I’m a big fan of Google Buzz and I’ve been vocal about it. The CEO of miio, Richard Lusk, is also a Google Buzz fan. I’m not alone in saying that I plan to shift some of my social networking time to miio.

I’m not going to attempt to reinvent the wheel. There’s an excellent review of miio in the blogosphere entitled, “Why miio isn’t Twitter or Facebook: And why this is a good thing.” The post contains a video demo and a terrific overview of the service. It’s recommended reading.

If you check out miio, add my profile to your network. It’s at http://miio.com/jon.

You might also enjoy:

--Google Buzz: Effects on the Blogosphere and Digital Media --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet.

Ok, umm, huge rumor: Google to launch facebook competitor very soon “Google Me”, very credible source

TechMiso picked up the tweet and the rumor is gaining steam on Google Buzz.

I believe there is room in the Google ecosystem for a new social network. While Buzz is still fresh out of the box, it really isn’t ideal for keeping up with friends and family. Buzz is somewhat more like Twitter in terms of the relationships between users, although discussions tend to be more fulsome than those on Twitter. Google does already have a Facebook like service, Orkut. However, Orkut is significantly behind Facebook in terms of features and it never really caught on outside of Brazil and India. Some point to Wave as a social network of sorts but it’s really a different animal. Wave is more like a collaboration service that better suits business purposes than social purposes.

If there really is a Google Me, I’m really curious what the service will look like. Surely, it will incorporate many Facebook features but I would expect some significant departures from the mold, and not just better privacy settings. Surely, there’s room for improvement upon the Facebook format.

I believe the biggest obstacle to any Facebook competitor is that many Facebook users have invested significant time amassing their group of Facebook friends. Even if an large group decided to defect from Facebook, it’s not easy to export Facebook contacts to Google. It actually requires a Yahoo! account to pull from Facebook and export to CSV file. From there, the CSV file can be imported into Gmail. Instructions can be found here.

I’m hoping Kevin is right. It’s about time someone shakes things up and competes meaningfully with Facebook.

You might also enjoy:

--Google Music to launch this Fall [Rumor] --Skype Killer: Google Voice + Gizmo5 App Soon, Place and Receive VOIP Calls --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Updated: Google Chrome OS to Launch by Next Friday? --Google Teaming up with HTC to compete with Apple Tablet? [RUMOR]

I’ve been thinking critically about the latest Facebook changes, writing posts about them (here and here), reading other opinions, and participating in debates on Google Buzz with some tech enthusiasts. I’ve come to the following conclusion: Facebook accounts should have an option to only share information with friends and that should be the default selection. Changes that permit the broader sharing of information should be implemented in a opt-in fashion, not foisted upon the masses.

Facebook has routinely moved the privacy goal posts. Every time changes take effect, Facebook “mandates by update” sharing beyond one’s circle of friends. This is not what many of us signed up for. I joined Facebook about three years ago when users had better control over their information and Facebook didn’t regularly flip switches to make banter among friends public to the world. We have shared opinions, jokes, links and pictures within this framework in a controlled fashion. Flash forward. Beginning in December and then later with the Open Graph API, Facebook opened up practically everything to everyone. Users needed to toggle switches to maintain the same level of sharing as they enjoyed before. This is plainly absurd, as I observed before. It would be akin to Google or Microsoft taking your email and publishing it without you affirmatively electing to do so.  Now, I wouldn’t have a problem if Google or Microsoft permitted users to publish emails provided that the option were accompanied by adequate instruction. Facebook just does what it wants when it wants and without adequate instruction, control or warning.

Super kudos to the French reporter who asked Zuckerberg why Facebook doesn’t follow the OPT-IN model for sharing. It was probably the single-most important question to ask and it was completely fumbled in a very laughable way.  This is the exchange:

Q (French press agency): Why not make the default the most restricted possible privacy setting?

A (Zuckerberg): We want to give people control over their privacy. Really restrictive settings make it hard for people to find each other.

Are you kidding me? First, making the model opt-in does not interfere with a user’s control over  privacy settings. You could have all the same choices but the default would always be the most restrictive settings. Accordingly, when Facebook makes changes that allow broader dissemination of previously private or semi-private information, the changes wouldn’t just be sprung upon unsuspecting users. Second, why would an opt-in model make it difficult for people to find each other? Users are identified by names and a thumbnail picture, if they so choose. Friends in common are also displayed. Why does publishing someone’s news feed make it easier “for people to find each other”? It doesn’t. Someone really should have followed up on the French reporter’s question.

Some might argue that you opt-in when you sign up for Facebook. Not when I signed up. We created our own sharing circles. Sure privacy policies can and do change but I made an erroneous and naive assumption that the service was run by responsible adults. Instead, we’re being forced into the public sharing model to (1) “give people control over their privacy” and (2) “make it [easier] for people to find each other.” #FAIL.

P.S. Leo Laporte of TWiG is promoting Google Orkut as a Facebook alternative like many of us on Buzz. While it needs some fixin’ and some polishing, Orkut really is a decent platform. More importantly, Orkut is backed by Google, a company run by adults who have proven themselves over a long period to time to be responsible.

You might also enjoy:

--Proof Facebook is a Privacy Nightmare --“Who’s Stalking My Profile?” on Facebook Doesn’t Work --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Facebook vs. Google isn’t about Social vs. Search --Facebook “Crowdsourcing” the Internet with Like Buttons

Facebook support waivers and A list bloggers like Mashable speculate about the fate of MySpace, but nobody seems to be reporting on Google Buzz. Sure, it faltered out of the gate with a privacy misstep. To briefly recap: users were set to auto-follow their Gmail contacts and those auto-follows could be seen by other Buzz users. However, this was done inadvertently and the problem was patched faster than a speeding bullet. This issue was addressed quite well at SXSW. Google apologized. (It differs significantly from Facebook intentionally taking what was previously private and unapologetically broadcasting it to the entire 400 million plus Facebook community but that’s another post altogether.) Now, in case you were wondering, Buzz doesn’t have any known privacy bugs. You can buzz publicly or privately. You can show or hide your list of people you follow and people who follow you. Has anyone in the media or blogosphere been reporting on this?

To me, this is what makes Google Buzz appealing and more so than competing social networks:

• Building a Buzz environment to your liking: It is easy to build followers and to reciprocate follows. My Google Buzz followers are largely active Buzz users. I have more Google Buzz followers than Twitter followers and I joined Twitter ages ago. I enjoy both reading and writing on Buzz.
• Twitter falls short: Twitter is often difficult to follow. Conversations, which rarely develop, need to be decrypted because of the 140 character limit and the lack of meaningful organization of Tweets. It doesn’t help matters that many active Twitter users tend to be get-rich-quick schemes and pure follow-back whores.
• Facebook is a different animal: Facebook isn’t really about expanding horizons. Sure, I like keeping in touch with people and Facebook makes that easy. I suggest you ask yourself these questions if you think Facebook is the be-all-end-all of social networks: How many new people have you met on Facebook? How many real conversations have you engaged in on Facebook? What is the signal to noise ratio on Facebook? Are you content with Facebook governance and frequent changes in policy?
• The Buzz platform is well designed. Sharing information from Google Reader, YouTube and by URL has never been easier. We are expecting to see the Buzz API opened up at Google I/O which should benefit the platform and accelerate Buzz growth.
• Community support and mobilization: We’ve taught each other how to use Buzz and some conventions for Buzz use have developed. We’ve mobilized to support Buzz and provided feedback to the Google Buzz Team. The Google Buzz Team has responded with improvements and is currently privately beta testing new features.
• Buzz is a community. I have met new people near and far (very far) and joked, shared opinions and debated. Buzz users have engaged and thoroughly discussed many topics. My posts and ideas have generated more discussion on Google Buzz than any other platform. I’m not alone in this regard; other people report the same. It’s nice to have feedback every once in a while from a diverse group of people.

Buzz is social media at its finest! If you were scared off by the privacy glitch and haven’t experienced Buzz recently, you’re doing yourself a disservice. Give Buzz a second chance.

You might also enjoy:

--If you missed Buzz this week… all the buzz is about… Buzz. --Google Buzz — Complaints and Suggestions --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Google Buzz: Effects on the Blogosphere and Digital Media --Google, why Buzz? This is probably the answer.

What is Google?

It’s a conduit through which advertisers reach people who have shared their personal preferences with Google. While Google was initially purely a search engine, that is no longer true today. As I wrote yesterday, Google wants to know everything it can about each and every person. Reiterating yesterday’s musings:

Whom do you phone? Google Voice.

To whom do you write? Gmail, Google Wave and Google Buzz.

What do you buy? Google Checkout and Google Product Search.

What do you watch on television? Google TV, which is anticipated to launch with Sony next month.

What do you read? Google Reader and Google Scholar, despite some bumps in the road.

Where do you eat? Google Maps, 800-GOOG-411, Google Places.

What ailments do you have? Google Health, although it appears to be a flop.

Where do you work? Google Profiles.

Where do you live? Google Maps.

What do you look like? Google Profiles and Google Visual Search, perhaps tied together one day.

Where are you? Latitude, Google Buzz and Google Places.

Where did you go and where will you go? Google Calendar.

While the search business fits into this overall picture, it is important to note that very little of the preference harvesting today relies heavily on it.

What is Facebook?

Similar to Google in a sense. Facebook is a conduit through which advertisers reach people who have shared their personal preferences with Facebook. This really begs the question, what do we share with Facebook? Not much when compared to Google. Facebook is far less efficient at harvesting information and has fewer tentacles. These are the questions Facebook may be able to answer about a particular user:

What is your name?

What do you look like?

What is your birthday?

And so on. Facebook also knows what social games you enjoy playing and what you “Like.” Facebook cannot answer most of the questions above that Google can answer. Facebook doesn’t have an email client, a calendar, mapping software, voice transmission, video transmission, etc. Google is much more efficient at harvesting information because it has many more web properties and, not surprisingly, they happen to be the best in most areas.

As an aside, this is where Facebook has truly gone off the deep end: Facebook is giving away the crown jewels. It is now divulging your preferences (“Likes” cannot be made private, for example) to third parties who can archive them indefinitely. This is contrary to the Google platform that seeks to obtain everything tidbit of information about you but tries to lock down that information for Google’s use only. (Buzz was a notable, accidental exception but that mistake was remedied within a couple of days.)

Implications

Search vs. Social is bullshit. Google is social. Google services allow me to communicate with friends and family by Gmail, Wave, Buzz, Voice, etc. I can read their thoughts in emails, hear their voices, see their faces, etc. What makes Facebook more “social” than Google? The fact that someone I went to elementary school with posted about her breakfast food and that she spilled orange juice on her new shoes? Now, there’s the “search” issue. This deserves emphasis:

Facebook does not have a map of the entire internet; Google does.

Google is a better platform for other reasons. It is better organized. I know where to find information I seek. My appointments are on my calendar, my emails are in my inbox, etc. I can archive everything. Facebook provides us, primarily, with a stream of crap that tells me about my friends’ virtual farms, mafias, fish, etc. I see a bunch of happy birthday posts too. The Facebook stream is entirely disorganized and it is not archived in a useful way.

The argument that Facebook will somehow whip Google in the near future baffles me. Google is way out of Facebook’s league in so many different areas. It harvests information better. It protects information it harvests better. It offers utility to its users. If provides us with services that Facebook cannot even come close to providing any time soon. So, this Facebook > Google argument that is being tossed around the internet seems like nonsense to me. I put my money where my brain is. I’m holding my GOOG stock and maybe building the position especially since some people were recently fooled by the blogosphere into believing that Facebook is a serious threat to Google. It isn’t right now and couldn’t become one for a very, very long time.

You might also enjoy:

--Google Diversification, Search Fading? --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Why Google Visual Search for Android is Ingenious… --Google Visual Search… Snap Your Phone’s Camera at Anything --Sony XPERIA X10 meets Google Visual Search [VIDEO]

That’s the question being asked by many, including many of the top Googler celebrities who have deactivated their Facebook accounts. Four Senators have sent a letter to Facebook complaining about this issue. (Perhaps they didn’t use the word “shit” but, anyways…) Chuck Schumer, D-NY, has spearheaded this effort and even lobbed a complaint in with the Federal Trade Commission.

I have been contemplating suspending my Facebook account but ultimately decided against it. I just won’t “Like” anything and I will monitor my information to make sure that it doesn’t get shared with the public (again). The real solution: A turn-this-shit-off-forever button. I’d “Like” that.

[via GigaOM]

You might also enjoy:

--Today’s Facebook Privacy #FAIL --“Who’s Stalking My Profile?” on Facebook Doesn’t Work --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Facebook vs. Google isn’t about Social vs. Search --Facebook “Crowdsourcing” the Internet with Like Buttons

Crowdsourcing is the outsourcing of tasks to a large community. An example of crowdsourcing is a cellphone app that reports gasoline prices and asks users of the app to report back prices they observe. Facebook is attempting to crowdsource the internet. Instead of crawling the internet with sophisticated spiders that follow every link, they shift the task to the website owners who must install a “Like” button and to the Facebook populance who must click the buttons to make the system work.

This fundamentally differs from Google’s approach to indexing the web in a few ways. Google spiders the web to detect new content. This approach is changing somewhat through advancements like PubSubHubBub (say that ten times fast) which allow content providers to push their updates to Google and burn real-time RSS feeds. Google also crowdsources the internet in a way but it does so seamlessly and, more importantly, privately. When you search for pages on Google and click links, Google learns both what you like (without clicking a button) and also uses this information to target advertisements and even rank pages in your own search results. In the aggregate, this information (your clicks) is used to rank pages.

So, what’s the difference? Facebook has slowly chipped away at users’ privacy. For example, Facebook updates are now public by default. Perhaps Twitter paved the way for that change but it was not a welcomed change by many. Now, Facebook users are being asked to essentially display their internet preferences and browsing history to their “friends” and the general public. The privacy implications of this scheme are profound. Imagine if Google’s Chrome browser or Google.com asked users to opt-in and make their browsing history public (even on a per-click basis). People would be, rightfully so, outraged. Facebook is being raked over the coals by privacy groups and many people who actually understand what is being proposed. However, the cuteness of “Like” concept and the appeal of the Facebook brand have blinded some people from questioning the entire concept. Frankly, I don’t plan on clicking Like buttons and I believe that people should really think critically about the system that is being implemented.

Somewhat uncomfortably, this website has a Facebook button in the upper right. This enables those who click to see posts in their Facebook stream. This button was created long before we were asked to rank the entire internet. It was intended to serve an entirely different purpose and it wouldn’t bother me one bit if you choose to unlike Tech Bottle but follow the posts another way (by e-mail, Buzz, Twitter, RSS readers, etc.). While on the topic of unliking, I have read that unliking something might pluck the logo off of your profile but there will be other ways to determine a user’s past likes. So, if you Liked Coke last week but want a job at Pepsi this week, you might have sunk yourself.

P.S. Another major issue with the Facebook scheme involves sharing your personal information with other Facebook partners across the web. You probably saw a small box about this at the top of your Facebook stream. This is another somewhat confusing change to Facebook and I have opted out of it. I don’t think it is clear what data will be shared and exactly how it will be used. Perhaps I will become more comfortable with a personalized internet and opt-in at some point but for now, I prefer the internet the way it is.

UPDATE: Matt Cutts, a high profile Google employee, just suspended his Facebook account. http://searchengineland.com/matt-cutts-deactivates-facebook-account-40543

You might also enjoy:

--Facebook vs. Google isn’t about Social vs. Search --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Chat Roulette — The Circus of the Internet --Internet Explorer users click ads 5x more often than Google Chrome users [DATA] --Today’s Facebook Privacy #FAIL

Rik Ferguson, a senior security consultant at Trend Micro, explains: “The app itself is designed to look convincing enough, but none of the many ‘Continue’ buttons it offers will activate some under-the-counter profile checking functionality – they will just push you into another Facebook app earning the scammer advertising revenue in the process.” He reports that Facebook is removing the offending apps.

You might also enjoy:

--Food for thought: How Does Google Work? [Infographic] --Today’s Facebook Privacy #FAIL --Proof Facebook is a Privacy Nightmare --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Facebook vs. Google isn’t about Social vs. Search

What do I mean by “succeed”?  I mean that Google Buzz becomes a useful repository for information sharing that is frequented by many for news, opinions and sometimes everyday chatter.

Google Buzz Differs from Existing Social Networks

If Google Buzz succeeds, then a relentless flow of information will come into Google Buzz making it very sticky. This is very unlike Twitter, which I contend is not a very sticky site at all. Almost all tweets, other than casual banter, have outbound links. This has created a cottage industry in URL shortening. Tweets are essentially headlines that direct people away from Twitter into a different realm, often the blogosphere. While Google Buzz could be used to drive traffic into a different realm, it is much more sticky for a few reasons. First, there’s no character limit on Buzzes. Google Buzz could be a substitute for blogs, particularly simple ones like the Posterous blogs. (This is a topic I mused about before: “Google Buzz could become a Substitute for Blogs if…”). Second, there’s absolutely no start-up cost and it is easy to begin buzzing. You can login and can begin almost immediately. You don’t have to mess with customizing WordPress. Third, unlike Twitter (and Facebook to some extent), Google Buzz has very good support for images and video. Rich content buzzes are quite common. With Twitter, you needed an outbound link to see any rich content at all with the exception of user avatars. Fourth, Google Buzz has a good commenting system (which is likely to be improved) and discussions are easy to follow, unlike Twitter. With Twitter, even if you read a post on a blog and decide to comment, most likely you would do so on the blog and not via Twitter. Google Buzz, on the other hand, is self-contained and comprehensive.

Google Buzz is designed to draw people away from other sites and into Buzz. It’s baked into Gmail which many millions of people use daily. Google’s popular RSS reader also draws people into Google Buzz through prominent links in Reader. Google made apps for phones and cooked in a location sharing sharing feature via Google Maps (a la FourSquare). Picasa is wired into Google Buzz. Every buzz has an email link at the bottom for sharing it. This draws people into Google Buzz, not away from it. In other words, Google Buzz is well integrated with other properties in the Google ecosystem.

If Google Buzz Succeeds and it’s as “Sticky” as I say, then…

First, traffic to blogs will go down as Google Buzz becomes a substitute for blogging. As long as people can locate people with similar interests (and I’m sure there are third party sites mimicking “WeFollow” as I type and Google may roll something out too), affinity groups can stick with Google Buzz. Second, with rebuzzing, sharing via Google Reader and upcoming integration with Google News, sites that simply aggregate news will be irrelevant and unprofitable. Third, if aggregators are “buzzed out,” then what about the fate of publications like Mashable/TechCrunch or old media like the local newspaper? I predict that they will publish more original content  and less “mash-ups” or aggregated content. Further, they will be leery of  publishing their content to Google Buzz. Instead, they will try to stick to the Twitter model and drive people with outbound links to their websites to generate advertising revenue. Already, we’re seeing Mashable which boasts 2.3 million followers post outbound links as opposed to publishing directly into Google Buzz. This model could succeed if the original content is attractive enough to draw people away from Google Buzz to read it and the person chooses the outbound link over Google Reader.

How does Facebook fit into the picture? Surprise: Facebook wants to become what Google Buzz already is.

If Google Buzz does succeed and the blogosphere contracts, particularly the amateur blogosphere, it will do so where Twitter and Facebook have failed. As I already discussed, Twitter’s model was to aggregate headlines but it has not produced a sticky site. Facebook is a very sticky site but not for the same reasons Google Buzz will become a very sticky site.  Facebook is sticky because people want to share their life’s experience with people they know and/or read about friends and family.  Major media outlets and significant blogs have not yet gotten much traction on Facebook. People don’t want to pollute their stream of friends’ news with other content (like the backlash against Zynga’s games publishing into streams). Accordingly, I believe Google Buzz is very unlike Facebook… and in a useful sort of way. While theoretically Google Buzz could be used like Facebook, it is better suited as a sticky news and opinion social network of sorts. This is one of Facebook’s goals but Google actually has a significant head start because of its integration with other Google properties. This runs absolutely counter to what you read elsewhere that Google Buzz is a startup challenging a 400 million strong Facebook. I contend that Google is today buzzing with what Facebook wants to become. (Perhaps I just answered the question of whether Facebook and Google Buzz can coexist. Yes, Facebook for friends and family and Google Buzz for news-worthy content and opinions.)

You might also enjoy:

--If you missed Buzz this week… all the buzz is about… Buzz. --Google Nexus One being reviewed in the blogosphere… --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Google Buzz deserves a second chance --Google Buzz — Complaints and Suggestions

Some buzzers are reposting news articles and other material that comes to them by RSS via Google Reader.  The integration among many different Google properties is truly amazing. In addition to Google Reader integration, there’s Google Maps for viewing local buzz, Google Profiles for sharing contact information (you can verify email addresses and even your name, similar to what some high profile people did on Twitter) and a reportedly well-designed app for Android.

There’s plenty of support among tech blogs for Google Buzz. Tech Crunch rolled out a “Buzz This” button and Mashable followed soon thereafter. Some blogs posted DIY instructions for Buzz This buttons. Pete Cashmore, CEO of Mashable, has had some significant interactions with readers. Presently, he is soliciting ideas for Mashable articles.

I haven’t seen much in the way of celebrities or news outlets using or promoting Google Buzz. Ashton Kutcher, where are you? Are you going to challenge CNN in this new forum?

If you have ideas for improving Google Buzz, you can submit them here: http://mail.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=buzz … but let’s hope the Buzz team gets some sleep and enjoys the Olympics like the rest of us.

You might also enjoy:

--Tech News from the Past Week --Timeless: Seiko Re-Releasing Talking Pyramid Clock (in case you missed it in 1984) --Google Buzz deserves a second chance --Google Buzz — Complaints and Suggestions --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet.

If you haven’t watched the video, I’ll sum it up. Google’s core strength is the search business. Google wants to be branded indelibly as the map for the internet. (It didn’t pick the Parisian Love Superbowl advertisement by accident.) Up until now, Google crawled the web to map it. The map was periodically (but not continually) updated. Some sites refreshed daily, some hourly and some nearly instantaneously. Now, more and more, consumers are looking for instantaneous news and communication. Google Buzz was created primarily to bring content to Google instead of the present model of crawling the wires to update Google’s map of the web.

The Twitter Argument

If you want breaking news, you can find it on Twitter and find it faster than anywhere else because all major news outlets bring content to Twitter. Twitter is the king of real-time news. Twitter doesn’t crawl for anything. Google got very lucky recently when it inked a non-exclusive deal to index Twitter. (Microsoft did too.) Although little is known about the contract, the rumor is that Twitter received a combined $25 million for the indexing deals (which, in turn, put Twitter in the black for 2009). This is a threat to Google for a variety of reasons. First, the contract may not be renewed or could go exclusively to Microsoft in the future. Also, the entire Twitter company could fall into unfriendly hands. Google does not like relying on any company that may not commit itself to “openness.” Second, Google probably paid more for the Twitter contract than it cost Google to build its own Twitter-like service, Google Buzz. Third, Google Buzz is virtually guaranteed to be more successful than Twitter due to the tie-in with Gmail which has an installed active user-base of approximately 174 million regular users.

Why Facebook Isn’t a Serious Threat Yet

Facebook has yet to challenge Google’s model of mapping the web. While you can do rudimentary web searches through Facebook, nobody does. Facebook is not populated with the same real-time news content as Twitter. This trend is shifting with the growing number of fan pages and professional accounts but up until now Facebook was simply a place to crack a joke to a large crowd, post pictures of kids or invite people to a party.

HOWEVER, Facebook could easily become a serious threat. It is among the most sticky of all websites. It has an installed user-base of over 400 million users. If it made a serious push to have meaningful content come to Facebook (news outlets, blogs, etc.), it could challenge Google’s efforts to be the best map of the internet perpetually.

Predictions

Twitter will get wiped off the map by Google Buzz. It may continue to exist in a MySpace-like state. Some lesser player could buy it or it might have a weak IPO. The real fight will be Google vs. Facebook but that’s on the horizon and will only occur if Facebook makes a meaningful effort to map the web. The scariest scenario for Google would be Microsoft and Facebook uniting forces. Bing plus Facebook could mount a meaningful long-term challenge to Google. Keep in mind that Microsoft already has a small piece of Facebook. So, Google isn’t simply looking for a piece of the social networking business. It is also playing defense to keep its dominance in mapping the world’s information.

You might also enjoy:

--TweetDeck terrific for Facebook, no need to espouse Twitter --If you missed Buzz this week… all the buzz is about… Buzz. --Google Buzz: Effects on the Blogosphere and Digital Media --Google Buzz deserves a second chance --Google Buzz — Complaints and Suggestions

Here I gripe about Google Buzz…

I believe that Google Buzz has a lot of potential and I’m digging it.  However, it has some kinks that need to be worked out:

1. Notifications should skip the Gmail inbox by default. We can see the notifications in the left-hand pane and don’t need to intermingle buzz with email. Filters can be used to route the buzz to archives and skip the inbox (instructions courtesy of LifeHacker at http://goo.gl/3Iyt) but it would make more sense to have a toggle whether the user wants buzz in the inbox.
2. Kudos to Google for making responses to buzzes (which work like comments on a blog) editable. However, it would be really nifty if the buzz responses were (a) nested and (b) could be hidden. Many popular buzzes have so many comments that it’s almost impossible to follow the conversation. The clutter on the page is overwhelming too.
3. The “Mute” button doesn’t work. Be warned: If you mute a buzz you commented on, then new replies will all show up in your new buzz count. Because the mute button doesn’t work, long discussions like the ones Mashable started are to be avoided.
4. The “Mute” button is dangerously close to the “Unfollow” button.
5. Let us harvest our Facebook friends list and add them in buzz. While I appreciate the efforts to avoid mentioning Facebook anywhere and not link to it, the ability to draw in our existing social networks would be helpful. Pulling in Twitter followers simply doesn’t cut it for many of us.

I’m actually kind of digging buzz but the issues I identified above need to be addressed ( at least 1 through 4) or this ship won’t sail.

P.S. Mini-Gripe: Couldn’t Google add some more background/color themes to Gmail? The existing ones get mighty boring.

You might also enjoy:

--If you missed Buzz this week… all the buzz is about… Buzz. --Want Your Google Wave Invitation? More Coming in “Weeks.” Suggestions. --Google Buzz deserves a second chance --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Google Buzz: Effects on the Blogosphere and Digital Media

This is another bold move by Google to dominate the interwebs. Gmail already has an enormous installed user-base (around 150 million users; compare with Facebook which has around 400 million users) and integration with GTalk and AOL’s AIM. Even if the status update feature fails to gain acceptance, at a bare minimum, Google captures more mindshare and could draw some more users into Gmail. In a recent Mashable poll, Gmail trouced Microsoft’s Outlook as a preferred email client (70% to 19% with 11% voting no preference). (Candidly, I reacquainted myself with Gmail after reading the poll and ultimately decided to consolidate my email into Gmail instead of Outlook or Mozilla’s Thunderbird.)

If Google’s status update gains widespread acceptance, then the obvious losers are Facebook and Twitter. The timing couldn’t be more damaging to Facebook, which is expected to have an IPO this year. The status update war of 2010 is brewing, as the Scobelizer post I referred readers to the other day suggested. Perhaps Facebook drew first blood by making its “search” feature more prominent on the redesigned Facebook interface. Google fired back with a largely unexpected Superbowl advertisement that touts its search engine and, now, will go head-to-head with Facebook.

A less obvious loser is Mozilla which is expected to roll out Raindrop soon, a program that integrates social networking, email and instant messaging. Gmail will perform the same functions, it is entirely web-based and it has an enormous installed user-base.

The status update feature also suggests to me that Google Wave will have a more business-centric focus and will not be intended for casual banter amongst friends. Initially, Google Wave was pegged as Google’s answer to Twitter but many users found it difficult to use and invitations to Google Wave’s preview were limited.

Mashable questions whether Gmail will have an option to also publish a status update to Facebook and/or Twitter. While this option is within the realm of possibilities, I believe it is unlikely that Google will implement it. Facebook draws significant advertising revenue away from Google. If Google were to feed the Facebook frenzy, then it would be making a big mistake.  Things might get interesting with the GOOG this year… they said social features were in the works and it looks like they’re delivering, soon.

You might also enjoy:

--Blackberry and Google Buzz Notifications & Gmail Dupe Emails [Workarounds] --iPhone vs. Android, a thoughtful analysis --Gmail improvement, POP on demand --RIM: Blackberry Messenger update caused North American outage --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet.

“You can coordinate your strategy to win great battles, share your technology to jump ahead of your rivals, lobby your family and friends to form your own government and win vital elections, manage and grow your cities to maximize production and happiness, spy on your enemies, and work with your friends to create the great Wonders of the World. The game will offer everything you enjoy in Civ in a fully persistent environment – you can play as much as you like, whenever you like, and it’ll be free to play.”

I’ll go out on a limb here and predict Civilization Network to be a smashing success. Goodbye Farmville and Mafia Wars, Hello Civilization Network.

[via Samuel Axon @ Mashable]

You might also enjoy:

--OnLive Broadband Gaming coming June 17, 2010 --Chrome OS Netbooks Arrive in June --TweetDeck terrific for Facebook, no need to espouse Twitter --Facebook “Crowdsourcing” the Internet with Like Buttons --“Who’s Stalking My Profile?” on Facebook Doesn’t Work

While I have been covering the Google vs. Apple war, I haven’t been discussing the Google vs. Facebook war that is apparently brewing. I recommend reading Robert Scoble’s post today:

“Google’s two-front war with Apple and Facebook; who are the winners and the losers?” by Robert Scoble on February 2, 2010

http://bit.ly/9yHRIR

You might also enjoy:

--Android: Five of the Latest Stories --HTC Desire on Camera with Latest Sense UI [Video] --Demo of HTC’s Latest Sense UI (HTC Legend, HTC Desire, HTC Incredible…) [VIDEO]

[Considering I started a Facebook fan page today for Tech Bottle, I thought it appropriate to write something about Facebook. It's been awhile.]

Don’t let the name mislead you, TweetDeck is a terrific program for Facebook. It is written in Adobe Air so it installs on PC Windows, Macs and even Linux. Here’s how it works and a list of some of the helpful features:

Upon loading TweetDeck, you can enter your Facebook login and password.  It stores them just like the Facebook website. After that, you add columns.  The choices for each column are: Full News Feed (same as Live Feed on the website), Status Updates, Wall Posts, Photos, Videos and Other (Links, etc.). You can also set up different columns for different Friends Lists. Below is a screen capture of what my TweetDeck looks like (the colors can be customized — these are the defaults):

Example Layout of TweetDeck

So, what’s the point?  Here are some benefits of using TweetDeck for Facebook:

1. Notifications!  You can set up TweetDeck to flash new updates from any column in the corner of your screen when the program is minimized.  You can also set up audible notifications for each column but, quite frankly, you’ll probably find that annoying.
2. The little gray boxes at the bottom of each column are especially useful — what’s popular in the column, filter/search the entire column for particular words or updates by a particular user and a clear button to blank the column and only show new updates.
3. Update your status from within TweetDeck. You can type your status update, drop pictures or links into the program and even set the program to auto-shorten the URLs.
4. You can view pictures and videos from within TweetDeck. Just click on them to blow them up to full size.

TweetDeck is in beta testing but I have not found it to be buggy. You can download it from the TweetDeck website (free).

P.S. If you use LinkedIN, TweetDeck now has support for LinkedIN.

You might also enjoy:

--TweetDeck Beta 0.32.1 Released… adds LinkedIN and Twitter List --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --Civilization Beta Tests on Facebook in June --Today’s Facebook Privacy #FAIL --“Who’s Stalking My Profile?” on Facebook Doesn’t Work

All of the methods of following Tech Bottle are now listed on our Contacts page.

You might also enjoy:

--Tech Bottle Now Has a Google Buzz Button --500 Spam Comments on Tech Bottle… Sweet --2009 Blog Stats for Tech Bottle & 2010 Goals --Five ways Google is taking a bite out of Apple (The Story of 2010) --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet.

Twitter is expected to generate additional revenue through a combination of advertisements and premium features.

Advertisements

Advertisements work well for Facebook, which is almost exclusively accessed through its web interface and mobile apps. Twitter, on the other hand, is more frequently accessed by Twitter clients like TweetDeck, Seesmic and others. Consequently, advertisements that simply appear on Twitter.com will probably not generate as much revenue per user as Facebook advertisements. I expect Twitter to push sponsored Tweets which would show up in a user’s all friends timeline. This would push the advertisements to every platform. The problem with this approach is that it dilutes a user’s timeline if too many advertisements are pushed. I predict that sponsored tweets will come in 2010 but they will push infrequently, perhaps once every 30 minutes.

Premium Features

I expect that current Twitter services, all of which are completely free, will remain free. If it were otherwise, users would be up in arms. Twitter can’t exactly charge for services it has been giving away, e.g., Twitter searches, RTs, etc. I think what we will see if better content management for profile pages which could be implemented on a subscription basis. Currently, only text colors, the profile pic and desktop background are customizable. I think we’ll see Twitter offer a blogger-like profile page with direct Twitter integration. So, Twitter pages will support widgets, full posts (not 140 characters), pictures, music and video. This will be an assault on WordPress, Posterous, Google’s Blogger but probably warmly received. Certainly, Twitter could charge for blogger-like profile pages but it could, instead, rely advertisements. If properly implemented, this could make Twitter a preferred platform to Facebook. Facebook fan pages are simply blue-and-white boring and are not easily customized. Business will be attracted to a platform that allows for better customization, provided that that interface is intuitive and user-friendly.

I think we’ll see a substantially improved Twitter search engine. Users will be able to limit and sort tweets by date, location (now that the Twitter location API has been updated) and other criteria. I don’t expect this addition to be a paid-only feature. This would be supported by advertising and integration with the sponsored tweets.

Implications

Twitter wants to create a more comprehensive platform, something akin to Facebook. Blogging on other platforms may become less popular. The improved search capabilities may draw users away from traditional search engines, including Google and Bing. Although they will also have real-time Twitter results, it will be a rare instance where a user who wants to find tweets actually visits a web search engine to do so when Twitter begins offering an adequately comparable or superior search service of its own.

I think we’ll see Twitter incorporate the best of Facebook. Along with this will come some challenges, including privacy issues, which has plagued and will continue to plague Facebook. Nonetheless, I think we’re in for a record-breaking, blow-out year for Twitter in 2010, provided they don’t alienate users with petty charges or significant content dilution through excessive advertising and Facebook doesn’t beat Twitter to the punch on implementing the premium features.

You might also enjoy:

--Internet Explorer users click ads 5x more often than Google Chrome users [DATA] --UberTwitter for Blackberry, Upcoming Features… --Blackberry App World 2.0 Features --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet. --TweetDeck Beta 0.32.1 Released… adds LinkedIN and Twitter List

Keep in mind that RIM has its own Twitter app under development and the Ubertwitter beta looks strong too.  FourSquare also has its own Blackberry app in development that is expected any day now. So, where’s the place for SocialScope in the Blackberry app wars? Well, it aggregates streams from a variety of sources and could, if properly executed, be a terrific app.

I’m mildly skeptical because of past failures of other apps like this, e.g., Snaptu. On the other hand, Nimbuzz is going to be a huge success and it aggregates virtually all commonly used IM services and Skype.

You might also enjoy:

--FourSquare for iPhone & Android (Blackberry Beta App Very Soon) --Future Showdown: SocialScope for Blackberry vs. RIM’s Twitter App --Blackberry users can all check-in with FourSquare --Blackberry support waning; RIM should make some Android devices --Mini Review: Nimbuzz [Free] for Blackberry… IM/VOIP Client with Facebook Support

You might also enjoy:

--TweetDeck terrific for Facebook, no need to espouse Twitter --Blackberry App World Adds Category for Beta Apps --Twitter + Blackberry + Uberness = UberTwitter Beta-6 --LinkedIN for Blackberry… Finally! --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet.

During the beta period of SocialScope, RIM announced its own native Twitter app in the works.  It is rumored to use push technology to receive tweets.  This could be crushing blow to 3rd party Twitter app developers.  Consider the impact of RIM’s own Facebook and MySpace apps.  Does anyone regularly use a 3rd party Facebook app or MySpace app?  The RIM apps have significant flaws but they still squeezed out 3rd party developers.  What’s the future of SocialScope, Ubertwitter, Twitterberry (Sarah Palin’s favorite)  and other Blackberry twitter apps?

SocialScope better hit the streets first or else it has very little hope of converting people away from RIM’s own Twitter app.

You might also enjoy:

--SocialScope for Blackberry to Support FourSquare --Twitter for Blackberry by RIM Leaked [Downloads] --Mini Review: Seesmic Twitter App for Blackberry & Download Code --Twitter + Blackberry + Uberness = UberTwitter Beta-6 --Why Google Buzz is targeted at Twitter… not Facebook yet.