Saturday, February 25, 2012

Facebook, the Timeline, and the difference between consuming and creating

Facebook, the Timeline, and the difference between consuming and creating | Rafe's Radar - CNET News CNET News @import "http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/Ads/common/css/SponsoredTextLink/sponsoredTextLink.live.css"; Manage Packages With UPS My Choice Home Reviews Cell Phones Camcorders Digital Cameras Laptops TVs Car Tech Forums Appliances Cell Phone Accessories Components Desktops E-book Readers Games and Gear GPS Hard Drives & Storage Headphones Home Audio Home Video Internet Access Monitors MP3 Players Networking and Wi-Fi Peripherals Printers Software Tablets Web Hosting You are here: News Latest News Mobile Startups Cutting Edge Media Security Business Tech Health Tech Crave Apple Microsoft Politics & Law Gaming & Culture Blogs Video Photos RSS Download Windows Software Mac Software Mobile Apps Web Apps The Download Blog CNET TV How To Computers Home Theater Smartphones Tablets Web Marketplace Log In | Join Log In Join CNET Sign in with My profile Log out .mad_center {text-align:center;} .mad_center div, .mad_center table, .mad_center iframe, .mad_center a img {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}Click Here
CNET News Rafe's Radar Facebook, the Timeline, and the difference between consuming and creating Rafe Needleman by Rafe Needleman February 17, 2012 4:11 PM PST Follow @rafe

An update to the otherwise great Pixable photo viewing app illustrates that not all Timeline verbs should be streamed into the Timeline.

Oversharing. Thanks for nothing, Pixable.

(Credit:Screenshot by Rafe Needleman/CNET)

I have been meaning to write about Pixable, an excellent mobile app for keeping up with Facebook images on youriPhone oriPad. Unlike Facebook's own mobile app, which I find slow, complicated, and crash-prone, Pixable lets you dive into your social photo stream in a snap, see what friends are posting, and get out fast. There's more to it, too, and it's all good. It's a great app to pull up on that short elevator ride.

At least it was, until today's update of the app, which adds Facebook Timeline integration. Now, whenever you view a stream or follow a user, that activity appears in your Facebook timeline.

No, thanks. App vendors need to understand something. There is a big--no, giant--difference between viewing a social stream and contributing to it. When a user tags, likes, or comments on an item on a social network, they are doing it for other people. Or, to be more psychologically accurate, they're doing it for the ego boost that comes from having other people see their activity. It makes sense to post contributions to a timeline.

But just consuming, without contributing? Not necessarily. When a person views a post, a photo, or a stream; or when one listens to music or watches a video, they're not necessarily doing it for anyone's benefit. For my part, when I want someone to know I viewed something, I'm intentional about, by Liking or commenting on it.

This is why I disconnected Spotify from my Timeline (here's how). I don't listen to music to be cool. Or rather, when I do, I'll tell you about it.

Pixable can also do it right: I can elect to not share my hastagging of this photo with Facebook. Good kitty.

(Credit:Macho the cat, Facebook photo by Leyl Master Black) In the current update, Pixable gets this completely backwards. If you use the app, all your photo viewing activity shows up in a timeline. There's no way to turn it off. From within Facebook itself you can block Pixable or delete Timeline items, but that doesn't make Pixable's lack of control ok.

On the other hand, when you go to a specific photo and decide to comment on it or tag it, there's an easy way to toggle on or off your Facebook sharing of that activity.

The on/off switch belongs in both places, but more in the place it's not: In the stream viewing function. It's coming, I'm told, it's just not here yet.

I still like Pixable, but until the company gets this right, I'm not using it.

I'm hoping that other developers take two lessons away from this, and from the recent privacy upsets from earlier in the week:

1. Transparency is key. If you're going to share what I do on your service, tell me before you do it. How am I supposed to trust you if you don't?

2. Control is just as important. Just because you, Mr or Ms developer, thinks something is cool, it doesn't mean the user will. Especially when it comes to the use of their personal or activity data. Let the user decide. If, for some reason, you think you'll lose out by giving them this control (viral growth, revenues, etc.), that is your indicator that you are about to do the wrong thing.

Do the right thing. Ultimately, it will make your product, and your company, more successful.

Posted by Ambar jaiswal at 9:23 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

Privacy brouhaha reveals Google's split personality

Latest Google Internet controversy highlights conflict between privacy protection and advertising demands.

When it comes to privacy, is the Googleplex speaking with one voice?

A new Google privacy controversy has revealed conflicting messages and actions between two different factions within the company: those working to protect consumer privacy on the one hand, and those seeking to improve advertising and social networking on the other.

Meanwhile, the news that Google overrode default cookie settings in Apple's Safari browser has prompted two complaints to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and renewed calls for legislation and industry standards that would protect Web surfers from being tracked across sites if they don't want to be.

To be fair, Google isn't the only company to have taken advantage of an exemption in Safari that was designed to keep third-party cookies from tracking people as they bounce from site to site. Besides Google, The Wall Street Journal reported that three other online ad companies were taking advantage of this loophole. And separately, Google offers Ads Preferences Manager that allows people to opt out of DoubleClick cookies. But, in this case, it's hard to see what would compel the company to disable opt-out settings in Safari.

Google, for its part, says the Safari backdoor allowed Google+ users on iOS devices to see +1 buttons and use them to indicate to their network when they saw a product or service in an ad they liked. "Last year, we began using this functionality to enable features for signed-in Google users on Safari who had opted to see personalized ads and other content--such as the ability to '+1' things that interest them," the company said in a statement.

Unfortunately, the way this +1/Safari initiative was implemented allowed other Google ad cookies to be set on the browser, which was unintentional, according to Google. The Google cookie was temporary, but it opened the door for additional cookies. "We have now started removing these advertising cookies from Safari browsers," the company said, adding that the code has been disabled. "It's important to stress that, just as on other browsers, these advertising cookies do not collect personal information."

While one Google team was taking advantage of a little-known backdoor that could change the default Safari setting, the Google Chrome team was working to get Apple to close the backdoor--apparently with neither team having knowledge of the other's actions. Engineers for Chrome notified Apple about seven months ago that the loophole was there, although it remains open.

"We are aware that some third parties are circumventing Safari's privacy features and we are working to put a stop to it," an Apple representative told CNET.

Meanwhile, Google's Chrome team offers an Advertising Cookie Opt-Out Plugin that lets people do exactly what Safari's default setting provides: block third-party cookies. Oddly, the instructions for confirming the default settings in Safari on that page were removed as The Wall Street Journal was preparing its news report.

The World Privacy Forum (WPF) and Consumer Watchdog both filed complaints against Google today with the FTC accusing the company of unfair and deceptive practices and of violating a settlement it reached last year with the FTC over its former social network dubbed Buzz. Google violated the Buzz consent decree by "its misrepresentations of consumer choice and how much control users actually had," alleges the WPF complaint (PDF), which also asks the FTC to investigate the other ad firms accused of overriding Safari's default settings: Vibrant Media, Media Innovation Group, and PointRoll.

An FTC representative said the agency had received the Consumer Watchdog complaint but said he could not comment further.

"We are taking immediate steps to address concerns, and we are happy to answer any questions regulators and others may have," Google said in a statement when asked to comment.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation called on Google today to include a Do Not Track option in Chrome, an option all the other major browsers provide, and for Google sites to respect Do Not Track requests from those other browsers.

Justin Brookman, consumer privacy director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said he was baffled by Google's latest actions.

"Why are they anathema to Do Not Track? Because advertising is more core to Gogole's business than it is to Microsoft's and Apple's, maybe," he said. "I'm not sure."

Brookman said the CDT was talking to Google about Do Not Track and there was interest in it. "The Chrome team may want to do it, but Google is pushing on ads and social right now so they're scared to do it."

They should have tested the Safari override technology more, but "there's been a big rush to get social right and they wanted to integrated with ads," he added.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said "cookie-gate," as it has been dubbed by some, proves that Do Not Track is not the solution. "We need enforcement by the FTC," he said. "We need legislation, because even when big companies like Apple build it into their browser, companies can get around it."

EPIC filed the original complaint with the FTC over Google Buzz and has asked the agency to investigate whether changes to Google's privacy policies that will take effect March 1 violate that settlement. The FTC late today issued its response in a federal court in Washington, D.C., where the matter will be decided. "We are asking the Court to dismiss the case because parties such as EPIC are barred by law from interfering with the proper investigation and enforcement of FTC orders," the FTC said.

EPIC had earlier today sent the FTC a letter (PDF) urging the agency to enforce the settlement in light of the latest Google privacy incident.

Sarah Downey, privacy analyst and attorney at online privacy company Abine, said ultimately change will be driven by consumers and Do Not Track technologies. (Abine offers a Do Not Track Plus browser add-on that can protect people from tracking, even if the advertiser was able to subvert the default settings as in the Google Safari case.)

"We're happy to see that Google is fixing the issue, but there's an obvious conflict of interest within the company and there are things consumers should be aware of that affects their privacy, by design," she said.

In a possible indication of divergence of interests within Google, Downey recounted how a Google ad executive initially told the firm it couldn't run an ad designed to educate people about the privacy issues with cookies because it might be seen as "fear mongering." The Abine ad was eventually allowed to run, however, after the case was elevated.

Update, 5:45 p.m. PT: Adds information about the World Privacy Forum complaint to the FTC and about the FTC rejecting EPIC's request to investigate whether Google's new planned privacy policy changes violate the Google-FTC settlement related to Buzz.


View the original article here

Posted by Ambar jaiswal at 6:18 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

Microsoft mulls plan for new music service (exclusive)

Microsoft mulls plan for new music service (exclusive) | Media Maverick - CNET News CNET News @import "http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/Ads/common/css/SponsoredTextLink/sponsoredTextLink.live.css"; Manage Packages With UPS My Choice Home Reviews Cell Phones Camcorders Digital Cameras Laptops TVs Car Tech Forums Appliances Cell Phone Accessories Components Desktops E-book Readers Games and Gear GPS Hard Drives & Storage Headphones Home Audio Home Video Internet Access Monitors MP3 Players Networking and Wi-Fi Peripherals Printers Software Tablets Web Hosting You are here: News Latest News Mobile Startups Cutting Edge Media Security Business Tech Health Tech Crave Apple Microsoft Politics & Law Gaming & Culture Blogs Video Photos RSS Download Windows Software Mac Software Mobile Apps Web Apps The Download Blog CNET TV How To Computers Home Theater Smartphones Tablets Web Marketplace Log In | Join Log In Join CNET Sign in with My profile Log out .mad_center {text-align:center;} .mad_center div, .mad_center table, .mad_center iframe, .mad_center a img {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
CNET News Media Maverick Microsoft mulls plan for new music service (exclusive) Greg Sandoval by Greg Sandoval February 17, 2012 2:58 PM PST Follow @sandoCNET

The software maker has spoken with some of the major record companies about creating a music service to serveXbox and an upcoming Windows-based phone.

Microsoft is in talks with some of the major record companies about creating a new music service, CNET has learned.

The software maker, which has a spotty record in digital music, has discussed creating a delivery service that would supply tunes to the Xbox as well as an upcoming Windows-based phone, according to sources with knowledge of the talks.

It was unclear exactly how this will differ from Microsoft'sZune Music Pass, which is the music service currently available to Xbox subscribers.

Negotiations are still in a preliminary stage and the two sides have yet to drill down into all the specifics, the sources said. Nonetheless, Microsoft has roughly outlined a service that it hopes could launch sometime this year and include streaming music as well as downloads, the sources said.

They added that the company has also mentioned the possibility of teaming with HTC and Nokia on the proposed phones. A spokeswoman for the company said, "Microsoft does not comment on rumors and speculation."

Expect the labels to work hard to make this deal happen. While Microsoft's past forays into Web music haven't met with much success (the mothballed Zune digital music players and defunct Urge music service), the record companies will welcome the chance to have a higher profile on the Xbox, with its 40 million worldwide Xbox Live subscribers, as well as on any new Windows phones.

Since Microsoft already operates the Zune Music Pass, the company already possesses music licenses. It's still unclear whether Microsoft must acquire new licenses for its service and that will depend on how Microsoft wants to do with the music.

Related storiesMicrosoft delivers Zune player's last ritesGoogle Music debuts, with downloads and sharing (live blog)Report: Microsoft shelving Zune player, not brandMicrosoft Xbox 360 Elite System (review)

What it sounds like to me is that Microsoft has an eye on upgrading its music store to better serve mobile devices. Google did much the same thing with Google Music and its Android operating system.

In addition to Google, many of the top phone makers have recently moved to augment their music features. HTC, in particular, acquired a majority stake in Dr. Dre's Beats to improve the audio capabilities of its smartphones.

In August, CNET broke the news that Research In Motion was planning to add music to its Blackberry Instant Message service.

As for Microsoft, we'll keep you posted on the company's music aspirations as details become available.

Posted by Ambar jaiswal at 1:53 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

What's the best portable gaming system?

Which portable gaming system provides the overall best value and experience? Let's take a look.

(Credit: Sarah Tew/CNET)

Yes, it's a loaded question, but a necessary one with the PlayStation Vita finally making its U.S. release. There's no denying that platforms like iOS and Android have changed the face of portable gaming forever, but do they provide the best experience?

Just like choosing which home console to buy, this is a decision that needs to be made on a personal level, depending on what exactly your budget and preferences are.

In my opinion, the best "gamer's" games are the ones experienced with actual tactile buttons. While touch gaming might be more accessible and ultimately more affordable, I do believe if you limit yourself to that specific medium, you're missing out on a lot that the world of portable gaming has to offer.

With that said, let's look at the current portable gaming landscape.

Whether it's an Android device, iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad, the options for gaming on-the-go are seemingly endless. Best of all, most of these devices satisfy the crucial "all-in-one" label that so many products seek to capture. It's tough to argue that anyone should carry around a separate gaming-focused device in addition to one of these.

However, I--and most core gamers--agree that the full potential of gaming cannot be unlocked by simple touch, swipe, and flicking gestures. Please don't read that as a jab at the insanely talented developers who pour their hearts and souls into these titles. The truth is these types of games are on a different level than standalone 3DS and Vita games. That level is one of a more casual experience.

(Credit: ZeptoLab/Chillingo)

It's tough to classify a game like Cut the Rope in the same category as something like Uncharted: Golden Abyss. Of course they are both games, but their practical usage in our daily lives differs completely. Cut the Rope is great for the 15 minutes waiting around for the train, while Uncharted demands the commitment of a cross-country flight. That's not to say one couldn't play Angry Birds for 6 hours straight (the horror!), but I think the instant-gratification model that makes games like these work so well is better suited for quick gaming sessions.

So what about the "core" games available on touch platforms? I've tried, with all my might, to get into a first-person-shooter on the iPad. It's painful. You'd think with touch controls that aiming would be a precise mechanism, but alas, it's clunky and unsatisfying. I've tried them all: Dead Space, Rage HD, Battlefield, Call of Duty Zombies; the list goes on. I hate fishing around the screen for the reload area and I can't stand moving my character with a virtual D-pad. There are some games in which touch controls work great, and there are others that just don't register.

While owning an iOS device gives you instant access to hundreds of thousands of apps and games, I've found that the vast majority of titles are just crummy. The whole mentality of "anyone can be a developer" is awesome, but it should come as no shock to find out that it has led to a surplus of games that are not worth your time and money.

Another big talking point is battery life on these devices. It's no secret, smartphones and tablets outlast consoles like the 3DS and Vita. If you're someone constantly on-the-go with no access to an outlet, your time with a 3DS or Vita will be very limited.

Perhaps the best thing touch gaming has going for it is the price. Games are cheap. I've bought dozens of 99-cent games that are garbage, and I don't care. They are practically disposable. Sure, a nasty habit like that can add up over time, but someone who just wants the instant gratification of guiding oil into an monster's mouth or putting out fires with their fingers can have that satisfaction whenever he or she wants. For some people that might be enough.

Touch gaming is best for: Casual gamers who are constantly traveling; those who can only play in short spurts; those looking for an all-in-one device and don't want to carry multiple products around; budget-conscious gamers; those who value battery life.

Touch gaming is not the best choice for: Core gamers; those who desire a big-budget level of production value and polish in their gaming; those who want to experience established franchises from their gaming past; those who consider buttons to be an integral gaming element.

Sure, it stumbled right out of the gate, but Nintendo's portable 3D machine has found its legs and is actually off to a better start than the original DS--which is the best-selling handheld console of all time.

Aside from a glasses-less 3D display, not a whole lot has changed since the DS. The graphics are definitely better, but I've yet to see them make the same jump that other systems have been able to do. The 3DS still relies on a stylus, too, which has become somewhat of a relic in every other tech medium. It's certainly the best way to interact with the 3DS' resistive touch screen, but to some gamers it's a turnoff. In terms of graphics, the 3DS can't contend with the Vita or some high-end iOS games.

(Credit: CNET)

Touch games can't compete with the bevy of control options packed into the 3DS. Long story short, games play better on the 3DS and Vita. The 3DS has all of the buttons we've seen on the original DS, but the 3DS introduces a left circle thumb pad.

The 3DS is the only portable gaming unit that supports 3D, but it doesn't come without its fair share of issues. The 3D effect is easily broken with minor viewing angle adjustments, and it's almost impossible to maintain with games that require some sort of motion control. Also, Nintendo advises that only gamers 7 and older should use the mode. These problems aside, the 3D effect can be turned off at any time. This will also help with battery life, which is surprisingly low for a Nintendo handheld.

The 3DS' launch lineup also left room for improvement. Almost an entire year since its debut, only a handful of titles have fallen into the must-own category, with only a few standout franchises scheduled for a 2012 release. I'm sure there will be a number of surprises down the line, but it's tough to justify a purchase solely based on speculation.

Owning a 3DS has become a cheaper affair, though, with the unit getting a massive 32 percent price cut last year. Now available for $170, the 3DS costs the least up front of all the portable options.

Super Mario 3D Land

(Credit: Nintendo)

3DS games tend to skew toward a younger demographic, with mostly all first-party titles designed for players of all ages. Resident Evil Revelations is the first M-rated 3DS game, and I think it's a great start to what's hopefully a long list of titles aimed at an older audience. For the Nintendo faithful, there are plenty of downloadable titles from the company's vault as well as independent selections in the 3DS eShop. Netflix is already available on the platform, too.

Games for the system range in price from around $20 to $40 and download-only titles from around $5 to $10.

The 3DS is best for: Gamers who want a 3D experience above everything else; the Nintendo franchise faithful; younger gamers; fans of the original DS who want the best of both worlds (it's backward-compatible).

The 3DS is not good for: Gamers looking for the top-of-the-line graphics; those turned off by stylus control; those susceptible to motion sickness via 3D; those looking for games aimed at older audiences.

February 2012 marks the release of the Sony PlayStation Vita, the company's follow-up to the PSP. It boasts a huge 5-inch OLED touch screen and rear touch panel, two analog thumb sticks, and an impressive list of launch titles.

Priced at $250 for the entry-level Wi-Fi only system, the Vita also comes with a hidden cost. Players must purchase a Vita Memory Card for access to most of the games and applications available for the system. While I really wish this was included in the box from the start, Sony has packed the card in a limited run of First Edition Bundles and the initial run of 3G units.

(Credit: Sarah Tew/CNET)

Games for the Vita are the most expensive among any portable gaming option. Standalone titles range in price from $30 to $50 (though most are priced at $40), and download-only titles go from about $10 to $15. All first-party Vita games and most third-party titles can also be downloaded from the PlayStation Store--sometimes at a discount.

Proprietary media rules the Vita, including the games and aforementioned memory cards. Sony is implementing some strict guidelines for the new system because of the widespread piracy that plagued the PSP. Simple tasks like transferring movies or photos is cumbersome, but suffice to say, it works.

Twenty-five titles make up the Vita's launch list. There are plenty of quality entries in this collection, in which every type of gamer is sure to find something. The Vita is the most capable portable system in terms of graphics--nothing really comes close. The Vita has the best-looking games and the horsepower to be called the closest thing to an actual home console in your pocket. Battery life isn't anything to write home about, but I was really impressed with its standby time during my testing.

The Vita's operating system is one of its most surprising features, as it's ultraresponsive and logically laid out. It's as smooth as iOS and feels like a cross between Android and WebOS. The rear touch panel has had some interesting initial implementations, and I'm curious to see where developers will take the technology moving forward.

Uncharted: Golden Abyss

(Credit: Sony Bend/SCEA)

A few social apps will hit the Vita on day one along with a Netflix program. Sony has promised more support from a number of third parties, so it remains to be seen whether the system will deliver on that front like the PlayStation 3 has.

The Vita is best for: Gamers who want the latest and greatest portable games; value graphics the most; want a combination of touch and button control; are intrigued by rear touch control; want the closest thing to a home console experience.

The Vita is not good for: Gamers on a budget; those who want a universal all-in-one device.


View the original article here

Posted by Ambar jaiswal at 9:15 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

Google's Schmidt to sell $1.5 billion in stock

Google's Schmidt to sell $1.5 billion in stock | Digital Media - CNET News CNET News @import "http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/Ads/common/css/SponsoredTextLink/sponsoredTextLink.live.css"; Manage Packages With UPS My Choice Home Reviews Cell Phones Camcorders Digital Cameras Laptops TVs Car Tech Forums Appliances Cell Phone Accessories Components Desktops E-book Readers Games and Gear GPS Hard Drives & Storage Headphones Home Audio Home Video Internet Access Monitors MP3 Players Networking and Wi-Fi Peripherals Printers Software Tablets Web Hosting You are here: News Latest News Mobile Startups Cutting Edge Media Security Business Tech Health Tech Crave Apple Microsoft Politics & Law Gaming & Culture Blogs Video Photos RSS Download Windows Software Mac Software Mobile Apps Web Apps The Download Blog CNET TV How To Computers Home Theater Smartphones Tablets Web Marketplace Log In | Join Log In Join CNET Sign in with My profile Log out .mad_center {text-align:center;} .mad_center div, .mad_center table, .mad_center iframe, .mad_center a img {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
CNET News Digital Media Google's Schmidt to sell $1.5 billion in stock Charles Cooper by Charles Cooper February 17, 2012 3:52 PM PST Follow @coopydoop

Company Chairman Eric Schmidt will sell 2.4 million shares of Class A stock as part of a pre-arranged trading plan.

Google Chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt intends sell about $1.5 billion worth of Google stock, according to a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The sale is part of a pre-arranged trading plan.

Schmidt intends to sell up to 2.4 million shares of Class A stock in Google, whose shares finished the week at $604.64 per share.

As of December 31, 2011, Schmidt owned about 9.1 million shares of Class A and Class B common stock, or 2.8 percent of Google's outstanding capital stock. Following the sale, he'll own about 6.7 million shares, or approximately 2.1 percent of Google's outstanding capital stock.

Posted by Ambar jaiswal at 4:43 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)