually be accepted (to be honest, even as I write this I’m starting to get past my immaturity and appreciate the name). In the meantime though, the iPad will continue to ride this huge wave of publicity that has been inflated, particularly by social media websites, because the name is a little funny. In the end, if the iPad is a good product, it won’t matter what the thing is called.

Anyway, what do you think? Did Apple get it right or wrong with the name?