Just one week after Google launched the Nexus One , its entry into the smartphone field, the numbers are in and it doesn’t look to be keeping up with the competition. We reviewed the iPhone-competitor the other day and see it as a formidable challenger, but its first week sales numbers fall drastically short of those same numbers for other smartphones during their first week, according to statistics from mobile analytics firm Flurry . Sponsor While Flurry’s own analysis of the numbers makes sure to point out that the statistics may not provide an “apples to apples” comparison, the Nexus One’s first week sales were a fraction of its top three competitors. Flurry details the methods used to arrive at these numbers in its blog post and is certain to call the data an estimate, but if they are even close to correct, the Droid outsold Nexus One by more than 12 times, myTouch 3G by 3 times and iPhone 3GS by 80 times. Whether it was Google’s lack of marketing, the fact that the phone was only available for purchase online, or its $500-plus sticker price without a service contract, Flurry identifies a number of reasons for the slow start. The company also points to the post-holiday release date and the fact that Google did little compared to Verizon’s $100 million marketing of the Droid. We see a few other points that could have contributed to the slow start. For those using AT&T, the Nexus One works in slower EDGE mode, not 3G. And for the contract weary, news about Google charging additional early termination fees certainly holds some scare factor. We’ll have to keep an eye on these numbers as time goes on, but we’re curious – what, if anything, has kept you from taking the leap? Discuss

See the rest here:
Nexus One, Week 1: Outsold by iPhone 3Gs 80-to-1

In an unusual display of concern, the president of Google Enterprise has made a public statement saying there should be no cause for alarm about Google Apps and its cloud computing infrastructure following a major data breach by a China-based attack on Google and 20 other large enterprise companies. David Girouard, Google’s president of Google Enterprise, said in a personally written blog post that Google suffered a massive cyber attack last month. According to the corporate Google blog , the attackers came away from Google with stolen intellectual property. Sponsor Girouard downplayed the impact of the attack. He said Google “believes” the breach did not affect Google Apps customers. Girouard, obviously concerned about the backlash, said the incident may raise some questions about Google security. He said that Google is introducing additional security measures to help ensure the safety of customer’s data. There are consistent questions about cloud computing’s potential security flaws. Girouard is well aware of this. He tries to make it clear that this incident was not an assault on cloud computing. “It was an attack on the technology infrastructure of major corporations in sectors as diverse as finance, technology, media, and chemical. The route the attackers used was malicious software used to infect personal computers. Any computer connected to the Internet can fall victim to such attacks. While some intellectual property on our corporate network was compromised, we believe our customer cloud-based data remains secure.” Girouard comes close to making a sales pitch in his statement, saying, in fact, that Google customers benefit from the Internet giant’s investment in data security. “While any company can be subject to such an attack, those who use our cloud services benefit from our data security capabilities. At Google, we invest massive amounts of time and money in security. Nothing is more important to us. Our response to this attack shows that we are dedicated to protecting the businesses and users who have entrusted us with their sensitive email and document information. We are telling you this because we are committed to transparency, accountability, and maintaining your trust.” This is an incredible incident that will lead to some major issues for Google Enterprise over the next several months. As the battle heats up for cloud computing supremacy, competitors will pick at this incident as an example of why a company that’s more security conscious should be trusted with customer data, not a search engine giant. Discuss

Read the original here:
Google’s Top Enterprise Executive: Do Not Be Alarmed by Chinese Cyber Attack

Jonathan Swift argued in A Modest Proposal that children of the poor should be eaten. He went to a rhetorical extreme in order to illustrate the absurdity of a perspective he mocked and opposed. In order to illustrate how absurd Facebook’s new privacy policies are, I want to imagine a fictitious but analogous situation: imagine Google announcing that our Gmail contacts and Google Reader subscriptions were to be made publicly visible to the web at large. If you don’t want the world to know who you are communicating with and what you are reading, maybe you shouldn’t be communicating with those people and reading that content. The tools you’ve used to communicate and read privately must stay current with the times, right? Sponsor What Happened at Facebook In the middle of December, Facebook began prompting users to re-evaluate their privacy settings on the site . If users had not changed any privacy settings in the past, then the privacy of status updates, photos, videos and shared was switched to a new default: no longer visible only to approved friends, that data was now by default publicly visible to everyone. That default could be opted-out of, though, and users could return their activity update settings back to private, limited to friends only. Other user-data was switched from private to public without recourse for users. User profile pictures, fan pages followed and lists of friends on the site are now made publicly visible and cannot be limited in their visibility. A fast backlash led the company to allow friends lists to be removed from public-facing profile pages, but anyone’s friends lists are still publicly available by programs that ask for it. Friends lists can no longer be made accessible only to trusted friends on the site. RSS never caught on in a big way, but Facebook democratized online subscription to syndicated content. Now your interests and subscriptions are naked as a jay bird before the world. Requiring that Fan pages be public is important because that’s how users express their interests and subscribe to updates from organizations they care about. RSS never caught on in a big way, but Facebook democratized online subscription to syndicated content. Now your interests and subscriptions are now naked as a jay bird before the world. (As an aside, did you know that most people who are fans of the Facebook page ComedyTweet are also fans of the page PornstarTweet ?) Why did Facebook do this? Company founder Mark Zuckerberg said this weekend that this is the way the world is moving – towards being more public and less private. He said that the company recently considered what settings it would apply if the site were to be created anew today and “just went for it.” I explained yesterday why I don’t think that move has been backed up by a credible argument , why privacy is still important. Last night I heard a story about a podcast for parents struggling to concieve a child. Some Facebook users have said they feel unable to subscribe to updates from the show as Fans on Facebook because they don’t want friends to know they are trying to concieve. Becoming a Fan but being discrete about it isn’t an option anymore. Stories like that are probably much more common than we might think. Consider now what it would be like if this same changes were to be made to a different set of technologies many of us use. Let’s Open Up GMail Contacts and Google Reader Subscriptions! You may have signed up for GMail and Google Reader because you thought they would be effective, private and secure ways to communicate with people and subscribe to news of interest – but you were fooling yourself if you thought that information wasn’t going to be made public someday! Don’t you know that privacy on the internet is an illusion? Do you know how little money Google is able to make from Gmail and Google Reader with your data left private? What do you mean you use Twitter to communicate with people publicly and Gmail to communicate with them privately? Have you seen how seldom people talk about Gmail on TV these days? What’s a web service to do? It’s really a sign of the times. People are blogging more and more these days, you might even have a public blog on Google’s Blogger.com. That’s evidence right there that it’s time to make your subscriptions and contacts public, too. Google Reader and Gmail are both much smaller than Facebook, half as many people use Gmail as use Facebook. Google Reader is much smaller still. Contacts and subscriptions on Facebook are public now – clearly society is moving in this direction. If you don’t want people to know about who you are emailing and what you are reading, maybe you shouldn’t be emailing them and reading it. Think this analogy is a stretch? Think that hundreds of millions of people don’t think of Facebook as a private way to communicate with the friends they’ve approved, just like you do with Gmail, and to read updates from organizations they are interested in, but don’t neccesarily want everyone to know about, like Google Reader? I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. I think these are similar tools for many people. As we’ve said before, Facebook’s unilateral privacy policy changes have violated the contract they have with users. Just imagine how that would go over if it happened on other services we consider private. We give Facebook a hard time, but we love the site, too. Come be a fan of ReadWriteWeb there . You won’t be able to hide that from anyone, but maybe it will distract people from your Comedy Tweets obsession. Discuss

View post:
A Facebook Proposal: Let’s Make Gmail Contacts & Google Reader Subscriptions Public

Google just launched an updated version of Google Flu Trends , a service that predicts flu trends by tracking flu related queries on the company’s search engine. Until now, Google only showed aggregate data for states in the United States. Starting today, Flu Trends will show data down to the city level for 121 cities . As Google notes in today’s announcement, this update was timed to coincide with the National Influenza Vaccination Week . Sponsor Google also offers Flu Trends data on a country level for Mexico , Australia, New Zealand and most of Western Europe. Data on Flu Trends is updated daily. By tracking flu-related queries, Google has already proven to be able to accurately predict the flu levels on the state and country level. It looks like Google now feels like its algorithms are accurate enough to predict influenza trends on a more granular level. Until Google is able to validate this data, however, the company is labeling the city level estimates as “experimental.” Google and Google.org – Google’s non-profit foundation – sponsor a number of influenza-related projects. Google, for example, now offers a vaccine-finding map and the company is working with the Public Library of Science (PLoS) to to give give scientists a place to collaborate and share research on influenza research on Google Knol . Discuss

Read more:
Google Launches Flu Trends For 121 U.S. Cities

A new report released today by Forrester Research is calling the tech downturn of 2008 and 2009 “unofficially over.” “Coming out of a lousy 2009, 2010 is looking a lot better,” said Andrew Bartels, the report’s author. “We see 2010 as the first year in a multi-year growth cycle. It’s not a simple rebound from a downturn.” Sponsor The report predicts IT growth in the U.S. to come in around 6.6%, more than twice the growth of the nominal GDP. Bartels said that this growth would be led by two primary factors: “smart computing” and a rebound in mature technologies. “Investments that were planned to be made were put on the shelf,” he said. “PCs will do very well in 2010 as a rebound.” As the economic downturn ends, we can expect to see a rebound in mature technologies as repairs and purchases that would have normally been made were put on hold until the economic situation looked more promising. To that end, a large variety of PCs, peripherals and storage devices will make a comeback, the report predicts. As for “smart computing”, a separate report last December predicted that the technology sector was entering a cycle of tech innovation and growth called “smart computing”. Bartels defines “smart technology” as “a new generation of integrated hardware, software, and network technologies that provide IT systems with real-time awareness of the real world and advanced analytics to help people make more intelligent decisions.” So, basically, it’s many of the innovative applications we look at here at RWW, from location-based iPhone apps to real-time diagnostic software being implemented in hospitals. Bartel said that businesses will be able to leverage the data provided by new applications and will be able to run more efficiently, a change he said we began to see in late 2007, before the global economic downturn. According to the December report, this new area will promote growth for the next seven or eight years. Discuss

View post:
Forrester: "The Tech Spending Downturn is Over"

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told a live audience this weekend that the world has changed, that it’s become more public and less private, and that the controversial new default and permanent settings reflect how the site would work if he were to create it today. Not everyone agrees with his move and its justification. Has society become less private or is it Facebook that’s pushing people in that direction? Is privacy online just an illusion anyway? Below are some thoughts, based primarily on the pro-privacy reactions to Zuckerberg’s statements from many of our readers this weekend. Though there is a lot to be said for analysis of public data (more on that later), I believe that Facebook is making a big mistake by moving away from its origins based on privacy for user data. Sponsor In Facebook’s early days, and for the vast majority of the site’s life, its primary differentiator was that your user data was only visible to other users that you approved friend requests from. As of mid-December, Facebook users were no longer allowed to hide from the web-at-large some information including their profile photos, list of friends and interests in the form of fan pages they followed. Text, photo and video updates shared on the site have always been by default private (friends only) but if you’d never changed your privacy settings before last month, then Facebook suggested you switch them to make those updates publicly visible to everyone. That became the new default. Here are three reasons why making some of this data public by requirement and some public by default is the wrong thing to do and why society is not in fact changing the way that Zuckerberg claims it is. Evolving Preferences Don’t Justify Elimination of Choice Mark Zuckerberg might be right, people probably are becoming more comfortable telling the world at large about more and different parts of their lives. Why does that mean it’s ok to take away peoples’ choices and force them to make public some of their information all the time? That just doesn’t make sense. Privacy is a fundamental human right and while that may seem less true when we’re operating on corporate turf like Facebook, Facebook used to be based on privacy. Why give it up so easily? (Isn’t it a cause for concern that so much of our civic interaction now goes on through this and other corporate channels?) It’s very hard to believe that the hundreds of millions of mainstream Facebook users are wanting to throw their privacy out the window – and if Facebook believes they are, why not just ask them clearly? Privacy Doesn’t Just Mean Secrecy This Summer we wrote about the academic research of University of Massachusetts-Amherst Legal Studies student Chris Peterson, who argues that an accurate and contemporary understanding of privacy is based more on the integrity of context than on absolute secrecy. Peterson tackles the contemporary reality of privacy on Facebook in a very readable draft thesis paper titled Saving Face: The Privacy Architecture of Facebook (PDF). Peterson argues that the idea that anything published ought to be understood as intended for public distribution is an antiquated understanding from the era when publishing was expensive and required a lot of effort. The opposite is true today, it’s free and easy to publish – so information at different levels of appropriateness for public eyes is being published. Why not support that? “There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment… It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug into your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” – George Orwell, 1984 Instead of what Facebook is doing, Peterson says that a more appropriate understanding of privacy today is based on context. We expect our communication to go on in an appropriate context (no drinking in church or praying in the bar) and we expect to understand how our communication will be distributed. If a college friend took photos of you drinking in a bar and showed them off to people in church, you might feel your privacy has been violated in both appropriateness and distribution. The bar is a public place, though, and not completely secret. Thus the need for a more sophisticated understanding of privacy that is more than mere secrecy. By pushing your personal information and conversation through activity updates fully into the public, Facebook is eliminating any integrity of context that these conversations would naturally have. Posted updates can be directed only to limited lists of Facebook contacts, like college buddies or work friends, but that option is buried under more public default options and much of a user’s activity on the site is not subject to that kind of option. “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” – Google CEO Eric Schmidt Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg used to say that people would share more information if they felt comfortable knowing that it would only be visible to people they trusted. He told me in an interview two years ago that users who wanted to do so couldn’t take their data off of the site because privacy control “is the vector around which Facebook operates.” Now apparently, he’s changed his mind. This weekend I argued that his justification for the new stance is not credible. Many People Need Control Over Personal Information Do people no longer need to keep access to some of their personal information online limited just to trusted friends? Facebook seems to be arguing that they don’t. There is a long list of people who clearly do, though, including: people who’ve escaped abusive relationships, people with marginalized religious or sexual preferences, people who fear losing their jobs or who’ve been pushed around by bullies throughout their lives. That list adds up to a very large portion of the world, in fact. The group of Ivy League elites who run Facebook might think there’s no reason to be able to control access to their personal information, but many of them are less socially vulnerable and have less need to control their personal information. Consider this comment left by one of our readers in response to Zuckerberg’s statement this weekend. “As a person who is being stalked for being an innocent bystander in a child custody case, I can tell you that losing my choices over what is searchable or not is huge. I have nothing to hide nor be ashamed of but the loss of choice for my privacy has hit home in a poignant manner.” Stories like that are far more common than you might think and removing user control over what’s public removes the ability for millions of people to safely participate on Facebook. More than millions, tens or hundreds of millions of people around the world have reason to limit visibility of their personal information from the web but still want to be able to share that information with trusted contacts. Facebook became a huge success on that premise and ought to be able to continue to thrive without doing a 180 degree turn on privacy. Coming soon: The positive side of Facebook data made public. Hint. Discuss

Read more here:
Why Facebook is Wrong: Privacy Is Still Important

When we talk to our less technologically-inclined friends about Twitter , we often run across the objection that they really don’t care what so-and-so ate for lunch today or what movie they are seeing tonight. And every time, we try to extol all the other benefits of the world’s most popular microblogging service. But could we be wrong? Is Twitter mostly people talking about themselves and what they ate for lunch? Well, SemanticHacker , the blog of contextual ad platform Textwise , has crunched some numbers and we may have to eat our hat. Sponsor Parlez vous Twitterspeak? The blog used Twitter’s streaming API to gather nearly 9 million tweets from over 2 million individual users. Before looking at the data for meaning, the company first took a look at the language distribution of their sample. While the SemanticHacker team expressed their surprise at the language distribution, particularly the strong showing of Portuguese, we at ReadWriteWeb couldn’t help but wonder about the 10% labeled as “Unknown/Misclassified.” Are these tweets simply so horribly misspelled that the language-guessing program they used on the data could not venture a guess? Or could it be that 10% of the Twitter populous is now writing in that contracted form of text message Twitter-speak that it could no longer be classified as a recognizable language? (If you’re looking for a good example, find a 12-year-old and exchange text messages or just give Sarah Palin’s Twitter a look.) What We’re A-Twittering About The folks at SemanticHacker then took a random sample of 1,000 English-language tweets and broke them down into eight categories. According to their findings, it seems that Twitter really is full of people talking about themselves. A full 57% of the sample falls into tweets about what a person is doing, or private conversations between individuals. That leaves just 43% for other purposes, but when we take a look at that, the findings seem to become even more dismal. If we take away another 8% for “Other Messages” and “Unknown,” and another 8% for “Spam” and “Advertising,” we’re left with a mere 27% of the information on Twitter having some sort of value. Maybe it isn’t as bad as it looks, though. We’re willing to bet that if we wrote down everything we said in a day, the meaningful parts might not even reach the 27% mark. Oh, did I tell you about the tasty lentils I had for lunch today? Discuss

Read more here:
Is Twitter a Mental Vacuum?