I’m not sure I can blame Google for trying to wrap a beast of a product into a simple interface and I’m sure they’ve tried their best.  But, man oh man one wrong checkbox and you could get screwed. 

You might say “well, that’s why you have daily budgets!”  That would be true except that when you have a small budget paired with ads being shown evenly through the day, you have a different sort of problem. 

Excuse me while I go heal myself.

Today I was talking to someone about their iPhone application product that made generally heavy use of Facebook Connect to publish stories to a user’s feed.  The product posted a story to the user’s feed which when clicked went (and continues to go) to a splash screen askin the user to download the app on their iPhone.  I recommended that they build out for the web and potentially mobile web keeping in mind the fact that users on the receiving end may not click on the story on an iPhone.  His answer: right now we’re iPhone app and iPhone app only.  In fact, caring about other platforms wasn’t in even on the long-term radar for them.

It’s one thing to say “we don’t have the bandwidth for that” but a completely other to disregard the obvious truth that users may not be on their iPhones when reading Facebook stories.  Instead, put *something* of actionable value to the audience so that you get the intended effect of true viralness.  Even if a friend were to have an iPhone, there’d be a good chance that she be on their laptop viewing Facebook.  What then?   A slight imagination could expect her to go back to her iPhone, search for the app in the app store and download it then – or perhaps download from her laptop through iTunes and then sync.  Seriously?

This is the fundamental problem in harnessing the value of Facebook Connect on mobile devices.  You need an all-inclusive strategy covering every platform near and far in order for it to have the intended effect of having the audience do what you need them to do.  Case in point is Twitter – they don’t necessarily have a client for each platform but they make sure that when a user clicks on a twitter profile for any user no matter whether on a laptop or a mobile device, it renders the way it should.   More and more companies are following suit with mobile versions of their website and perform quick browser detection routines and redirecting users accordingly.  I’m waiting for Wordpress to officially accept WPtouch and bake it in as a standard feature considering it renders well on webkit browsers (Android and Safari alike).

But back to the main point: Facebook Connect as a viral technology on iPhone needs serious review and thought by developers who intend to use it in the first place.

That being said, this Nexus One buzz makes me want to vomit.  For one, it seems to implicitly antagonize hardware manufacturers from wanting to commit themselves exclusively to Android considering the proprietor of the OS is now jumping in with a device of it’s own.  HTC wins both ways but Motorola?  Samsung?  and um… Sony?

Google decides to dock the price of the “under-contract” plan for the Nexus One by $100.  Whoop-tee-doo.  Tell me how this is a game-changer please?  The unlocked version of this phone is not a novel idea; entire sections of e-tailer websites have unlocked versions of phones available.  Quite frankly, the fact that other Android phones do not have unlocked versions makes the openness of the platform feel not-so-open.

Android now has literally a handful of OS versions out in the wild – 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.0.1, and 2.1.  2.1 was released with the Nexus One and a few days earlier than the SDK for the same was made available to developers.  This seems a bit backwards and I’m surprised that the other hardware manufacturers aren’t keeping up to pace with the Android versions as they get released.  This staggered nature of the platform simply confuses users and developers the same.

It’s kind of ridiculous that the companies themselves are getting pinned down while their partners in crime (Orbitz, Priceline.com, Buy.com, 1-800 Flowers, Continental Airlines, Fandango, and Classmates.com) seem to be going scott free.

Why is this unfair?  Because the data that customers provide during their purchase on the partner site gets shared with 1-click (sometimes even before the purchase is made thus cannibalizing a sale on their own site).  Surely the partners knew what was happening here and could have avoided the confusion on part of the user at the tail end of a purchase – or just eliminate the offer altogether.  I’ve purchased on many of the partner sites mentioned and its nothing short of amazing what these companies are willing to do to make a quick dollar on abandoned shopping carts.  Buy.com puts the loyalty program offer before the transaction is complete and has a small gray button labeled “no thanks, please complete my offer” with the loyalty button placed more prominently.

What’s my point?  Seemingly “white hat” companies (1-800-Flowers, Continental Airlines and Buy.com) are massively involved in the circulation of these scams and should share the blame and guilt.  More importantly, if the companies themselves are attacked for having the loyalty programs, so should the distribution channels through which they thrive.

I know very little about world politics but I wonder the following: Is Ehadadi more upset with the NBA or with the Iranian government for obstructing his future as an NBA player?  This is an important question in my mind because if it’s the case that he’s upset with the NBA, it only makes the situation worse with a disgruntled citizen denouncing the US and not their own government.  I believe the US has been banking on the latter though: that Ehadadi condemn his country’s government for having such fundamentalistic principles.  Considering that the world opinion of the US is at an all-time low (sorry no statistics to back this up so shoot me), I’d be inclined to believe that his beef would be with the US.

Here’s the way I see it: there are a lot of ostracized children out there that get picked on in grade school; sometimes to the point at which they *wish* they could do some damage.  They feel alienated and effectively turn *into* aliens because society (as a whole) has managed to set them apart and at a distance.   Cho executed on a plan that I’m sure other so-labeled outcasts have concocted many times in the past.  Imagine if you simply put a gun in the hand of one of these frustrated kids.  I’m not sympathizing with Cho – what I’m saying is that society is partly to blame for this and that while it’s easy to compress explanations and accountability into one person (Cho), it’s much harder to divide it up and take partial or major responsibility.

It’s sad that Americans must now live in a state of fear both in the global arena and domestically.  I know that there was a time when I took safety for granted and the real “bad places” were the bad neighborhoods in the city.  It’s slowly becoming the case that your own neighborhood – perhaps even your own neighbor – could be dangerous.

If Cho were alive and if it were possible to rewind back and fix the problem, what would the solution be?  One could analyze and study his personality and lock him up as a psycotic threat to society.  Or, if we rewind much earlier in his life, just being kind and accepting of him as a person might have prevented this tragedy.  What would the earlier accomplish other than saving the world from *one* potential threat – while others with the same complaints itch to make their statement at the expense of other innocent people?

American late night shows poke so much fun at other nations and their idiosyncrasies – meanwhile, America is the one to be laughed at and wagged a finger at when news like boys killing their girlfriends and then committing suicide shows up.

I just read this interview with a U.S Army Officer Ehren Watada who refused deployment in Iraq.  I think the interview was done wonderfully with a lot of devil’s advocate questions to all Watada to polish and defend his position.  There are many serving armymen who do not feel comfortable about their deployment but few who speak up for fear of public denouncement (either by civilians or their colleagues).  It’s not surprising when you start reading the comments of that same interview.  (There are some downright imbeciles who post but do not realize that this is not a black-or-white issue but one that demands shades of gray.)

I’ve never served in the military – however many of the issues Watada brings up are what convince me that it doesn’t make sense to join.  The idea that your entire life is invested long-term only to possibly juggled with by political powers for what could end up being personally advantageous is disgusting.  Especially with as many lives as are being lost daily in this conflict.  Granted, an oath is taken by any soldier prior to his commitment, being played with is disturbing.  This is not Risk – this is real!