Steve Jobs. You lived YOUR life. You certainly did live it. And you changed ours.

Steve Jobs.  Even if so many people, and I, did not like you precious walled gardens that you tried to keep us inside, you made technology pleasurable for so many others, no matter their age and knowledge. “It’s technology married with liberal arts, married with humanities, that yields the results that make our hearts sing.” Hopefully, others will be just as holistic in their approach. Not sure. But I’m quite certain, your legend will continue to be a muse for so many among us. After all, you did "put a ding in the universe" as you dreamed, and the universe misses you already.

Thank you for seeing a box with silicon and wires with a lot of 1 and 0 in them as the magical devices that you put in the hands of so many. Thank you for being able to see that potential not from the inside as an engineer, nor the outside as a user, but as an Artist, as new kind of Da Vinci. Thank you for packaging these megabytes and megahertz in the elegance of design, both aesthetic and usage. Thank you for putting a heart and a soul in the cold steel, cristals and glass of our gadgets and tools. Thank you for focusing so much on us, the users (even if it was sometimes a little too much for my taste;) Finally, thank you for showing us that, always, “there must be a better way”. And to steal the tagline of the movie The Aviator, “Some men dream the future. [you] built it.”

Above all, thank you for showing how to follow one’s heart and not some quarterly earnings reports (or election cycles) for the long run win. May our CEOs and politicians listen to theirs. Yes, thank you for this life changing quote: http://go.ili.as/SteveJobs-LiveYOURLife (12min17s); you definitely did follow your own advice. It was short, but so much worth living. As you once said "your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life", you surely lived YOUR life and you changed ours. You lived, you certainly lived. Rest in peace. Down here, we will try to “stay hungry, stay foolish”.

Steve Jobs Stanford speech - quote at 12m17s

The market welcomes the new Queen of HP very mildly...will she change the faith of the company as she did with eBay?

Meg Whitman, star of eBay is now at the helm of HP, after a short-lived 11 months reign of Léo Apotheker, so can we safely say: The King is dead, long live the Queen!?

"We would assume that most of this direction was the desire of the board when they hired Leo, so it's unclear if they wish to change this current strategy, or just change the messenger," wrote Louis Miscioscia at Collins Stewart.

I guess it's like with the current problems of the US economy: it's probably less about the real health of the economy than the lack of long term certainty of the direction of the decisions taken that weight on HP's stock right? So would it finally go up if Whitman makes a clear long term statement?

But still, her experience lies with a consumer-oriented dot-com, so "while we believe Meg has proven to be a very capable manager leading eBay from a start-up into a household name and one of the largest internet companies, there will be plenty of scrutiny given her lack of experience in the enterprise business," Sterne Agee analyst Shaw Wu wrote."

But we could see that in a more positive way, and imagine that this new appointment is a strategic one that would take advantage of the experience of Whitman with eBay, a consumer-driven company. It could be a new reversal of strategy towards the consumer market, perhaps to go back to Mark Hurd's vision rather than Léo Apotheker's exclusive business software one. Still HP made a 10 billion investment in a business software oriented firm, and that's hard to reverse, unless there is no planned integration.

I still believe that the company had an amazing opportunity to get into high-value consumer-driven market with the WebOS ecosystem: phone, tablet, appstore, cloud-services all sync together. I just wish the company would have used the Gillette razors' price structure: not making money on the hardware, but the value added services (cloud services and app-store). Also, if the Touchpad's bill of materials is about 300$ today, it will go lower with time/volume, and the price would have stayed the same, so even on the hardware it could have been profitable. Unfortunately, we all saw the mayhem that happened with the liquidation sale of the tablet way bellow the cost, and the exit of HP from the WebOS hardwares. It might still have this opportunity (or another one), but the company needs asap to decide where it's actually planning to go, communicate, communicate, communicate, and stick to the plan!

Anyway, as many analysts highlight it: HP needs a new strategy (or the confirmation of Léo's one), with a strong vision/mission statement and long-term commitment of the company towards that goal. As Goldman Sachs is "cautiously optimistic many of the strategic challenges are resolvable" but it "is also facing increasing cyclical and secular tailwinds".

Good luck HP! :)

[updated] - Après 3 mois de test, Google+ vient de s'ouvrir au public. Est-ce trop tard?

Durant ces trois mois de répits, Facebook a rattrapé son retard et a proposé une grande partie de ce qui faisait l'attrait de Google+ (clarification des réglages de vie privée, simplification des listes, intégration du "following" avec les "subscriptions). C'est fou comment Facebook est bon à exécuter quand même... 

Encore une fois il faut remercier la compétition qui nous a amené une nouvelle dynamique de marché et va probablement maintenir le rythme accéléré d'innovations qu'on a vu récemment. Ça me rappelle un peu les pas de géants qu'Internet Explorer (vous vous souvenez de IE6 super lent et remplis de bugs!;) avait fait lorsque Firefox a gagné du momentum il y a quelques années. Maintenant ces navigateurs ont du fils à retordre et des mises à jour/optimisations bien plus régulières...merci qui? Merci Google Chrome! Visiblement Google+ a eu le même effet sur Facebook.

Concernant Google+ plus spécifiquement, j'ai vraiment hâte que les gens derrières publient de bonnes api, qu'ils intègrent mieux leurs différents services, notamment Blogger et YouTube (surtout pour les commentaires), et qu'enfin ils pluguent les api des autres réseaux sociaux tant qu'à faire, ça ne leur feraient pas de mal si ce n'est rendre G+ mon réseau de prédilection ...a voir...

Mais est-ce vraiment trop tard?


Ici Google est allé "all the way" (vous avez vu la grosse flèche bleue publicitaire sur Google.com?), je pense que Google a vu les analytics de recherche sur sa page et que la croissance n'est plus aussi importante à ce niveau. 

1. D'une part, il en va de sa pertinence sur le web, car si la recherche devient vraiment sociale comme le voudrait Facebook, il y a un veritable risque pour Google.
2. D'autre part, il en va du renouveau de la compagnie et de la recherche d'un nouveau vecteur de croissance.
3. Enfin, il en va du "data scouring", Google n'a pas accès aux données de Facebook, et les gens y passent de plus en plus de temps a y créer des données; avoir son endroit ou ces données sont créées est un enjeu majeur pour une compagnie qui se veut être le hub de la recherche de données sur le web.

De facto, je crois que Google ne va pas lâcher prise jusqu'à avoir "a fair share" du web social, ou elle va couler avec le navire. Je penche pour l'option un, et Robert Scoble scobleizer@gmail.com semble penser de même....

Personnellement je crois que la guerre a juste commencé, et qu'ils rattrapent assez rapidement les 7 années de retard sur Facebook tout en y ajoutant de belles innovations (le nouveau Hangout avec document sharing et sketching, Hangout sur mobile, Circles, Huddle).

 

Hangouts on your phone: Stream View (left), Green Room (center), Portrait Mode (right)

 

 

Hangouts On Air: Stream View (left), Full-screen Mode (right)

 

Hangouts with extras: Screensharing (left), Sketchpad (right)

 

Hangouts with extras: Docs (left), Named Hangouts (right)

 

Search in Google+: photography (left), cooking (right)

 

 Pour plus de détails, voir le billet sur le blog officiel de Google. 

A little far fetched, mais ça me fait penser a la croissance des BRIC face aux pays avancés! Va-t-on assister au même type de rattrapage? Pas sûr connaissant l’inertie des utilisateurs en général, en particulier quand 1/10ème de la population mondiale est sur Facebook. Mais bon, faut quand même voir la video TED de Niall Ferguson sur la fin de "la grande divergence" et l'accélération des rattrapages depuis les années 70 (http://go.ili.as/tedniall). Voyons donc le premier pas lors de Facebook f8 demain, jeudi 22 septembre 2011.

Nokia announces a new partnership with Microsoft and their stock dips by 15%! Why?!

Nokia announces a new partnership with Microsoft regarding their mobile OS and announces a deep corporate restructuring, and the market welcomes that with an almost 15% dip in NOK stock! 

I just think that from an investor point of view, this kind of announcement looks like a statement of defeat on Nokia's part, as they had 1 amazing operating system 10 years ago (Symbian) which they failed to leverage in front of the Android and iOS competition and are dropping it now in the trashcan, they also started a new project backed by Intel (MeeGo) 2 or 3 years ago and it seems that they are giving it away to the Open-Source community with not much support like in the case of Android. So that might look like another potentially failed project or at least a last attempt to raise by two failures (Symbian and Windows Mobile OS have both failed to counter the rise of Google's Android and Apple's iOS) in the same manner Microsoft tried to buy Yahoo 2 years ago (cf. a quick analysis http://bit.ly/microsoft-yahoo-deal). 

On the second hand, still in an investor's point of view, if Nokia starts "dating" Microsoft, in the short term there is no upside for them, it will take at least 6months to 1 year to clear the current Nokia products' pipeline and start from fresh. Also the kind of restructuring is not a «done» deal till it is done, and carries a lot of uncertainty regarding the outcome. And finally to continue on the outcome issue, the new Windows 7 Mobile has not been in the market for long enough to see a directional trend whether it will catch Android and iOS train or if it will stay on the side like Symbian, Windows Mobile 5, or BlackBerry OS so far for that matter.

But, and there is a big but: Microsoft has deep pockets and can still spare a couple of mistakes before getting it straight, which Nokia couldn't handle anymore. Then, Microsoft Windows 7 Mobile has had a great peer reviews so far, and finally, Microsoft did the right thing by ditching all the old (and so 2000ish) Windows Mobile OS and starting from scratch in a truly definite and innovative way. It was a tough choice (always tough to do radical change and ditch the current user base, just like what Windows XP did to Windows 98), but it was a long-time overdue thing. 

I think that the timing for both of them is a little bit late (should have done it a year ago, as Android registered an 880% increase of adoption in the last year alone), but at least it finally sets the stage for new paradigm regarding Mobile OS. So far, and in the wake of 2000's Smartphone, the business model for Mobile OS was the like of Desktop OS which was to license it for each device and get royalties, or to keep it for its own devices. Apple is still doing the latter, but Android brought a complete game-changing business model, which is to give it away for free, to open-source AND to support it (the latter being the Achilles' heel of the Linux-like OS for computers). Google is making money through ads served when browsing and perhaps a cut when buying apps. 

So for Windows 7 Mobile, giving money to Nokia (which is still a huge device manufacturer) to adopt their software will benefit both companies. On the one hand Microsoft will get an instant spike in their OS distribution and adoption which will keep them relevant among the major Smartphone OS. For Nokia, it finally gives them an edge on the new Smartphone market. They are VERY strong (better than the iPhone by far) on the hardware part, but to stay head-to-head with the Samsung and HTC of this world they need to have a strong OS, which they will with this more robust Microsoft solution. Also that will let them focus on their core business, which is not software development obviously. 

Bottom line, I think on the long run this is the best strategic move they could make. In my analysis of Nokia before, I said they should focus on their core business and embrace Android. Now it's with Windows. Fair enough. The only draw-back I see with that is that it might delay further longer the adoption of a Smartphone-like OS for their "dumb-phones" that they sell by the truck-load in the developing countries, because now they might depend on Windows development pipeline for that. I still stand by my word, and do think they should deploy a scaled-down Android-like OS for their cheap phones, and not wait until the competition does it. Still, if I had money, I'd put some on NOK today at 4PM, and more in the (most probably) upcoming market pull-back.

If Microsoft was running Iphone's AppStore instead of Apple, how would you and the antitrust bodies react?

In reply to MG Siegler @parislemon regarding the comparison between the AppStore's action against Adobe and the development of railroads:

It's not fair to compare the railroad system of the US with Japan's one: Japan has a very narrow island, so most traffic goes north/south. The US and Canada are huge country: they are large, long, AND interconnected. That's why both countries need standards, while Japan does not. It's better to compare US & Canada with Europe where the railroad standards were different (I know for sure between Spain and France at least), and it has only been a decade that they are really bringing one standard, and in the same time we are seeing super high speed trains between Madrid and Paris for example. So, I don't think that you have to link the standardization to lack of innovation. 

The lack of innovation comes from the lack of choice. One standard is fine, but a platform has to let the developer chose if he/she wants the standard coding language/compiler or go another way. By forcing this up on the developers, Apple is imposing an artificial comparative advantage of its phone over the others which I would call the "lock-in advantage".

Think about what Microsoft could have done with it's "platform" advantage on Windows Media Player if the Antitrust laws were not hanging on the neck of Bill Gates, imagine Microsoft sayging that Windows would not support the Ipod as it was a duplicate features on Windows because Microsoft has its Zune, same thing for Itunes as Microsoft had Windows Media Player, same thing for Mozilla Firefox, Safari, Chrome etc... as there was already Internet Explorer. Apple is doing the same, it's using it's platform advantage to impose a standard and dismiss competition.

I usually don't like government involvement but, as I pointed it out in this status on Twitter, if it was Microsoft who were acting like Apple we would get the Antitrust squad breaking Redmont's doors: just imagine MacOS' hardware lock-in (instalable only on Mac hardware), Itunes monopoly (what 70% of music online goes through it right?), AppStore monopoly (no third party store on Iphone!!!), Iphone OS language monopoly, Iphone OS compilation monopoly. If you think about it, it's like what Rockfeller did in the early oil-rush: selling the tools to dig, selling the platform to transport it, but what he did not is own the land, and that's what Apple is doing. Think about the "serf" in the middle-age: they didf not own the land (the platform), they did not own the tools (the language), they could not go anywhere else (the lock-in or the exit barriers), they only owned what they harvested (the software) and they had to share it with the master (30% goes to Apple, right?). 

Obviously the comparison is a little far-fetched, but I understand what Adobe is saying, while I also understand that Adobe has a quasi-monopoly on the web regarding Flash, it's only the format, there are litteraly dozens of tools that let you produce Flash software/games/videos etc. And there are hundreds of stores online where to buy flash. Apple is doing the opposit, and by doing this it increases the pressure on the developer while giving him little ways of getting out as the platform became so ubiquious among smartphones and high end phones. I know that's not what Apple is telling people, Apple talks about the quality of its platform and the quality of Iphone's software written in native language. But if people want to write in a language which renders poorly on their platform, let it be and let consumer chose to fly away and go  to a competitor who programs better directly in the native language, no? It shouldn't even be a debate! Isn't it what we call capitalism? Let the best developer win the customers? If customers don't like a program they will switch to the competitors. Point in case, people left Internet Explorer beside the massive and dominant market share until 2005. For that matter, I think that Apple talk are kind of B.S as when it comes to an end, it's mainly the bottom-line that counts and by locking the users and programmers in, and building big walls of "exit barriers" for software portability it helps imposing development for the main platform only. And the more time the government wait to react the more innovation will suffer among the community, and so will you as a consumer! 

I feel that I'm always ranting these days, but what Apple and Facebook are doing regarding different aspects of "users disrespect" goes beyond my understanding (not the financial understanding obviously). And the way people and the government reacts to that is concerning. The government should start questioning some practices Apple has and this is getting urgent: AppStore being the sole platform for selling software on Iphone, Iphone language and compiler being the sole for programming on Iphone, and the ViP ad network that gives insiders tracking information while in the same time forbidding competitors from tracking the users in their TOS are among the most proeminent example in my belief. 

Did I miss any? Am I just wrong? 

Step by step: Get your privacy back on Facebook - Updated with the latest April 28th 2010 change with "Instant Personalization" and "Friends, Tags and Connections" menu

Update 29/04/2010: Facebook has just changed AGAIN the privacy settings. I'm not talking about the Instant Personalization option which was rolled in April 21st, but a slight change in the privacy menu http://bit.ly/facebookprivacymenu and specifically with the new sub-menu Friends Tags and connections. I will try to change later the screenshots to reflect that change.

I guess you have been on Facebook for a while now, and you've seen the change in Facebook's privacy settings in February and December 2009. Now with the release of the OpenGraph things are changing again.

I am making this post specifically because of 2 persons who are not the least tech-savvy, but who ran into trouble by letting there previous (pre-2008) privacy settings stay the same for the last 3 years. After sending them the following screenshot, I thought it may apply to other people as it's probably clearer than my previous post.

Hopefully, in the 6 following steps, you'll get the Facebook YOU want it to be and not Zuckerberg & Co's "open" community (open, as in show your whole life publicly no matter your previous privacy settings).  So here you go!

1. First today's "magical and revolutionary product", the  "Instant personalization" "feature":
Instant personalization allows other websites to access your profile. If you want to cancel that function here is what you should do, go to http://bit.ly/instantpersonalization and uncheck the box.

2. Applications & Websites privacy option:
Indeed, if you read what's written at the bottom of that page it says:

Please keep in mind that if you opt out, your friends may still share public Facebook information about you to personalize their experience on these partner sites unless you block the application.

So go to this page http://bit.ly/applicationswebsites and uncheck all the boxes about the informations that you don't want other websites to know about you, because if a friend of you goes to this website, it can store the following information about you.

3. The general privacy settings:
Now the funny part that changed in December 2009, if you haven't changed your privacy settings since then, you probably have them "reset" to the state bellow, that's what happenned to my brother and sudenly he had his whole profile open to the world to see.

When you work long hours in a highly demanding job, you don't have the time to tweak your profile every now and then, and that's something that Facebook does not (want to) understand. So here are the changes that should be made in order to get a little bit of your privacy back http://bit.ly/privacypersonal :

 And you should tweak the settings for photos and videos that people tag of you as follow in order for you not to have anyone tagging that photo, you know, THE one that you don't want your ex, your boss or even your mom to see: Update: it's now in the following 6. section that you can change this settings

4. The search settings:
Now that you have done that you should also think about who do you want to be able to find you on facebook and on Google (or other search engine). Do you really want the HR department of that shiny new firm that you applied to be able to check your "background"? Do you want to be found by random people on Facebook or other colleagues and then to have to exaplain why you did not want to add them? You cannot run all the time on the famous sentence "oh, I don't check my Facebook very often, I forgot to accept your friend request" or another one of the same flavor, so go to http://bit.ly/searchprivacy :
By default Facebook wants everyone to find you and enjoy "socializing" with you:

But if you don't want to end-up like this poor girl (I think) who lost her job because of trashing her job and forgotting that her boss was able to look at that (if your profile is not set properly as previously in the general privacy settings, all your status updates are visible by ANYONE on the whole web!)...

It's the same thing if people can find you on Facebook or by Googling you, so personaly I did the following:

5. Your friends list:
You should also change how your friend list is displayed to your friends/friend of friends/Everyone as follow: Update: it's now in the following 6. section that you can change this settings

6. Update on April 29th: The new Friends, Tags and Connections Privacy sub-menu:
Here is the latest in Facebook "get back to default i.e Everyone" privacy settings... I'm really thinking about switching my Master's studies to get a degree in a "Master's in Facebook & Social Media"! ;)

So here is the new default settings that I just saw this morning in the new Friends, Tags and Connections Facebook settings that controls the tags you get and the new "like" button on partners websites http://bit.ly/friendstags:

 You better change them if you don't want your aunt, your mom or whoever check that you love drinking from the Keg, or that your future employer see that you changed jobs 10 times in the last 2 years, or even your guys friends know that you clicked on like for the movie "the notebook" (I don't have anything against it, just an example ;)

Here you go! I'm not sure that I covered everything, I just hope that you'll take advantage of this tweaks and that you'll follow this posts for future updates regarding Facebook's privacy! Actually I really think I should do a "Master's in Facebook" (perhaps from University of Phoenix! ;) or create a dedicated website for this crazy ever-changing privacy settings, layouts, Terms Of Services etc...

Please just take the time to share this page to make sure people know more about how your seemingly innocent activites on Facebook can have a huge impact on your life (professional & personal) and that you have the tools to make sure you "control" to a certain extent what goes on your behalf on Facebook and the web in general...

Goog luck!

PS: feel free to tell me if I forgot anything, Facebook's privacy is getting harder and harder to crawl through....

PPS: sorry for the mess, the post was created on April 21st, then posted and updated on the 29th.

Facebook does not allow to create protest pages against the New Facebook Open Graph and Like's identity usage online

Facebook acts like a totalitarian state ;) It does not allow to create a page entitled "DON'T LET FACEBOOK OWN YOUR IDENTITY ONLINE"! Yes, it's not a joke!
I really don't know what to think. I posted a couple of thoughts about what was going on since yesterday and was thinking about writing a blog post later to clarify my thoughts, but I had to post this first: Try to create a COMMUNITY which is by essence a NON-OFFICIAL page as stated by Facebook:

Community Page: Generate support for your favorite cause or topic by creating a Community Page. 

What does this mean? If my favorite topic is "I love Obama" or "I hate Obama" it's ok, right? Indeed it's ok for Obama lovers/haters.


But it does not go this way for Facebook!!!!
Try to create a Community with the topic: "DON'T LET FACEBOOK OWN YOUR IDENTITY ONLINE".
You'll get the following message:
"Our automated system will not approve the name "DON'T LET FACEBOOK OWN YOUR IDENTITY ONLINE" because it contains a word or phrase that is blocked to prevent the creation of unofficial or otherwise prohibited Pages. If you believe this is an error, please contact our Customer Support team."

Sorry Facebook, but that's a cause and a topic, so for me it deserves to be seen as a community page.
I see what you could say: it's Facebook's brand so it might be a breach of trademark or whatever, and even if for ages we were able to see pages like "I love X brand" or "I have Y brand", today is the day where it's not permitted anymore. 


Well, you are right, and even if it feels weird as the community page is clearly to support a cause/subject/topic or whatever as a community, I would understand that. So I ran a little experiment. What other brands are as mainstream as Facebook today? Nike, Microsoft, Cisco, ExxonMobile, Maroc Telecom (lol), Apple, Amazon, Marrakech (that would almost be a brand;) etc... But what main brand is also sometimes associated with "evil" and online identity super-ownership? Google of course! I'd let you run the test aswell by creating the same page for Google and see what goes on...


Ok, you might be lazy! So I did it for you for a couple of brands, and you guessed it right (otherwise I wouldn't be writing that), it passed the "automated system". Proof in picture bellow:

 

(yes even Doritos! ;)

As I side note, I was able to create the following page: DON'T LET FACEB00K OWN YOU & YOUR IDENTITY ONLINE http://www.facebook.com/privacynow.


Finally, a little piece of advice, If you want to CHOSE if whether you want to opt-out or opt-in into the new Facebook social-web's scheme check your privacy settings at www.bit.ly/facebookoptout and uncheck or check the last box.

10 ways on to how to secure (partially) your digital life, from Facebook to your Bank Account

The Facebook virus are spreading around the platform, and I was almost going to fall for one when a friend of mine sent me a message on facebook asking me to check a photo of us with a shortned url (the bit.ly, or tr.im kind of urls).

I'm wondering how many people did fall for this kind of message, when a friend of yours gets his account hijacked and start sending emails asking to visit a website with cross site scripting (XSS)...

So basically, this is a message for my friends: I'm not an IT specialist, but I know 2 or 3 tricks to make your web-life safer.

1. Try not to use Internet Explorer. Google Chrome or Firefox are a safer bet. Not because Microsoft's browser is the worst (they are getting better day by day), but it's much more tied to your windows OS than the others.

2. When using Firefox, install Adblock plus extension to have no more ads on facebook (and google, gmail etc...). But so far, the ads on Facebook are not very well controlled and a lot of spammer and hackers are using that to send the users to suspicious sites.

You also have adblocking for Google Chrome through the extensions, but my experience was not that great and Chrome started crashing.

3. If you have a genuine windows Vista or 7 (it's a little bit slow on windows XP for the scan), install the free antivirus AND firewall from Microsoft. If you don't have a genuine one or you want an alternative, Avast Home Edition is a very good and lightweight antivirus.

4. A firewall is a good add-on on top of an antivirus: it filters your connections to prevent someone to access your computer. It's free to use Comodo Home Firewall.

5. An Anti-Malware is a good tool to clean your computer from other things that are not specifically virus (like adware etc...). Spybot Search & Destroy is free and efficient.

6. A step further is to install Lastpass, it's an online password manager with local encryption, they also offer one time password to print in case you use a public computer, to increase security, you can  have a confirmation matrix to add to your password for identity control (it's a figures/letters matrix that you print), so even if your master password is stolen, the person won't be able to login. Finally you can also have a usb version to use it on the go.

7. Check your facebook privacy settings, or get more info about facebook's privacy settings here. Basically you HAVE to make sure not EVERYONE ONLINE can see you photos/profile/infos etc... now you can tailor what you post (status, links, photos album...) and make sure only the persons you want to see them, actually see them!

Also Please create friend lists to make your life easier. Start by doing something like that: a list for your actual friends (and let them see your tagged pictures etc..), a "casual friend" list for your acquaintances you meet at conferences etc... (and only let them see the photos you post, or only some of them as now you can do that for each album you post), and a "professional friends" for people who ad you randomly (and only let them see your basic profile and studies, jobs)

8. Alway click the log-out button. Even on your computer! Do you know friends who post "stupid" status messages on your behalf? Yeah, that's funny! But imagine someone who change your email settings to add a filter to forward automatically all emails to another address he has control on, he could change your Facebook password or whatever password with this forward.

9. Always change your password, and don't use the same. At least try to have 4 or 5 different passwords and change them time to time across your accounts. Worst case scenario, if you don't remember them, you'll have to try 4 different ones. (and if you have installed Lastpass) you don't have to!!!

10. Finally: always shut down your computer. Why would you leave it on? It uses energy (and we are all green today, right! ;) and more importantly, some people could put sniffer/keylogger on your password, or at least check your files! And don't assume that your friends/colleagues won't do it, because at least a jealous friend will.

And not I'm not paranoid....I just try to abide by these rules. You can try them, and if you need any help, just let me know, I've configured this for my friends a dozen time...

What do you think? What are the most important ones? What would you use. Personally, there is one that I do not follow... ;)

No buzz for Google buzz? Was it a smart idea for Google to launch the buzz quitely?

Image by Vincent J. Brown via Flickr

Funny how when a new communication tool is available, it's uncluttered and full of non-fake people and posts. It reminds me of Twitter back in 2007 or Facebook in 2005...Good ol' times! Hope it stands long for Google Buzz.

But I think that the good strategic move here is by not playing the "big-launch" game, Google is smart by letting Google Buzz be more like an "app" service to its already pretty large plateform (starting with Gmail, but who knows where it will stop: Blogger, wave, google maps, Reader etc...) instead of a new plateform (like all the other Twitter wanna-be that lost ground and had to change like Tumblr, or one from Northern-Europe that was bought by Google I while ago I think). It is just like an extension of the already wide services that Google offers and may lead to a seamless adoption of the service, while a big "tada" launch might have made people think too much about adopting or not the service.

It uses the already pretty wide user-base and delivers slightly a well differentiated approach (Porter would love to hear that!;) where the service mixes the "large spectrum" possibility of Twitter with the the narrow-tweaking of privacy and reach of Facebook, and with an added layer of media interaction that Twitter too often makes it hard (read more-clicks) to use even with all the tools that uses its api, it's still not for the average user who just want to share a couple of thoughts/advices/comments and links/pictures/video (I might look like bellow-average as I almost never use any picture/video/data sharing web services).

I think the two main challenges would be:

1. retaining the control on the user-experience without giving away the flexibilty brought by apis for added layers of web-services built upon Google Buzz without being a plain plateform very slow to move but that lets people do whatever they want with the api. Not in an Apple-Store-style-I-control-everything service, nor in a Windows-Mobile-free-for-all type (before Marketplace but even then...), perhaps more in the style of the Android plateform with a balance between control and freedom.

2. keeping the differentiation approach strategy, perhaps by keeping a more personal flavor to the service more in line with the 2005 Facebook's era, and giving a good control over the balance of private/public life.

What other challenges would they have, beside the obvious entry-barrier that Twitter and Facebook have set to the "personal-social-sharing" services?

The iPad: a little too hyped for what it is... & The JooJoo: the first full cloud computing experience...if only software/services providers follow....

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I'm not a blogger, I don't really post all my thoughts, but I need some insights on this one, that's why I'm back from hibernation...

I'm not a big fan of the closed system of apple, but there is one thing they know how-to do is the media attention. It really amazes me when i see big names like OM Malik saying that the Ipad is going to kill anything else (Kindle, HP Slate or whatever), because that leads to self-fulfilling prophecy. And the analysts are not supposed to do that I guess, because the kinds of OM are not financial analysts, they built their fame on the analysis of gizmos etc... so their loyal fan base kinda trust them. I understand from a financial point of view that probably the Ipad is going to kill whatever is on its way, just like the iPhone did it for Nokia which still needs to give a real direction for the open-sourced (now) Symbian, but that's only because of the sex appeal (and form-design & accessories microcosm) of Apple and any "i"-stuff they bring to the market. Common guys, even the big media houses seemed so thrilled about the device, we saw it all over TV. I mean, I watch TV perhaps 20min a day, and I was able to have a glimpse of it.

For me that really leads to misinformation. Let me explain, if mainstream media wants to talk about technology and gizmos, fine. But to publish only one side is really a bias that should be. Have you heard about the slate? What does the Ipad do that really deserves that kind of attention compared to say the joojoo or the slate? Apps? Ok with more that a hundred-thousand apps already compatible (or with a minor reprogramming tweak), it's obvious that soon you will be able to buy the iKitchen accessory that will let you hang your ipad on the oven with your favorite receipt on while you are cooking, then turn it and watch the latest clip on Haïti, or on Michael Jackson while you are waiting....that's true! But still, you see the Ipad on TV and the guys there don't even say that there is any competition out there?? Wtf? Really, no other device? Really, they even quote Steve Jobs marketing b.s. (and I'm not an apple hater) by calling it a "magical (?) and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price"...waw!!! Apple does not need any advertisement fund anymore, they got it free! Don't let me start on the "magical" harry-potter-ish statement....

Everyone is talking about the 140 000 or so apps that are compatible with the Ipad. That's true and obvious. But, Joojoo might be on the verge of bringing a whole new internet experience through digging deap inside Macromedia Flash and all the cloud-hosted apps. That's funny how everyone is calling that device dead or so with no added value (well for the price I would agree, but the Ipad would probably bring the price down now that we know the market price of the "high-end" tablet). That's unfortunate that they do not have the name/money of some, and if I were Adobe, I would really support the initiative to counter HTML5's video support and Apple claim that Flash is "dead" in a a way by not supporting it for the last 3 years on its Iphone/Ipod touch. There would be a real win-win deal there: Joojoo gets the media/investors attention after Mike Arrington chocked on the deal, and Adobe would get a technology showroom for flash....and....why not think big: get their own Adobe AppStore (is there any on the web? please enlighten me)! That's the deal today, no? We saw Nokia sinking because they changed the OS Software only when the hardware changed leaving people looking for apps all over the web just to realize they were incompatible, and Ovi is really a "too-late-with-no-added-value innovation" to really bring something to the table.


So, imagine that:

1. Adobe funding and bringing the attention on the Joojoo.
2. Adobe hosting a flash app-store.
3. Finding a solution for data retention of the flash apps on the cloud (and not only the social-media services that are already doing that).
4. Having a real OS with Google-gears style local on-device data retention for all the apps.
5. Calling me a say thanks! ;)

I do believe that this is a killer/not seen yet combination of device and cloud computing (let me know if I'm wrong, I study pretty hard, so no time to stay aware about all what's going on the web2.o stuff). It could really be the first full cloud computing experience with a usable local aspect, just like you have to sync your Iphone with your computer every now and then to get, you would synchronize your Joojoo Tablet/Slate with the cloud when you are back home/at the office/at a friend's house/at a starbucks etc...

And just to finish: hey Adobe, if you don't do a bold move like that, you'll keep losing market share for you flash format toward html5 (I mean less sales of Adobe flash CS, and more of Dreamweaver CS!;) or you'll keep wooing Apple to get it adopted on Iphone/Ipad platform until perhaps one day it will. But just a hint: do you remember the floppy disk on the first i-macs, Apple never put a player on them even with all the controversy....

Well, that's only my 2 cents, what about yours?

Yahoo & Microsoft, un remake d'AOL & Time Warner?

La situation de Microsoft à l'heure actuelle la pousse à chercher une issue dans le rachat de Yahoo. Cette compagnie attaquée de toute part (Systeme d'exploitation, Office, Recherche et services Internet), et jusque dans ses vaches à lait comme la suite MS Office par différent, se doit de rattrapper son retard dans le secteur à la plus forte croissance: celui de la recherche sur internet, la recherche "monetisée" bien sûr, domaine où Google excelle.

Pour revenir au titre de cet article, faisons un rapide rappel de la fusion d'AOL et Time Warner: en 2000, au sommet de la (première) bulle internet, AOL a racheté Time Warner pour 182$ milliards, ce qui évaluait la compagnie à la suite de la fusion à plus de 350$ milliards (et oui plus de 168$ milliards pour AOL!;) On peut relire aujourd'hui les articles de cette époque (10 janvier 2000) où la majorité des analystes se targuait de trouver toujours plus de synérgies potentielles entre le "vieux" et le "nouveaux" media, qui avait le potentiel d'associer le contenu d'un compagnie centenaire et la diffusion d'un prodige du web pour réussir au final à toucher chaque citoyen américain si ce n'est citoyen du monde! Depuis, cette euphorie est passée, la gueule de bois est arrivée avec l'explosion de bulle techno, et la valorisation d'AOL qui a littéralement fondu comme neige au soleil. Une petite note, Ehrans, un analyst de Bear Stearns (la firme qui s'est faite offrir un rachat pour 2$ l'action en début mars!) a souligné en 2000 que "cette alliance imbattable".

Concernant Microsoft et Yahoo, une remarque qui a été discrètement lancée à ce moment là est qu'AOL et Time Warner se sont rapporché non pas réellement par prévision de croissance, mais pas insécurité (cf. article de Salon.com). Et c'est là où la bas blesse. La situation est la même pour Microsoft! En effet, un article de Fortune datant du 18 février (page 18 à 24), rappelle bien que cette réaction de Microsoft est moins pour acquérir un parc d'utilisateur que pour contrer Google dans sa suprématie du web, et de la recherche en particulier. Mais si les revenus publicitaire de Yahoo et Microsoft combiné sont de 8,2 milliards, ils se tiennent encore a distance des massies 16,4 milliards de Google. De ce fait non seulement au niveau quantitatif, les chiffres sont peu flatteurs, c'est au niveau qualitatif que le bas blesse le plus. En effet, dans l'industrie internet ce ne sont pas les serveurs qui comptent, ce sont les algorythmes derrière qui fond la valeur de ces caisses de metal.

Dès lors, si Microsoft cherche à contrer Google, ce n'est pas en achetant une autre compagnie distancée technologiquement par Google que la firme de Redmont va augmenter ses résultats de R&D. Dans le domaine de la recherche 1+1 ne font pas 2, et là en l'occurence j'ai bien peur que 1+1=1, car ce n'est pas en alignant deux moteurs de 300 chevaux qu'on en obtient un de 600, et j'espère que Microsoft ne le croit pas. Surtout si l'on connait la série de mauvaise décision de Yahoo ces derniers temps: echec du rachat de Youtube et JotSpot laissés à Google, refus d'acheter Facebook pour 1 milliards de dollar en 2005 (la participation de Microsoft le valorise a 15 maintenant!), refus d'entrer assez tôt dans le marché de la publicité contextuelle, passé à côté du marché des petits publicitaires (80% des entreprises sont des PME que Google a su amener dans son giront avec Adsense et Adwords), mauvaise exploitation de son rachat d'Overture, echec et eutanasie de Yahoo 360 etc... et le retour du fondateur de Yahoo, Jerry Yang n'a pas changé grand chose si on se fie à "l'action", ou plutôt au manque d'action autour de Yahoo ces 100 derniers jours.

Est-ce alors un mouvement desesperé pour acquérir des parts de marchés, avant que le web ne se résume à Google et Facebook? Quelles synergies Microsoft peut-il vraiment tirer de Yahoo, et quelle durée cela va-til prendre connaissant la nature du marché, l'opposition culturelle des deux firmes et l'évolution très rapide des TI orientées web?

------------------
Ressources:
http://money.cnn.com/2000/01/10/deals/aol_warner
http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/01/10/aol_time/
Fortune Vol 157, No 3, Feb 18, p.18-25

Les generations se suivent et se ressemblent....

Voilà une petite réflexion sur un post que j'ai lu sur les reproches que l'on peut avoir vis à vis des générations passées notamment concernant le mauvais français de nos chers québécois...

Nous sommes la somme de nos expériences. Un peuple est la somme de générations de personnes. Je crois qu'il ya quand même des générations qui se dessinent au fil du temps. Le concept de génération vient avec l'apparition d'évènements marquant. Ainsi comme on a marqué la génération des baby boomers avec les soixante-huitards, bientôt on parlera de la génération internet etc... Mais à mon sens, ad vitam aeternam, une génération aura des reproches à formuler à la génération précédente. Ca fait parti d'une sorte de mélancolie d'un temps révolu que l'on n'a pas vécu. Ce que je trouve drôle, c'est qu'il suffit de savoir que la mémoire est sélective et que l'on tendance à embellir les souvenir pour arrêter de dépeindre un portrait doré du passé et assombrir notre présent.

Aujourd'hui, on parle de fautes commises par les générations précédentes qui ont été plus épicuriennes que l'on voudrait. Je crois que ces fautes là sont vraies. Il n’y a qu'à voir le nombre de familles nucléaires, les familles éclatés, d'autres reconstituées pour s'en rendre compte. Pourtant on commet aujourd'hui les mêmes fautes qu'avant et ce n'est pas prêt de s'arrêter. Là où je rejoins ta pensée c'est qu'effectivement on ne joui pas moins de notre vie qu'avant, on en jouirait même plus au vu de tout ce qui peut nous être offert aujourd'hui vis à vis de ce que nos parents ou grands-parents ont vécu. Le train est en marche et tout le monde le prend: on jouit beaucoup plus de la vie à titre individuel que ne l'ont fait les anciens ou certains pays moins "développés". Ca peut rejoindre un peu le concept d'esprit de société qui je crois s'étiole un peu de ce bord là du "développement".

Nos parents ou grands-parents ont été activistes, se sont battus pour la libération des sexes, se sont battus pour le respect du français au Canada etc. aujourd'hui on se bat pour l'environnement et pour le respect du français au Canada. Certaines choses changent d'autres pas. Mais on vit la même chose dans un cadre différent. La seule tendence commune et qui me désole quelque peu, c'est un nombrilisme qui s'accroit avec des plaisirs de plus en plus individuels et un sens du devoir vis à vis des générations futures qui décroit. Je ne parle même pas du concept de la communauté qui a éclaté à mon sens (à quand remonte la dernière fois que vous avez parlé à votre voisin, que vous avez fait quelque chose pour la communauté?...) À cet égard, on est donc voué à recevoir les reproches des générations futures quant à notre épicurisme.

Alors que l'on arrête de rabâcher les fautes de nos ainés, qu'on arrête de les responsabiliser. C'est facile de s'adosser à une responsabilité collective. 'C’est facile de rejeter la faute sur autrui, mais quid de nous même? Quelle est notre responsabilité vis à vis de nos pairs aujourd'hui et de nos enfants demain? C'est là la question. C'est là où la réflexion commence... pour assurer notre présent et un meilleur avenir.

C'était mes deux sous de réflexion un peu déstructurés je l'avoue.

L'école, du temple du savoir à un foure tout d'éducation

Un petit commentaire au post très intérressant du "bourgeois hautain" sur l'école.

J'adore cette phrase:

"On a fondé, vaguement, un consensus autour de l’idée que la vocation de l’école n’est pas seulement de procurer un savoir à l’élève, mais de lui donner les repères nécessaires afin qu’il se développe pleinement comme individu, comme membre de la société et comme citoyen."

Je crois que tu vois très juste. Les parents se déresponsabilisent sur l'autel d'une école foure tout. Si on restreignait l'école au temple du savoir qu'elle est censée etre et que l'on redonne la responsabilité du civisme et de l'écudation dans le sens francais et non anglais du terme, je crois que çà soulagerait l'école et que ca repartirait son budget de meilleur maniere. Ca conduirait peut etre meme a avoir de meilleurs resultats.

Mais la réalité est triste, on fait de plus en plus de outsourcing dans les companies, tout commen on en fait dans les familles: on externalise l'éducation à l'école et ensuite on lui reproche de ne pas exceller. Ce n'est pas sa vocation premiere. Point. Tout comme on reproche à la Chine de fabriquer des jouets contaminés après lui avoir délaissé tout notre secteur manufacturier en quelques années. Ce n'est pas sa vocation première. Point.

Tout comme pour la Chine, si on fait çà à l'école, il va lui falloir du temps et peut-être de l'argent en plus pour en faire plus.

L'école est censée inculquer le savoir. Même si savoir et éducation sont proches, même s'ils se complètent, si on veut lui délaisser l'éducation de nos enfants, le civisme et la résponsabilité citoyenne, alors il faut lui donner les moyens de nos aspirations. Or que voit-on aujourd'hui? De plus en plus d'heures de travail pour les parents, de moins en moins d'heures pour jouir de leur enfants et pour leur inculquer les bases sociales. On délaisse ce rôle à l'école, à la télévision, à internet ou plus généralement à la société. Alors que l'on ne viennent pas ensuite se plaindre!

Je sais que les parents ont moins de temps à accorder à leur enfants, mais c'est de leur résponsabilité civique que de faire ce suivi de leur investissement. Quand quelqu'un investit en bourse, il fait le suivi de ses actions. Il ne laisse pas la résponsabilité du marcher de faire fructifier ses biens. Tout comme des actions, les enfants sont les actifs des parents (on pourrait même en évaluer le retour sur investissement!), alors faites en le suivi et arretons de faire échoir des résponsabilités à une entité qui en a déjà bien assez. Ou alors, arretons de se plaindre.