Note that I had not yet logged in via Facebook at this point, but Netflix was already showing me my Facebook friends who are already using Netflix. My question is, how? Surely a website can’t just access your Facebook data without authorisation, and if it can, what else is it able to access?

A quick test showed that when signing out of Facebook, the Netflix page stopped giving me personalised results, but I checked the Facebook App Security page and Netflix was not listed, i.e. I had not previously authorised it in some capacity. This was a website I had never provided any information to before that was accessing my Facebook details.

I’m pretty dubious about this and would love to understand what is going on here.

Google are now integrating Google+ profiles into their search results. This has caused a large amount of controversy because they are giving their own social network prominence and not including Twitter or Facebook results. This is being regarded as potentially anti-competitive; that they are using a legal competitive advantage in one market (search) to leverage an advantage in another (social networks). Google have then proceeded the fuel the fire by being completely disingenuous about their actions.

Here’s a timeline in links:

First, Google’s announcement.

Here’s an example of a Google+ profile appearing in a search, clearly promoting G+ over the Twitter profile that the search is obviously for, and here’s the search that proves that Google have the profile in their search database.

Here’s Twitter’s response (emailed to MG Siegler) indicating that they are not best pleased.

Here’s Google responding that it is all Twitter’s fault by not renewing their data feed agreement.

Here’s Eric Schmidt responding to the allegations (video), in perhaps the most awesome display of unflinching nerves and poker-facedness I’ve ever seen in the face of crystal-clear questioning about Google’s dodgy practices.

Here’s the blog post of the guy who performed the above interview.

Here’s MG Siegler’s take on it, with some good explanations about why Google are being completely deceptive.

Finally, another take on the whole thing, from a marketing perspective, and what it means for business and SEO.

What a strange old game. They’re all playing it, but at the end of the day Google are manipulating the search results, hiding pages they are fully able to show, in order to show users not what they are looking for, but what Google want them to see. This is a bad thing, and a very dangerous game for Google to play.

I wasn’t going to blog again today but having just discovered this article on the OnLive blog, I couldn’t resist (I know, I’m just crazy).

To recap, OnLive provide a cloud gaming service, whereby full-quality console games stream instantly to your computer or TV with no need for downloading or installing. All you need is a fast broadband connection (+5Mbps). I am an avid fan and consider not only the concept to be the future but the implementation to be outstanding (i.e. it works).

Now, OnLive have announced a cloud computing platform, built on the same technology. What this means is that you’ll be able to access a virtual Windows desktop (on an iPad or another computer), with Office apps and shared documents, that responds as quickly to your touch as a normal mouse click on a normal computer. Even the best remote desktop solutions still exhibit some form of lag, but if this service does what it says it does, there will be no lag and instant response.

The main caveat at this time is that you aren’t accessing your home desktop. It is a totally separate desktop, hosted by OnLive, with access only to the apps that they have decided to support (currently looking like just Word, Excel and Powerpoint available at launch). You’ll then be able to share the files you edit/create with your other computers.

I can’t wait to see this in action. Oh, and did I mention that it is launching this Thursday? Successful products get launched, not just announced (Google “RIM” for the opposite strategy).

I think we are now entering an exciting phase of the next evolution of movie distribution and consumption. Broadband speeds are reaching acceptable levels for HD streaming across a wider audience as prices reduce and availability increases, and people are increasingly less worried about no longer owning the physical media (we’ve already seen/are seeing the success of Spotify in music).

I really thought we’d see more growth in the ‘download then watch’ market, as a filler step between DVD rental and video streaming, but I’m pleased that we seem to be skipping that clunky transitional phase and going straight to the streaming goodness.

I also think that the streaming services are going to be really good for the industry, as they are the easiest way for movie pirates (consumers not the bootleggers) to move to a legal alternative that offers the same (if not better) convenience, quality and choice at an accessible price-point.

I’ll take a more detailed look at the available services and their pricing in due course. Watch this space…

—

Ok, the title should have ended in a question mark but I refuse to put question marks in titles because the answer is invariably “no” (want proof? Pick up a tabloid and try it). Or click here.

The usual debate is ensuing, regarding the fragmentation of the Android OS due to the phone manufacturers’ inability to provide these updates to their shouldn’t-yet-be-obsolete devices (for reasons varying from supposed hardware limitations to the companies prioritising their own custom UIs over a full Android upgrade).

What is interesting to me is that people seem to be surprised by this announcement. The very nature of the Android ecosystem (that users are reliant on carriers, phone manufacturers AND Google for system updates) means that every single OS update will cause controversy and frustration for existing Android phone owners who are more than likely not going to be eligible for it.

What are we all hoping to achieve by rehashing this argument again? Until phone manufacturers start prioritising their user experience and customer satisfaction over their own ill-fated attempts to differentiate themselves in an un-interesting competitive (Android) landscape (for more on this have a read of Matt Alexander’s post on his blog ONE37), this debate will never die.

Here’s an interesting clause:

Most favored nation. This is a deal term demanded by every major label that ensures the best terms provided to another label are available to it as well. This greatly constricts the ability to work out unique contractual terms and further limits business models. It is a form of collusion since each label gets the best terms the other label negotiates. It’s also why it’s easy to get one label (typically EMI) because they’ll provide low-cost terms knowing that others will demand higher rates, which EMI will then garner the benefit from.

I’ve read at least one well-regarded web pundit comment on whether this will pave the way for more artists to bypass the publishers. It’s worth noting Radiohead tried the very same tactic in October 2007 (over 4 years ago), and that didn’t really set off any shifts in distribution methods.

While it may be nice to think artists could be successful bypassing the various corporate channels, I think they still need to find a way to consolidate the distribution if they want to compete against services like Spotify and iTunes. In a world where consumers expect more functionality from fewer services (corporate ‘ecosystems’ like those of Apple and Amazon), they are not going to go to individual websites to download DRM-free content on a mass scale.

The UP is a wristband made by Jawbone that tracks your activity and sleep levels and provides reports and feedback using an iPhone app and vibration alerts.

Apparently there have been reports of users experiencing problems with battery life and iPhone syncing, and Jawbone last week announced a full refund to all UP owners, regardless of whether they return the device or not. They have also halted all production of the devices until they are satisfied the problems are resolved.

That is a really impressive response. They didn’t try and explain their way out of it or try to pass the buck, and instead accepted substantial financial losses (in refunds and sales) in the interest of providing a first class service to their customers. Of course, they should have identified this problem prior to launch and prevented release until fixed, and there are surely questions to be asked about how that did not happen.

Compare this to Apple’s response to their iPhone 4 antenna issue, which started by saying it was a software glitch, then hosting an event pointing the finger at the competition and then giving out free bumper cases (if it wasn’t a problem, why give out free cases?). They seem to have gotten away with it, but I think they could have been far more honest. Besides, if it wasn’t a problem, why re-design the antenna for the iPhone 4S?

There are a few companies out there that are treating excellent customer service as the number one priority in order to drive the growth of their business, and I include Amazon as another example. The competition in the market is such that customers can afford to be selective and therefore customer loyalty is something a company must strive for and earn.

OnLive have released an Android app, meaning you can now play the same on-demand games from your PC/Mac/Game System on your Android phones. I don’t have an Android device so I can’t test this or confirm if it runs on Android tablets as well, but this is great news. It shows OnLive have not only got ideas but are able to execute them and bring them to market (a lesson for RIM maybe?).

Interesting that they are launching on Android first, with no specific mention of iOS. I imagine this is because of the fewer App Store restrictions, allowing them to bring the universal controller (see below) to the experience, which I am not sure will be possible on iOS (although I really hope I’m wrong).

In addition, they have announced a universal wireless controller that will allow you to play on all OnLive devices with a single controller. This is completely new – playing a game on your tablet (or smartphone to a lesser extent) using a gamepad would indeed be awesome.  From the launch site it looks like you’d need an adapter to play on the Game System which is a bit backward, and its a shame this isn’t coming bundled as part of the OnLive package and requires an additional £40 purchase.

E.g. Addressing the commonly-held belief that Android owners don’t buy apps:

95% of all Pocket Casts revenue in November was made on Android, not iOS.

I must admit some of these are a tough pill to take; e.g. I still don’t know why someone who values interface/app design and usability would choose Android over iOS.

(source)