A year and a half ago, I started to freshen up my Facebook profile. I had an active account dating back further than that, but I never logged in regularly.

Back then I was an avid Twitter user, and focused most of my energy there.

At that point, I'm not sure why Facebook suddenly commanded my attention to update my profile details, grow my network of friends, and become more of a presence on the network, but it felt a little like a "hunch." I had the feeling that Facebook was about to hit it real big, with not only random tech geeks comprising my friends list, but close friends, old acquaintances, and immediate family.

Whatever the reason, I felt like it was going to play a role in the coming months and years. Turns out my hunch was accurate - Facebook took a sudden turn, and became extremely popular - the network that we're seeing today, which rivals Twitter for sheer popularity and usage. I have since quit Twitter, and now dedicate the majority of my social network energy to Facebook.

Facebook has become the cornerstone of connecting with anyone and everyone. No network has ever brought together such unity of the close, real-world people in my life like Facebook has. No other network could I see "friending" my parents, old friends from grade school, and that random neighbor down the block with the big dog.

It used to be social networking involved a select group of tech-savvy people who cherished their time in front of their computer or mobile device, silently giggling at a joke from an "internet friend" hundreds of miles away. It was like our own little world which the real, walking individuals didn't know of, nor understand.

Now everyone has a mobile device capable of writing on their profile walls, poking someone, or simply following along with the chatter.

Facebook, which started off slowly gaining users and popularity, suddenly hit it big and is now the "it" network.

--

Fast forward ten months from now. Facebook and Twitter still dominate the social networking landscape, but new (and old) players try to make their presence known.

What will be the next "it" network? What existing, or new network will take that sharp turn and take a meteoric rise to recognition and popularity?

This is not a prediction, but rather a hunch. I feel that Linked-in is capable of an explosion of usage in the near future, just like Facebook experienced.

It may not be the same type of usage - Facebook is more about sharing details about your life, whereas Linked-in is a professional, career-oriented network. But it would be the same social dependency that people experience now with Facebook.

Most people, as of late, I'd guess joined Facebook out of simple peer pressure. The more news about it, and the more your real-world network of contacts talk about it, the more you want to see what it's all about.

This is exactly what I think is going to happen with Linked-in.

First, I'll start accepting friend requests from the tech community, and slowly but surely, my closer, real-world friends and immediate family will also be in my network.

--

Linked-in has been around a while, and popular with social network aficionados, but really hasn't hit the incredible mainstream adoption that Facebook has experienced.

I can't really explain why I feel that Linked-in is picking up steam, but it's the same hunch I had with Facebook. I've started really focusing on updating my Linked-in profile, and making sure the information is accurate. I'm also seeing an influx of random Linked-in friend requests coming my way - seemingly in tune with the general vibe I'm experiencing.

Suddenly it's becoming an important network for me.

Time will tell if it has the same effect on others.

Feedback

My initial post about the Apple iPad was pure gut reaction. I needed some time to let it all sink in, read reviews from industry pundits, and fully reflect on the big picture.

What's happening here? Has Apple introduced something profound, but initially hard to grasp? Or am I just not getting it?

I'm not your average Apple-naysayer, either. I love Apple's computers, devices, philosophy, etc - and I've owned Macs, iPhones, iPods - you name it. So to compare me with typical critics and doubters (like those who criticized the iPhone) is really not fair because it's not that I don't understand what Apple is doing - I just don't see how this particular product has any appeal.

I get the incredible new way to interact with software, using finger gestures - even more advanced than the iPhone. I think interacting with our personal computers in this manner will be the future for sure. I also get that Apple has created their own CPU, which is being used for the iPad. The more control Apple has over every aspect of the product, the better - for them.

So I get that the software is amazing, and the device state-of-the-art.

What I'm not getting is why anyone would want or need a device like this today. For all practical purposes, it serves no additional purpose.

And this is why I believe the iPad is probably not meant for today. It's meant for the future. It's a futuristic device that is ahead of it's time, but it's time will come soon, and fast. And then we'll all forget about this initial backlash against it.

I know this - I can feel it. Apple's got something special here - it's just a matter of time before it truly hits home with everyone.

Feedback

I'm glad I don't review Apple products and software for a living, because any positive build-up I may have established prior to the announcement of the Apple "tablet" would be sorely diminished after discovering what the true product really is, and then I'd be forced to discuss and analyze this thing for the foreseeable future.

I am overwhelmingly shocked with this product. I'm not shocked so much with the physical product itself, but more so with Apple for only announcing a product, and not a concept. I expected a concept from Apple - a whole new way to perceive personal computing. Instead we just get a new product - beautiful to look at and interact with, but what real function is it serving?

The iPod and iPhone were announced as concepts - the physical hardware didn't matter as much as the "new way of doing things" did. The iPod was a savior in a shoddy, inconsistent MP3-player market. The iPhone easily took the reigns of the smartphone markets' lack of ingenuity.

What does the iPad do for the laptop market? I assume this is the market that it's in, although it's hard to tell, because it appears this product is a meld between an iPhone and a laptop, with 3G wireless coverge being offered on some models.

I don't see how it could be in the smartphone/mobile market, for these reasons:

1. There's already an iPhone.
2. You can't put an iPad in your pocket.
3. You can't hold an iPad in one hand - at least not while typing.

This means it has to be in the laptop market.

Text input

But without a physical keyboard, how do you input text? I realize the software keyboard has been blown up to fit the wider screen, but there's no angle involved, so how do I type on it without having to hover over the top of it? A standard laptop angles the keyboard from the screen, so you can type, and visualize the entire screen as you're doing so.

Depictions of the iPad prove that typing can also be accomplished by using an external physical keyboard. Great - but why buy two new devices, when you can just buy one (a standard laptop)?

Unless I missed something, what good is a software keyboard on a non-mobile device? The whole idea of the iPhone's software keyboard is you can hold it in one hand, and thumb out text while the iPhone auto-corrects your input to intended words.

Apple introduced the first software keyboard on a mobile device to much resistance and criticism. And this was for thumbs only. We're finally seeing that thumbing out text is not so bad (after much trial and error, and a lot of usage), and now they expect us to jump on the use all ten fingers to type on a piece of glass bandwagon!?

I'm all for innovative new ways to input text, but ten fingers on a piece of glass?? Even I have to be strongly convinced of this being effective.

I didn't bat an eye to the iPhone's implementation of the software keyboard, but now Apple's just stretching their luck.

General purpose

Aside from actual feature gripes, the bigger question remains: what is the purpose of this device? What does it help me do better? What niche does it fill?

I can't answer any of these questions right now, because at the moment the iPad just looks like a very large iPhone, but it doesn't fill a market and niche like the iPhone did. The iPad is just there.

Is it a laptop replacement? A phone? An e-reader? A music player? What the hell is it? It's like they just made it, because they could.

Literally, and comically - I feel like I'm reading an article on The Onion when I look at depictions of the this thing. Is this a joke?

Making everything larger and brighter doesn't always mean that it's instantly better.

"Creating" versus "making"

David Pogue says patience is a virtue, in the case of the iPad. He calls it a "vessel," something which has the potential for greatness, but may not be "great" (or discernably useful) this very moment. David is choosing to stand by Apple on this one, believing that any criticism should be compared to the same criticism the iPhone received.

I'm not totally buying this. The difference is that everyone knew what the iPhone was meant to do, the day it was announced. Same with the iPod. Can anyone tell me what the iPad is meant to do, other than make websites look pretty while surfing on the couch or toilet?

I get that the touch-screen interactions are probably marvelous, and the product itself looks gorgeous, and feels amazing in your hands. But what is that doing for me? What's beneath the surface of that outer glamour?

It seems that instead of creating something, Apple just made something. Instead of the "next big thing," it's just the "next thing."

I'm a patient guy. I am not shooting down any undisclosed plans that Apple has for the iPad. Perhaps some day it will be great, and if it serves a useful purpose, I'm all for it. But wake me up when that day comes.

I'm not bashing this device, nor declaring it's imminent death, but at this very moment, I see no use for it.

The name

Maybe I'll never understand Apple's naming conventions, but "iPad" (girly jokes aside) is terrible. Not only is it not catchy or creative, it too closely resembles "iPod." Maybe that was the intention, but if so, then I'd assume it involves music interaction of some sort. It's definitely not a portable music device - it's too large!

The network

AT&T 3G??? I thought we were moving past that? And it's only on the more expensive models? Why even bother when my iPhone already has a connection, and I can use Verizon (or some other reliable network) for my laptop?

Other thoughts

Honestly, I've never wanted a Kindle more than I do right now. I've been on the wall about buying a Kindle, thinking the iPad would be the killer alternate device. Right now the iPad can do nothing more than my iPhone can, running the Amazon Kindle application. The only difference is more screen-space for the words.

In the end, I'm going to learn a lot more about this product over the coming months, so my opinion is apt to change.

I really hope I regret this post someday.

Feedback

Apple recently bought CD-swapping service Lala, but I imagine the deal was more about Lala's streaming features than anything else.

Lala differs from iTunes in that you can listen to full songs, free of charge, but just once. After you listen once, you can purchase the full download ($0.89), or the "web version" of the song (streaming through a browser only), for only $0.10.

iTunes only allows a 30-second sample, and the purchase of the full download (typically $0.99).

Lala seems to cover that "gray area" pretty well - often I don't want to buy a song until I've heard it's entirety. And not having to buy the physical download, but still be able to reliably stream through a browser anytime I want is appealing, at a mere $0.10 at that.

Lala also allows access to your music library in the cloud. iTunes is stuck on your computer's hard drive.

If Apple eventually comes out with any sort of iTunes web interface, I'd hope it inherits much of Lala's goodness.

The problem with Apple is they don't seem to create very compelling web-based products or services (think of the MobileMe fiasco, and does anyone enjoy using iWeb?), so I hope they leave much of the design and functionality of Lala intact, and instead focus on other areas to promote "iTunes in the cloud."

Also, if a tablet is announced next week, I'd hope there's some support for streaming my Lala library directly over a wireless network, but I'm thinking that would kind of disrupt the intent of an iPod.

I guess everything is "up in the air" with Apple's products and offerings right now. Once the "big secret" is out next week, many more things will become clear, as Apple sets the foundation for an exciting year in technology.

Feedback

Thought this was an interesting email footer from an iPhone user:

I love stuff like this.

Some would consider this sarcasm, but I truly believe it's just transparency. This person simply wants to be up-front and honest with those they correspond with, and this is a great way to do it.

Yes, it's "cool" to have "Sent from my iPhone" in your email footers (it makes you appear elusive, or "always on the go"), but really it's clumsy and tiresome to send emails using such a small keypad while being physically mobile, so I don't see any harm in letting your recipients know that.

Just that extra sentence speaks a lot about the person behind it. It reminds you that they are human, and nobody is perfect.

They're saying, "Yes, technology is great, but often it muddles message craftsmanship and/or intent. This is just some preventative maintenance."

Feedback

Image referenced from TheAgeGrouper.

"The Tablet" is coming. Or so we all think.

This is not some crappy Microsoft concoction, or an indie designers' take on it. This is the real deal, from the creators of two devices that have had an immediate cultural effect on the world of technology and portable devices.

To Apple, it is never about the device. Instead it is about facets of life: music and applications (the iPod and iPhone defined respectively), and our ability to interact with those facets. Interaction is Apple's specialty. User experience, execution, attention to detail - this is the "name of the game" for Apple.

On Wednesday, January 27, 2010, Apple will presumably announce another product - most industry experts point to a tablet computer, which is a touch-screen device larger than a smartphone, but no bigger than an average laptop.

The key is no physical keyboard. You interact solely through the touchscreen, just like you would on an iPhone.

This... is about all anyone knows should be true. The rest is up in the air. No one knows how it will look, act, or if it will even exist. But that hasn't left many from speculating how it will be designed, and anticipating the upcoming announcement.

Me? I'm rather practical. I don't consider myself an "Apple fanboy." I won't buy a new device unless I need it. And I most certainly won't wait in line to get one.

Considering the product might not ship until months after it is announced, and after I allow for some "cooling down" time (where crowds are less, and supplies replenished), I'm not looking at actually owning one of these new tablets for at least four to six months.

The event on the 27th is solely to get the word out, and build up awe and inspiration through advertisements - as everyone waits until the release date.

But am I excited? You bet. My money's on the tablet.

Feedback

Google Docs recently added support for file uploads of any type, as opposed to just standard text documents, presentations, and spreadsheets.

As an "online file storage guru," I am always checking out new services and approaches to storing files safely and securely in the cloud. My life basically exists in the cloud - I don't keep anything local that I don't have to.

I currently use Amazon S3 and Box.net for all of my online file storage needs, but seeing that Google is my hub for email, document editing, calendars, SMS, and more - it might make sense to also store my files with them.

It also makes sharing easier, since many of my friends and family use Google services, and already have an account - so passing large files between individuals could be less technically-involved.

The pricing looks amazing, compared to S3 and Box:

With Box, I pay $10/month ($120/year) for 15 GB. With S3, it's about $12/month (~ $150/year) for 40 GB currently stored. Both services have their own strengths and weaknesses for user interface, file sharing features, etc.

Google's basic 20 GB plan blows both Box and S3 out of the water, at a measly $5 per year. Per year?? What!? How is that even possible?

It's safe to say I may be considering switching services, after I see how the user interface and extra features compare with Box and S3. Box offers some interesting sharing/privileges features, and S3 allows for distributed file retrieval with their CloudFront service.

The online storage wars are heating up again.

Feedback

I've posted about funny Google Voice(mail) transcriptions before, and this morning I received one that is good for a laugh.

This one is from a business associate that I am working on a project for, who has an urgent request for me to take care of. This transcription is directly from Google - I didn't change any words.

"Matt, this is bill. Please check my email. If you have any problem understanding you. He's a recieve to can call me back. I hope you and May and the ease requested call me at by the pizza and I appreciate if you can do these a new email to me. Bye sweetie and bye bye."

"Sweetie?" I didn't think we were that close, but maybe I misread the signals. ;-)

Feedback

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Fabulously Lazy

"There still remains one little problem. If the me of the future is now in the past, how could you possibly know about it?"

• "Doc Brown" in Back to the Future 3

I'm big into reminiscing. I love looking back at old photos, status updates, blog posts, music I was listening to, etc - from months or years ago. Even little details like what I was thinking, feeling, or otherwise subtle aspects of everyday life help to bring back memories and thoughts.

That's why I'm loving this new script I created that sends me my own Twitter updates from exactly a year ago.

It works up to a 15 minute range, so it's practically real-time updates from myself in the past being sent to me from this exact moment a year ago.

I can't tell you how interesting this is. It's like following someone else entirely, yet it's still me. Some updates I remember distinctly - where I was, what I was doing, etc; others not so much.

Often I surprise myself with what I was actually doing - where my memory fails me, the Twitter update does not lie.

I also learn a lot about myself - how far I've come, what's changed, and how I used to perceive things.

Technical details

If you're curious how I am doing this, it's not likely I can release such a script to the public because my updates have been mirrored to a local database for quite some time now. I did this to bypass Twitter's poor support for using the API to pull really old updates. It seems to let you go back only a short amount of time, like a couple of months.

So, using my own database is obviously a breeze, and free from API restraints. I simply have a cron job running every 15 minutes, checking for updates from a year ago, and emailing me the results.

In the future

In the future, I'd like to also send myself all published activity (not just Twitter) from a given moment one year ago, two, three, etc. A year seems to be a good measuring point.

So, this would include status updates, blog posts, photos, links, music, etc. It might be a lot of work accomplishing this, since many things I publish are not stored in a local database yet. I would need to query API's for different services.

Overall though, something tells me Marty and "Doc" from Back to the Future would be proud. Now if I could only get my future updates to be sent to me now, that would be out of this world.

Feedback

The new "no texting while driving" law that goes into effect January 1 in Illinois is absolutely ridiculous, in terms of what it allows and does not allow.

I reference below some exact wording (at least, according to the Chicago Tribune) that the law uses to clarify these new regulations.

In general, this new law stipulates "usage of your phone" based on certain applications.

You can still use the GPS features of your phone, but you "can't send or read a text message."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my phones' GPS/map features still require text input (and reading address or location results). So it's okay to type in addresses, navigate the touch-screen map, and completely take my eyes off the road in doing so? Seems so.

"You can't send or receive an email."

So, specifically, my phones' email application cannot be used? Or I just can't send and receive email? But can I type one? Can I organize my inbox into folders? Is all use of my phones' email application out of the question, or just physically sending and receiving? (How does one "receive" an email anyway? The application does that - I don't physically have to do anything except hit "Refresh." So, really what they're saying is any incoming network traffic for emails specifically is disallowed.)

"You can't send an instant message."

A what? Who sends instant messages on a phone?? I suppose some phones have IM applications, but it's not a very popular activity since it requires a constant network connection, which SMS does not. Really this just sounds technically-amateurish.

"You can't web surf nor download ring tones."

Now we're just getting silly. How on Earth would a police officer know exactly what I was doing on my phone?

Officer: "Sir, were you just downloading ringtones?"

Me: "Sorry, officer, I was not actually downloading ring tones, but rather adjusting the settings for ringtones to be used, based on who calls me. And, tecnically, iTunes had already downloaded the ringtones, I was just listening to the 30-second samples, since Aunt Barb likes a certain song, so I was making sure it was the right one before applying it to her contact in my address book."

Officer (after a long pause): "Okay. But were you also web surfing?"

Officer: "Well... not really. I was logged into my bank account to see how much I have in my checking account. I also transferred some funds to savings. It wasn't really 'web surfing,' per se."

Officer (after another long pause, and looking at me strange now): "Okay then. Sorry for the inconvenience. Have a good day."

It seems that if they are going to make a law banning "cell phone usage," at least make it easier to understand, and more black and white. There's way too much room for interpretation. A law should be crystal clear.

Basing the law on certain applications, or "activities" that these non-tecnically-inclined law makers believe that people do on their phones, is only going to confuse people more, and cause them to be more distracted while driving ("Hmm, which applications can I use again?") than they were in the first place.

A better idea would be to ban phones entirely - except for emergency situations. That includes talking on the phone, or handling it in any way. Even headsets and Bluetooth in-dash speakers would be disallowed. (This would be easy for patrol to spot since you should not appear as if you're talking to someone, if you're the only one in the car.)

Leaving the law open for interpretation, and some allowed usage, just makes the situation worse.

Either enforce no usage, or allow all.

Feedback