Dear Stranger,

Thank you (I hope) for deciding to follow me on Twitter.

My mamma raised me right and, if she knew what Twitter was, she would have brought me up to at least consider whether I should follow you back. (Mamma might even have thought it would be polite to follow back everyone who chooses to follow me, but mamma liked to drink.)

Stranger, I use Tweetlater to review new followers. Have you tried it? It gives me a snapshot of you. Not the kind you gave to your boyfriend that one time at band camp: a data snapshot. I get to see your description of yourself, your most recent tweet, and your stats (how many people you follow, how many are following you, how many updates you’ve posted and when you joined).

Mamma always said “more haste less speed” but mamma didn’t have the internet. When it comes to Twitter, I’m giving myself five seconds to make my decision about you.

With Tweetlater I can choose to “accept” you. Accepting in this case means I follow you back, not that you’ve finally found someone who understand why you wear women’s clothing, sir. I can also ignore you (you follow me, I don’t follow you), or block you (it just wasn’t meant to be).

Mamma would at least want me to tell you what’s going to make my mind up so here it is.

1. Your description of yourself: Can I see from that why you might be following me? You’re in Australia, you’re interested in social media, you have a sense of humour. Or are you peddling something — God, SEO, weight loss, sex. It’s not necessarily fatal if you are selling something but it has to be something I might want to buy.
2. You have followers. It’s social proof (as the PUAs say), if you’ve got a healthy number of followers. And that number needs to be in proportion to the number of people you’re following. If you’re following 10,000 people and only 20 are following you, Stranger, you’re Norman No Mates and no friend of mine.
3. You’re following a believable number of people. If you joined Twitter a week ago and you’re already following 1,000+ people, you’re obviously undiscerning and haven’t chosen to follow me because you think we might have mutually interesting things to share (I know one of us is interesting of course, so I’ll probably still let you follow me).
4. Your most recent tweet is interesting. This is the least important. You might have heard of the woeful @Scobleizer. I know he’d to think you have. He thinks every tweet should be about business but I respect a work/life balance. Your last tweet knocks you out only if it confirms a doubt arising from the other information. I might forgive you putting your religion up front in your profile (unlikely) but you’re out if your most recent tweet is about letting Jesus into your life. I’m sorry but we’re just not going to get on.

That’s it, Stranger, simple as that. I hope this isn’t goodbye.

Jack
p.s. If I do follow you and you auto-DM me, we’re through.

No news is good news?

I seldom take a train but what I read in the papers supports my little experience: you don’t get much for your tax dollars with Sydney’s trains.

If I ran Sydney’s lamentable railway service I would be falling over myself to help commuters. I might hand out plastic seat covers so they could sit with confidence that their trousers weren’t soaking up last night’s vomit; or I might give them free newspapers so they had something to read other than the smutty  graffiti encouraged by discounted student travel.

What I would not be doing is paying lawyers to menace iPhone app developers who are doing nothing more sinsister than offering rail timetables in a contemporary form. I wouldn’t be doing it for at least three reasons:

Firstly, I’d probably be very, very busy trying to clean up the trains and get them to be punctual. I wouldn’t have time to be threatening commuters and developers with legal action.

Secondly, I’d probably be too embarrassed to spend even more taxpayer money than I already do, especially on lawyers threatening some of the few supporters I do have.

Thirdly, I’d think to myself: hang on, this will save me a dollar or two on developing my own application (see above point about frittering away taxpayers’ money).

“RailCorp‘s primary concern is that our customers receive accurate, up-to-date timetable information,” a spokeswoman said in a statement.

“This includes details of service interruptions, special event services, trackwork and other changes. Third-party RailCorp timetable applications may contain inaccuracies and have the potential to mislead our customers.” via SMH

This is certainly a sensible argument with which one can’t find fault. After all, on the few occasions I have taken the train I have seen RailCorp staff running around with red pens offering to update commuters’ hard copies and printouts of timetables with details of “service interruptions, special events services, trackwork and other changes.” In fact, RailCorp has disabled the “print version” feature of its online timetable so you can never have anything but an up-to-the-minute electronic version. Hang on, no they haven’t, my mistake. But this is all very sensible nonetheless. Really. Why on earth should the public be able to take public information from a public service and make it available to the public? Christ almighty, next step End Times.

Contrast Railcorp’s thick-headed approach to this issue with the Bureau of Meterology‘s enlighted embrace of Graham Dawson’s OzWeather iPhone app. As Graham told our packed-like-a-5.17-commuter-service seminar Entering the Mobile Ecosystem, BOM simply forks over its data to him, no charge, no drama, no issues.

It’s almost as if BOM thinks to itself, “We’re paid for by the public, maybe the information we generate by spending that money should, you know, belong to the public.” Communists.

Maybe, and here’s some real craziness, RailCorp should be spending its time and money making the trains run on time, not worrying the public might be “misled” if iPhone app developers give them access to the published timetable. Or, and now my brain is really starting to hurt, they help these guys to incorporate up-to-the-minute information into the app because it is, you know, web-enabled so that would be an — argh! the pain, the pain! — a win-win.

An awful lot of work is now missing.

Anne Bartlett-Bragg is not a child pornographer. Recently, however, she was treated as one when she and other community members were locked out of her all her Ning social networks in connection with what Ning says was a child pornography investigation into one of the networks.

Her story is a warning for anyone relying on cloud computing — outsourcing the storage of information or provision of software to online providers like Google (Google Docs, Gmail, etc.).

Ning is one such provider: it allows users to form their own customisable social networks. Bartlett-Bragg liked their networks so much she set up “five to 10” communities on the site for students (she is a consultant at UTS) and clients.

On 10 February this year Bartlett-Bragg found she couldn’t get into any of her communities on Ning.  Every time she tried to log on she received a message saying:

“This social network has been taken offline by its owner. It’s likely that the owner will bring it back online shortly.”

But she was the owner, she hadn’t taken it down, and she didn’t want it online shortly: she needed it online now. Her clients and students couldn’t get into the networks either.

“Students were trying to access work. We all panicked,” Bartlett-Brown says.

She wrote to Ning immediately. “An awful lot of work is now missing,” she told them. It would be six more emails before she found out her account had been suspended owing to a link to child pornography.

As any self-respecting social networker would do, Bartlett-Bragg also turned to Twitter to ask if anyone else was having trouble with the site. They weren’t but user @lauraoatning, a “community advocate” at Ning, responded and said she would look into it.

Bartlett-Brown was now pursuing a solution through the Ning help centre and through @lauraoatning but, having taken Bartlett-Brown’s details, @lauraoatning quickly went quiet.

And Bartlett-Brown was having no joy with the help desk either. Their first email came within minutes of her raising the issue, a service level Bartlett-Brown continues to acknowledge as exceptional, especially for a free account.

It didn’t help, however: Courtenay from “the Ning Team” suggested that Bartlett-Brown log in and take her communities online again. But, as Bartlett-Brown had said in her original message, she couldn’t log in. When she tried she got one of a variety of messages: sometimes the site said there was no such user, other times it said the password was invalid.

Finally she received an email from Alex of the Ning Team, who wrote breezily:

“Your account has been re-enabled and all of your networks are back online! We temporarily removed your account in order to appropriately investigate the posting of some illegal content on your network.”

The network in question was a little-used community restricted to members of the family. (Ning says the network was set to public. Bartlett-Brown, a “very confident” Ning user, is adamant that it was not. “I educate other people about this,” she says.)

Unsurprisingly Bartlett-Brown was alarmed by the report of illegal activity. She replied quickly,

“What was the inappropriate content! I’m really really concerned about this!!! Would really appreciate some more information!”

It was only after this that Bartlett-Brown was told that the content was “suspected child pornography” and that the [US] National Center for Missing and Exploited Children had been notified.

This gave rise to concern on Bartlett-Bragg’s part that it was she, as the network creator, who had been reported to the US authorities. “What if I try to get a US visa?” she asks.

Contacted for this post, Jason Rosenthal, SVP of Business Operations for Ning, offers immediate reassurance on that point, “We reported the person who was the source of the illegal content to the authorities, not Anne herself.”

He also underlined, “The entire process from when Anne first contacted us to when we completed the investigation and restored access to all of her social networks took less than 12 hours.”

The potential impact of shutting down a network for 12 hour period, however, is huge. The “popular networks” link on the Ning homepage shows networks with hundreds of thousands of members.

As Twitter user @azeem estimated when Gmail went down in February, the economic cost can be enormous:

azeem: #gmail let’s count the cost. 25m users, 33% affected; average of $50 per hour lost productivity = $415m per hour economic cost.

Free services cease to be free very quickly when they go out. Productivity suffers and data may not be completely restored. In Bartlett-Brown’s case she is still dealing with irksome problems after the restoration of her networks: entries have been corrupted with inaccurate dates, messing up chronology and archiving.

The exchanges between Ning and Bartlett-Brown also failed to explain why all her networks would be disabled and all users shut-out of them because one had been poisoned.

“I’d just prefer to see a process that notifies the network creator – rather than banning me too. And then doesn’t take all my other networks offline as well,” she wrote, keeping her cool. “As I wasn’t the offender.. it seems a very harsh knee jerk reaction…  makes me feel like a criminal.”

Ning says it has reviewed and changed its policies in the light of the incident and Bartlett-Brown’s suggestions. “In response to our experience with Anne, we’ve actually changed our policy so that going forward, we would only disable the member suspected of illegal activity rather than the entire network itself,” Rosenthal says.

The fact remains that users are coming to rely on services that their providers are under no obligation to maintain but where the effect of withdrawl is significant.

Are you one of them? What are your experiences? And what are you doing to mitigate against a #gfail?

It’s been over a year since the iPhone first made it’s debut, and over 6 months since it’s been in Australia. I was one of those who patiently waited in line for hours, to have that little metal and plastic communication device in my hand. But the days since queuing for the phone seem a somewhat distant memory, and these days, it seems as though every second person has an iPhone, or a Blackberry, or some kind of device that is more than those old 3210’s we all used to have. 

What I find interesting, is seeing how differently those of older age demographics use their phone, to those in the younger category (i.e. Gen-Y). Most every time I see somebody aged 35+ with a new iPhone in hand, a combination of the following usually takes place:

1. The box stays unopened for a few days, most likely due to a fear or uncertainty towards the new device
2. Help or Assistance for setup is requested from somebody who is “in the know” on the device
3. The first setup happens, complaints start rolling in about the glitches or shortcoming of the device, and instant references are made to the “what ever happened to a phone being just a phone”
4. A complaint is made about the screen being too small/large/bright/dark and the keys being too small/virtual/close together. 
5. The discovery of features begins. Usually this seems to take shape of calendar syncing, email delivery, and attaching photos to contacts.
6. Applications are discovered (generally on iPhones more than other devices), and suddenly the users phone is populated exclusively by pointless apps that simulate “drinking a beer” or rolling a ball along a path, etc…

On the flip side, there’s the initial adoption of a new device by those within the Gen-Y demographic, which seems to trend remarkably different. Now, at this point, I should make a note about a very interesting observation. Yes, the iPhone is a popular device, it’s had a remarkable effect on the industry, and has had more than it’s fair share of press coverage. But when it comes to those in the sub 20-year-old market (especially girls), the Hiptop is by far the preferred choice of smartphone. If you haven’t noticed this trend, or this comes as news to you, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your thinking. Any connected, modern, in-style and social under-20’s kid these days, is a Hiptop carrier.

Anyways, back to the new-device adoption. Usually, a combination of the following:

1. Item is unpacked at the store, or on the way back from the store. Instantly opened and in use.
2. Customisation takes place. Ringtones get messed with, backgrounds changed, icons customised. Within minutes, the phone is in a very far place from it’s “factory settings”.
3. Connection is made. Amazingly, I’ve seen so many Gen-Y’s who have changed their iPhone settings around, to no longer have the “Phone” icon on the bottom strip of frequently used apps. Usually, it’s replaced by the Facebook or MySpace app, occasionally, by the Camera app. 
4. Status is updated to reflect your new connectivity. It’s amazing the number of people who I see in my Facebook and MySpace streams who’s status reads “XXX has a new iPhone/Hiptop/Blackberry”
5. IM goes active. Something I almost never see in the older demographic, but is one of the first things to happen with the youngens, and that is the downloading of an Instant messenger application (or in the case of Hiptops, the switching on of MSN).

So, from this (admittedly anecdotal) set of comparisons, what can we tell about this difference in device usage from different age groups? Well, firstly, and unsurprisingly, the level of comfort in using the device is astounding. Secondly, the very nature of the usage of these devices is shifting. As older types are clearly focused on productivity applications, phone calls, efficiency in usage, as well as a bit of the “check out what my phone can do” touting. Younger groups seem to care less about managing their calendars (which is an interesting side note, as most Gen-Y users don’t necessarily seem to care exactly what time things are happening, but more on what events and options are on today, which is primarily held in the cloud anyway) and more about extending their existing online capacities into the new device. Taking things they can already do (IM their friends, go on social networks, upload photos, watch YouTube clips, etc..) with them wherever they go.

So what does this say about your presence in the mobile ecosystem? Well, firstly and most prominently, if you have any kind of online presence (which, let’s admit, by this stage, you should), then it’s expected that you have a mobile presence that at the very least, replicates your online functionality. If a user can do something through a browser, they should be able to do it through their mobile device. Regardless of how you see mobile working with your existing systems, or how you see it integrating with your “digital mix”, users in this demographic will just expect it to be there.

So, before you start looking at “expanding” your offering to include mobile devices or fantastic new portable functionality, the first question any business should really be asking itself is: Can a user do what they can in a browser, through their mobile?

Official: Facebook is a blog

The Age yesterday reported that “blog” rants on Facebook about an alleged arsonist had been pulled down. (Yes, Facebook isn’t a blog but for once heritage media’s failure to understand these things isn’t the point.) 

The posts in question had threatened an alleged #bushfires arsonist. Threatening people is illegal of course but there is also the potential contempt of court by anyone reporting on those who have been charged with a criminal offence but whose trials have not concluded. (Margaret Simons wrote on sub judice in Crikey earlier this month)

Laurel Papworth, social network strategist, vs David Galbally, TV QC

This morning Laurel Papworth tried to school the massed forces of Mike Munro, Melissa “What’s the Internet?” Doyle, and David Galbally, a QC from television. M, M and D were suggesting on Sunrise that Facebook should assume complete responsibility for everything its users write. Laurel was playing the part of Reason. After all, do we blame the telcos when mobile phones are used to set off bombs?

The wrong question

They were (not unusually) asking Laurel the wrong question. Facebook will, like any other company, hop to when presented with the right notification. And that shouldn’t trouble lawyers too much — just as they get paid to issue cease-and-desist notices in intellectual property cases, they’ll get fees to patrol Facebook and everyone will be happy.

The right question

The right question is: What can we expect of ordinary users now they are publishers? Giving away the address of an alleged criminal caught in the judicial process is one thing in the pub — although no less illegal, I’d venture — but it’s quite another screaming it to a potential audience of millions, as was being done on Facebook.

The answer: STFU

Laurel tweeted after the interview:

“When the cameras were off, Mel and Mike said to me “we (journalists) can’t do it, so you can’t”. When is news ‘News’ & when is it ”chat’?”

And Melissa and Mike are right about that.* We, the people, do not have the right to do more than journalists do. If we as a society believe reporting certain information about a crime will affect the fairness of any trial, we have to shut up about it. And that “we” can’t just be heritage media. This blog post could turn up in anyone’s Google search so why should I be held to different standards than the Sydney Morning Herald? I’m not held to different standards when it comes to defamation or other laws.

If, on the other hand, we’re in favour of unrestrained comment at any point in the judicial process, then we must change the law through our elected representatives, not call the courts and officers of the law stupid because they try to enforce the law we asked for. (But, to echo my earlier point, fair play to anyone calling them stupid for thinking Facebook can filter its millions of users without help.)

The silver lining

In the meantime, let’s see this for what it is: more mainstream recognition of social media and networks as the powerful forces for organisation and dissemination that they are. In making that recognition, the establishment is showing us the respect and — in some cases — contempt we deserve. There are plenty of “new” media mavens who bemoan the earlier lack of recognition and who talk up the fact that Twitter is now first on the scene of many major stories. Well, here are the media QCs of Queensland and the hosts of Sunrise delivering your recognition: “new” media shapes public perception and with great power comes great responsibility (or something less pompous than that but you know what I mean).

Laurel vs David on Sunrise (YouTube video)

*Although whichever of Laurel or Melissa is calling Melissa a journalist is most definitely wrong.

OzWeather, best-selling Australian app for the iPhone

In January Apple announced there had been 500 million downloads from its app store. That would have been a wonderful result for a store that had been open for only half a year; but it’s astounding when the figure stood at “just” 300 million downloads a month before.

OzWeather is the most successful Australian iPhone app in the Apple store. Priced at $2.49, it hasn’t been out of the Australian store’s top 10 since its launch in November last year. At the time of writing, it had the top spot.

It’s author, Graham Dawson, is a self-taught app developer, having made a career from developing niche software on other platforms. He estimates development costs at $15,500 (the amount he would have had to pay another developer to do what he did). That put the break-even point at just a few months from the release date. (After taxes and Apple’s cut, Graham makes roughly $1.60 per copy sold.)

“There’s certainly a market for more Australian apps,” Graham told me. “Every country has its own needs and cultural aspects. There are lots of niches out there.”

Aside from proving a demand for local apps, Graham has shown that users will pay for Australian content even when they’re getting something similar for free: the iPhone comes with a Yahoo-powered weather app as standard but its data is not as authoritative as OzWeather’s, which comes directly from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. There are plenty more sources of trusted Australian data that could be converted to an app.

“You just have to go out and look at what those niches are,” says Graham.

Beyond sales, there is the benefit to companies developing apps of getting their content in front of influential customers who will pass on what they like, making recommendations to their friends.

“iPhone users are passionate, viral, they’ll share their information and their findings,” says Keith Ahern, CEO of Australian-based Mobile 2.0 developers MoGeneration. “It’s easy to think iPhone owners are just 300,000 users out of a population of 19 million they can — and do — use iPhone apps to share content with people who don’t have iPhones. So they’re ‘only’ 300,000 people but their sphere of influence goes well beyond that.”

Graham seen first hand the passion of the mobile community. “Typically I get half a dozen emails a day from the feedback button in the app,” he says. “It’s extremely valuable.”

Graham Dawson will be speaking at our Entering the Mobile Ecosystem seminar on 2 February.