The inability to transfer a page’s creator status is a flaw (I think) in Facebook’s system.  Often time the person who creates the page for the company is just an employee who has been authorized to manage it.  What if that employee gets a job somewhere else or you fire them?  Then what?  I’m not saying the employee will sabotage your page (chances are they won’t, but it is possible), but it just does not look right to have a page’s creator be someone who doesn’t even work for the company.  It could cause confusion and you may not want to associate your company with that person anymore.  For this problem I would recommend creating the page under a generalized account for your company and assigning a couple of admins.

When it comes to losing control over your Facebook Page the possibility is definitely there.  Why?  Because all that really needs to happen is for Facebook to receive a complaint (I can totally see competitors in an industry doing this) and they will “look into it” and take action.  Apparently they do not do much due diligence in checking whether the correct person actually owns the particular page.  To make it even worse, they do not provide any way to contact them directly about it (more on that in a later post), essentially just leaving your page without anyone to manage it.  That totally defeats the purpose of these Facebook Pages, doesn’t it?  This is a serious problem and I know a company who this happened to recently (it still isn’t resolved either).

I really hope Facebook fixes these things before it gets out of control.  Also, just to show you how quick they act without doing any checking, read this post on TechCrunch.

Google says they plan to offer the service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 (but potentially up to 500,000) people. A competitive price is relative though. I am curious if they mean competitive to the current prices at the current speeds or competitive for the speeds you will have access to (which could still be ridiculously expensive).  I should also note that if you do get this service provided by Google, it is important to remember that the bottleneck will be the server you are trying to access.  If the website is hosted on a web server with a small pipe (slower connection) then you will not be able to download at the 1Gbit/sec speeds.  Similarly for any downloadable content from videos, music, ISO files, etc.

Here are some more details from the Google blog post:

Our goal is to experiment with new ways to help make Internet access better and faster for everyone. Here are some specific things that we have in mind:

• Next generation apps: We want to see what developers and users can do with ultra high-speeds, whether it’s creating new bandwidth-intensive “killer apps” and services, or other uses we can’t yet imagine.
• New deployment techniques: We’ll test new ways to build fiber networks, and to help inform and support deployments elsewhere, we’ll share key lessons learned with the world.
• Openness and choice: We’ll operate an “open access” network, giving users the choice of multiple service providers. And consistent with our past advocacy, we’ll manage our network in an open, non-discriminatory and transparent way.

If you are possibly interested in joining the experiment (and why wouldn’t you be, right?) Google is accepting requests for this service from both government and local communities from now until March 26th.  Google will use the requests they receive to determine where to build their network.

While this move doesn’t fair well for Microsoft, it will definitely benefit Facebook.  Facebook is a growing (and maturing) company and it needs to focus on growing and maturing their business strategy.  Just as Digg decided to roll out Digg Ads a while back (which also seem to be working quite well), Facebook is doing the same with their social ads.

So far this month Facebook has already stopped using Microsoft’s ads in several international markets (versions) of the site and the U.S. may be next on the list.  Microsoft and Facebook are currently renegotiating the terms of the agreement and if I was Facebook, I would stick to what seems to be their new plan and continue to minimize Microsoft’s ads on the site (or even eliminate them if possible).

Again, if I was Facebook I would want all the ad inventory I could get back from Microsoft to be able to successfully push our own advertisements.

Today, Dyn Inc. the company who owns and operates DynDNS.com has announced it acquired EveryDNS.  I have been using EveryDNS now for quite some time and it is superb. It really is one of the best DNS solutions out there.  If anyone had to acquire this service, I’m happy it was Dyn Inc.  I’ve been using their services for quite some time as well.

Below are a few prepared questions and answers from David.

1) Will my DNS service be interrupted?
Absolutely not.  While we’re working to transition services over to the Dyn infrastructure, we will do everything possible to ensure it’s a seamless and painless transition for you.

2) Do I have to do anything or make any changes?
Nope.  You will be given plenty of notice if you have to do anything.  But in the short term, nothing is changing.

3) Will the service remain free?
While we don’t 100% have the answer to that yet, we will not be making any changes to the service you are currently receiving for the foreseeable future.  We will be discontinuing signups in the near future but existing accounts will remain active and fully functional.

The Dyn Inc. team and I will be communicating more information in the coming weeks and months, but if you have an immediate question or comment, please send it to questions (at) everydns (dot) com

I typically do not write about personal matters on BestTechie but since this revolves a new project I am working on (bt.gd) which is tech/web 2.0 related here is the problem I’m facing at the moment.  Today, both Mashable (Facebook Post, Google Post) and TechCrunch covered the new URL shorteners by Google and Facebook.  As I mentioned previously, I’m working a URL Shortener myself and while I’m not Google or Facebook my product (bt.gd) is no slouch nor is it lacking features or ideas for innovating the field.  In fact, it is quite the contrary (I’ll explain our features and plans a little later).  While I realize bit.ly has been dominating the market, I thought we had a fighting chance (honestly) even with bit.ly being the default shortener on Twitter.  I felt if we could get it integrated and implemented in specific applications and sites with our feature set (current and future) we would be able to compete.

Apparently though, no one will take you seriously if you’re not a big (or at least well recognized) name or an established brand (more on this in a few).  Which leads me to the question didn’t every company, website, blog, web-celeb, you name it start off with nothing (or very little)?  Then through business moves, features, innovation and opportunities they were able to grow into what they are today.  What I’m getting at is that many of these industry sites, news organizations, the media, large corporations seem to forget where they started from – which is nothing. Nothing more than just an idea and if you were lucky you had a product/service to show off.

It is so difficult to get into the tech industry with limited connections – forget trying to do it cold (based on my experience with some connections it’s still very difficult).  I bet the same can be said for any industry today though.  Nonetheless, back to my point of this post.  On December 7th, 2009 I sent an email to news@mashable.com (see below) and a few days prior to that I spoke with a writer for TechCrunch who said they may look into posting about it (and nothing since then):

Greetings!

I’m launching a new URL shortener service http://bt.gd (we’re really new!). Before you dismiss it as yet another URL Shortener let me go over a few of the existing features and future plans we have that I believe can potentially be game changing for the URL shortening market place.

Currently, bt.gd has the following features completed and fully functional: Recent Links (saves your recently shortened links without having to register with an account, though we plan to add user account access soon to provide even more features), easily share your links once shortened via Twitter, Facebook, and Friendfeed, a simple and easy to use API so other applications and services can integrate it, Popular Links page, URL Preview method, a web browser Bookmarklet so you can shorten the URL to any web page with ease, an OSX Dashboard Widget, a Windows Application, a Safe URLs system (powered by our own internal blacklists, SURBL, and soon Web of Trust), and our latest feature (which I haven’t seen anywhere else yet) is a user generated link directory.

The idea behind the link directory is to make shortened links more than just a one-time shared item, but so they can retain their value by allowing people to browse through specific categories (similar to DMOZ and Google Directory, but with shortened links) to find content. We also have future plans for additional directory functionality to make it even more useful for our users. We are also attempting to get bt.gd included in Twitter clients to make it easier for people to use our service.

We believe this is just the start to our service and have a lot more planned. If you have any questions regarding bt.gd please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kindest Regards,

Jeff Weisbein

I received the automated response and never heard back. I just assumed they weren’t interested in any more URL shortening services and that’s fine. However today Mashable makes two new posts on URL Shortening services from Facebook and Google. I realize those are two big names on the web, but they don’t even know much about the Facebook shortener or what it’s being planned to be used for. Likewise for Google, not much on them with regard to features or future plans. Meanwhile I laid out for them and nothing. Nothing at all. On top of that writer Ben Parr writes, “Today may just mark the beginning a new battle for the URL shortening market.”

Again, not to sound like I’m entitled but if it’s so important where’s bt.gd coverage? We have things planned (and some already available to the public) that have not been done before. I’m not just talking it up, I’m serious. Since that email we have implemented Web of Trust to ensure even safer URL’s and we have gotten URL stats integrated completely. In the video above you can see our integration of Facebook Connect in the works which will be the segway to our new feature implementations.

Everyone always talks about how the web can allow people to share new ideas, collaborate, create something from nothing, etc. While it’s true that it can be done for that the likelihood you will ever be recognized seems slim to none and to me that is disappointing.

The sad part about me writing all of this is it will most likely never be seen by anyone who it is directed towards.

“None of this is being used to actually target an individual,” explains Google spokesperson Eric Obenzinger. “It’s more about delivering more accurate reporting back to advertisers so they can inform their future budgeting decisions.”

“When we say that this is all anonymous data, we mean that it is literally anonymous in the strictest definition of the term,” says Todd Juenger, vice president & general manager of TiVo Audience Research & Measurement. “We don’t collect anything about where it came from.”

What TiVo and Google will know is that some set-top box somewhere pressed play on a certain network at a certain time, then they hit fast-forward, hit pause, and hit play. According to Juenger, “You do that across a million and a half set-top boxes, and you get a collective picture of what percentage of people were watching a certain commercial at a given time.”

Fair enough. Seems like a pretty good way to obtain the information necessary to help Google inform their advertisers so that they can budget and plan accordingly. No point in advertising if the return on investment isn’t there. This goes back to a previous post of mine, Google: The Advertising Engine.  If you had any doubt that Google wants to control the advertising industry, think again.

Since the launch of Modlife, DeLonge has brought in a number of bands to the site and providing each new band with the same feature capabilities (chat rooms, live video casts, exclusive content).  Which leads us to the question – will Modlife turn into the one stop shop for bands who want to interact and communicate with their fans?  It very well could be and I would bet that is what Tom DeLonge has in mind.  Perhaps even going as far as Modlife sponsored tours is a possibility.

Now on the heels of their third album titled “Love” which will be accompanied by a feature length film of the same title (both to be released Valentines day – Feb. 14th, 2010), something is a little different.  The album will be released for free.  This is in thanks to corporate sponsors.  Free?  Yes, really.  At least that’s the plan.  This is definitely possible and potentially could be happening more and more in the future, especially thanks to distribution services such as the iTunes music store.  No longer do you need to purchase an actual CD (though I still like to).  Now with iTunes, Amazon MP3 and the like, you can easily download your music.

Album Trailer:

Movie Trailer:

What do you think of the new approach that Angels & Airwaves is taking to the music industry?  Leave a comment!

An excerpt from the document:

“The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that ‘material connections’ (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers–connections that consumers would not expect–must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other ‘word-of-mouth’ marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.”

I’m curious with so many blogs out there and so many bloggers how they will attempt to enforce these new guidelines.  I’m all for full disclosure, when I receive a product for review, I’m the first to let people know that it was sent to me from X company.  However, there are many times when I’ll purchase the product myself and review it.  How will the FTC know when to differentiate?  Do I really have to save every single receipt?

It will remain to be seen I guess.  The last thing I would like to see is bloggers being wrongfully fined.  What are your thoughts on these new guidelines (which become effective as of December 1st)?  Harsh or appropriate?  Leave a comment!

Microsoft, despite what many people believe (mainly due to Windows Vista), makes some really excellent products and pieces of software (Windows being one).  They also make some not so great products, but, you can’t win them all.  Nonetheless, what I’m getting at here is Microsoft will now have a direct line to the consumer with their own stores – no more middle man.  Now they will be able to show off their products to the fullest extent and not have to rely so much on third parties like Best Buy and Dell.  Honestly, who knows your product better than you?

They will have their own trained employees who can provide the same style of customer support and assistance to that of walking into an Apple store.  A true hands on marketing machine to show off features, products, and various other things to the consumer.  This is something Apple has enjoyed for years and what has really helped them grow and expand (especially during Microsoft’s Vista fiasco).  And now Microsoft will have the same luxury and that’s the way it should be.  It’s great for the consumer and it’s great for the industry.  Not only will you be able to go into both stores at your local mall, but, it will completely drive the competition level to a new extreme.

I personally think had these Microsoft stores been in place for Windows Vista, Microsoft’s headache would have been far less intense.  The problem with Vista wasn’t necessarily Microsoft’s for building a bad operating system, but rather that they built an operating system a bit ahead of its time.  People didn’t have the hardware to run it yet and they didn’t fully understand the new features in it.  If you don’t believe me, check out the Windows Mojave experiment.

These new Microsoft stores are just what Microsoft needs for their next wave and generation of innovation, products, and ideas.  I think we will be seeing Microsoft making a major comeback in popularity and these stores will be major factors.

Okay, so, put yourselves in Apple’s shoes for a second (maybe a little more to get the right feeling).  You have sold 30 million iPhone in a little over 2 years – that is amazing.  Obviously, it’s in the interest of Apple to keep that number growing.  And that is exactly where the conundrum for Apple took place.  If Apple put a camera on the iPod Touch, they would in essence be canceling out one of the major reasons to purchase an iPhone.  What Apple would essentially be doing is hurting one of their major products and markets (iPhone) with another one of their major products and markets (iPod) which most likely doesn’t earn them as much money in the long run.

Adding a camera and mic to a device which is basically identically to its superior brother (the iPhone) would be like shooting yourself in the foot if you were Apple.  Not only would you be giving it the same operating system and features (minus the ability to use the AT&T network) you are also providing a version with larger storage capacity (64GB) – the iPhone currently only goes to 32GB for storage capacity.  Essentially what would happen is (if you haven’t put it together by now) as wireless Internet becomes more and more available wherever you go, people could essentially make calls via Skype or any other VOIP service and turn their iPod Touch into an cell phone iPhone.

Not only could they turn their iPod Touch into a phone, but they now would have the ability to use many of the apps in the App Store that are essentially only for the iPhone because they require a mic and/or a camera.

There is no question that it would have been great for the consumer if Apple added a camera and mic (there’s already a speaker) to the iPod Touch, it would most likely hurt them both financially and with regards to market share in the mobile phone market and that is why I think there is not a camera or a mic on the iPod Touch (and dare I say) nor will there ever be one.