Facebook.com and its founder Mark Zuckerberg have been taking a lot of heat lately for their approach to privacy matters. Given its meteoric growth, Facebook deserves the scrutiny, and indeed there are many things it can (and does) do to ensure its users know what’s what when it comes to privacy.

First, it should (and often does) post prominent reminders to its users to check privacy preferences. Facebook tends to do this when it has changed something, or in response to major blunders, but doing so proactively and regularly will help users keep their own security top-of-mind.

At some point, though, we as consumers/users need to start taking more responsibility for the security of our own data. Just like there was a time when most Americans went to bed at night leaving their doors and windows unlocked, we eventually realized the risk (in an increasingly dangerous world) and began taking more precaution. It is a burden, afterall, to have to walk around the apartment and make sure both the backdoor and front are locked, but we take that time because the effort seems minuscule when compared to the sense of security it provides. And just so, quickly jumping to the privacy setting page of our Facebook account and making sure that, yes, only friends can see photos of me, can give us that same warm-fuzzy.

Facebook offers very good and simple privacy controls. As participants in this ever-expanding global network, it’s time we stopped complaining and started taking a little more responsibility.

<BEGIN RANT>

According to comScore, Google Android’s share in the smart phone market almost doubled between Q4 2009 and Q1 2010, indicating the proliferation of Android-powered phones in Christmas stockings last year. Indeed, traffic from Android devices to the mobile version of Apartments.com (where I work) saw a similar spike during the month of January alone. Here’s comScore’s breakdown:

1. RIM (Blackberry): 42.1 percent, up 1.3 percent

2. Apple: 25.4 percent, down 0.1 percent

3. Microsoft: 15.1 percent, down 4 percent

4. Google: 9 percent, up 5.2 percent

5. Palm (NSDQ: PALM) 5.4 percent, down 1.8 percent

The rant here, though, is directed at RIM. Blackberry continues to dominate in smart phones, yet their app and browsing experience are so shoddy. And, thus, they are missing out on the tremendous opportunity that mobile browsing and app development presents. In the end, that hurts all of those consumers who use Blackberries and content providers trying to reach them.

Please, RIM, put a little more effort into the browsing and app store and let your channel flourish as it should.

<END RANT>

Now that an official release date has been announced, there are a couple of key points that dampen the iPad excitement. First, and most glaringly to me, is Steve Jobs’ assertion during the product’s unveiling, that there is a gap between mobile device and laptop in need of filling. I would argue that there is no gap, but instead a need for laptops to get smaller and retain (or improve) their power, and by “power” I mean processing speed, storage, battery life, etc. A gap-filling device simply means another device, and that’s the last thing anyone needs (the relatively modest and I believe transient success of Kindle-like readers notwithstanding).

The most successful technology products are often those that eliminate the need for multiple devices, ones that simplify, not complicate, our lives. The iPhone, or more generically any good smart phone, for example, has for many users effectively eliminated the need for separate MP3 players, GPS devices, portable gaming devices, PDAs and, of course, cell phones. To think that some of us can now do with one device what used to take five is the genius of the iPhone and the clarion call of good technology.

So the iPad gets a strike on that count. Today, at least. The lack of portable storage support and a meager 64 GB of maximum disk space proves that the iPad can’t really be considered a serious laptop replacement. But as flash memory capacity increases, as it will, and processors become more efficient, also a certainty, Apple will be in a very good position to be a market leader in tablets. So while today it may have technical deficiencies, Apple can start to learn about usability (as a colleague pointed out, typing on this device while, for example, commuting on a train is going to be a challenge Apple will need to overcome), perfect the design, lock in parts suppliers and, of course, build its brand.

If I didn’t truly believe, long before the Apple announcement, that tablet computing was the future, then I think I’d be smelling a Newton. Instead, we’re probably looking at a not-so-wow-ish first generation product that could grow into something very exciting and profitable for Apple, assuming it eventually becomes subtractive, not additive, when it comes to my list of must-have devices.

<END RANT>

<BEGIN RANT>

It’s OK for magazines to feel good about themselves. It’s OK, especially as the rebounding economy casts glimmers of hope on magazines’ financials, to tout the benefits of the printed product to advertisers and readers. But the upcoming advertising campaign being launched by five old school magazine companies (and appropriately skewed by PaidContent.org’s Rafat Ali) not only hails print, but takes pains to rail on the Internet. I guess the Internet versions of these magazines didn’t have a say in the final creative. Plenty of people still like leafing (surfing?) through a print magazine, and some actually find them easier for serious reading, but taking shots at the Internet?…

The campaign exemplifies the very worst of the media old guard and its steadfast and quixotic resistance to change: change to the technology, the format, and the business model. A slight, and likely fleeting, uptick in print ad revenues does not mean the revolution has failed, but could point to the possible long-term viability of a multi-channel strategy. Perhaps print will continue to live on, and perhaps even attract new users, but it’s certain that the Internet will continue to grow as a medium of delivery (I challenge the consortium to bring forth one media expert, other than some shyster at the agency that built the campaign, who would disagree) and a much better approach would have been to focus on the strength of their individual brands and on the entire package, on the promise of print as one viable and attractive delivery choice for the consumer, if not the only choice. To use the campaign to take pot shots at the Internet not only undermines their existing web presences, but makes the consortium heads look foolishly outmoded and out of touch. Again.

<END RANT>