This being my final (sniff sniff) column ever, I feel it is my responsibility, neh my duty, to do something special. We’ve been through a lot you and I. We’ve watched the tech landscape transform before our eyes, but this is just the beginning I tell you. This technology thing is here to stay.

Technology isn’t about materialistic toys, gizmos or gadgets. Although that’s what I generally prefer to talk about. It’s about change, new ideas and new ways of thinking. It’s the direct result of the knowledge gained in the world we live in. Sure there have been some fads a long the way, but overall I think technology has benefited us all in the long run.

I’ve had a blast writing this column over the years and I appreciate all of you who have read it, even if only every now and then. I’ve had the privilege share with you what I found was new, exciting or noteworthy on the horizon. I could only cover a handful of topics, but believe me there’s plenty more. Hopefully I’ve brought some inspiration to you the reader. I always wanted this column to be about exposure of new ideas and concepts. If just one of the topics I covered impacted you in any way I’ve done my job.

Finally I though I’d provide some insight into myself as the author – much of which you probably have gathered over the years.

For those of you who know me, I am a tech-head. A nut. A gear junkie. I have many names, and I am addicted to technology. There I said it. After years of counseling and hours of self-affirmations I can admit it.

I like the way rubber buttons feel on a good keypad. I smile when software is functional, yet efficient. Hell, I sometimes just let out a big schoolgirl laugh when something works so well its just cool.

I wear the signs of an addict proudly.

At home there’s always an electronic device I’ve taken apart, wire brains exposed, laying around. I carry screwdrivers in my backpack, just incase. Pressing through slow Internet connections, late night benders and language barriers, I parouse through product Web sites from Japan to China, Germany to Russia, just to catch a glimpse of a new press release. I admit it, no matter how ridiculous or far fetched the bad guy’s evil headquarters is in a movie, I’ve found myself pausing DVDs to investigate model names inches away from the TV. I use Firefox.

But more importantly I dream and never settle. I look at all technology with white eyed appreciation of the work that created it and disgust for the potential not yet realized. I imagine what if scenarios. What if this did that, then turned into this, while doing that? Now that would be cool wouldn’t it? Yeah it would. You don’t even know what I’m talking about and you’re already interested.

This is who I am and what I do. I really, truly can’t deny it

I, Brian Immel, am Digitally Distracted.

For some time now digital technology has been inventing new things we’ve never seen before. The futuristic outlook has generated such marvels as multifunction cellphones, life saving medical devices and Furbies. However in a retro twist, technology is looking back to the days of Gutenberg and the printing press. Technology is trying to reinvent how you read books.

Kindle uses a voluntary subscription model. That is, once you stomach the $399 price tag all you’ve got is an over sized plastic coaster. You’ve still got to buy the content. Kindle supports reading existing documents like Word files, eBooks and PDFs you already own and even RSS feeds so you can keep up on news and blogs. However all of the content can only be purchased through Amazon.com.

Humm, you’d think it would be cheaper with all these fees. Say something around the $279.99 that Sony charges for their Reader – a device you can use to view your existing library for free. With the hidden fees that can add up quickly, Kindle has many unattractive qualities akin more to a cell phone than a laptop.

Finally there is light at the end of the tunnel. For being a Kindle user you do get free access to Wikipedia. By weighing in at only 10 ounces, Kindle gives you the chance to be mobile and read wiki articles on how the Holocaust never happened at the same time. Errors aside, Wikipedia’s vast amount of information may be Kindle’s saving grace as it’s free ubiquitous wiki access could justify the price tag.

Personally I am a fan of eReaders, eBook Readers, ePaper – whatever you want to call it. But I’m still hesitant. For me the true coolness of these devices is the displays which actually do give the more natural feeling of reading on good old murdered forest paper. Although they are black and white now, I’ve felt very comfortable reading large amounts of text on them over bright computer monitors. True with these new ‘eInk’ displays you don’t get the satisfaction of knowing something has died, but they do give you the ability to carry an unlimited amount of data without the bulk. Give me color support and some flexible screens (appearing on the horizon) and I’m sold. eFee tax raping or not.

You work hard at your job. Long nights till 3am on the computer. Glazed eyes the next day due to caffeine withdrawal. Too bad you don’t get paid. That’s because you ‘work’ providing social networking sites with your content and your identity.

That seems to be the acceptable lifestyle that companies are placing upon their loyal user base.

Look at the “YouTube Community Council”, a volunteer group started last week made up of active YouTube individuals (5 right now) that is supposed to be the voice of the YouTube community. This group is responsible for voicing the needs and wants of the YouTube community directly to the developers themselves. Now the key word here is volunteer.

But this brings to light the growing trend of profiting from personal content – a line somewhere between a company trying to break even and online identity theft.

It seems like an equal trade. A company provides the services to share, communicate or socialize with others in whatever means you desire, in exchange they sell advertising. Now this trade is shifted out of balance when companies begin to profit from your identity, not just your presence.

Many of us wouldn’t like to turn over the same information that we have on our personal social networking profiles to employers or even the government. But companies like MySpace (News Corp), Yahoo, Facebook and Google are all in a position to sell that data to the highest bidder.

More currently last week Facebook launched its new advertising platform, which allow brands like Coca-Cola to act as real people within the network. In exchange for advertising on Facebook Coke gets demographic and tracking information of users. You can even friend a can of coke.

Now here’s the creepy part. Say I have a friend on Facebook who is not a friend of Coke yet. Facebook will actually advertise to that friend telling them that I like Coke. Something I don’t have to approve or even be aware of to take place. Will that friend be obligated to drink Coke through an online social contract?

Your activity, your content and your presence all benefit a social network. But many of these sites are becoming greedy and are going beyond the mutual success of services for user generated content. Social networks are beginning to sell the user, not the community.

It’s a delicate balance between privacy and community, and what these companies do with the personal information that have accumulated over the years. You could always opt out. Put less of yourself online, but that has it’s own consequences.

After all MySpace would hardly be the giant it is today if Tom was the only member.

But that’s just it isn’t it? Can you have community with privacy? Maybe not, but I at least want a royalty if my identity is being sold.

Google. Google. Google. You’re tired of it, I’m tired of it, but they just acted on my memo titled “Stop Doing Stuff.” As a result waves were made in the online world last week. Small splashes if you like. However, these three stories are the seeds of changes to come with regards to your life in technology. Let’s begin.

I call it “MyOpen LinkedIn Friendster Space”
Google’s round two battle with Microsoft over the future of social networks resulted in the release of OpenSocial. Thinking big picture, Google has created OpenSocial as a standard Application Programmer Interfaces for social networking sites, allowing developers to write code once for any social site that adheres to the standard. This means Facebook favorites like iLike can span every site that uses OpenSocial, not just Facebook.

Rather than create another social networking site that would certainly split up your friends (and time) even more, OpenSocial is Google’s way of connecting many social sites together. A smart move for a company whose own social site, Orkut, is something most have never heard of. OpenSocial will essentially split up the applications from the network itself. In a few years it may be less “which site do you use?” and more “which app do you use?”

Absent from the lengthy list of supporters is Facebook, whose own API standard has brought it much success within the last year but will simultaneously limit its ability to benefit if OpenSocial really takes off.

Granny, don’t!
Looking over their shoulder with every mouse click, privacy advocates are proposing a “Do Not Track” list to the Federal Trade Commission for internet advertising. Similar to the “Do Not Call” phone list, the “Do Not Track” list would force advertisers to no longer track internet users.

It’s important to note that if the list went into effect advertising wouldn’t disappear, but targeted advertising would stop from U.S.-based advertisers. This is obviously big for Google, whose primary business model is AdSense, a context-sensitive advertising network. A list such as this, despite the privacy effects, could cripple Google’s advertising sales. Look who’s paranoid now.

Honestly I’ll take the tailored advertising any day. I’d rather see a banner for the latest James Bond movie than a Flash advertisement that wants me to punch a monkey to win an iPod.

Remember remember, the 5th of November.
Google officially announced news Monday that the long rumored “Gphone” project is shaping up in the form of the Open Handset Alliance and Android, a company acquired two years ago. Similar to the OpenSocial platform, new tools from Android are planned to provide an operating system for cell phones to enable a flood of traditional web services like search and video, as well as potentially new ones like location-sensitive news to run on any phone.

This may not seem like much now, and frankly it isn’t. However the potential for cell phones that benefit from a more cooperative design process could potentially break the current proprietary design wars that leave phones useless in less than two years.

Seemingly content with its del.icio.us and Flickr sites, Yahoo has been absent from the traditional big three – Microsoft, Google and Yahoo – cage match on social networking sites. The result is old school heavyweight Microsoft vs. Web 2.0 lightweight Google. A match that should be listed on Pay-Per-View between WWE Smackdown and Raw. Here’s the play-by-play.

If I could plug my USB mouse into a steamy pile of poo, I’d name it MySpace. For when it comes to truly efficient, relatively child molester-free social networking, Facebook is the place. Facebook has become a seriously delicious asset for social networking when it released its Application Programming Interface earlier this year, opening its system to hundreds of viral widgets like “Super Wall.”

Facebook’s tightly closed system combined with a customizable API is parallel to Google’s API philosophy, which has been responsible for customizations of services such as Google Maps for years. It’s no surprise then Google has been doing all it can to become buddy-buddy with Facebook.

As a result, Facebook was recently in negotiations with both Microsoft and Google over who would be responsible for advertising on the platform, a significant contract to say the least. Microsoft the existing provider, while Google the young gun trying to weasel in.

Although its contract with MySpace gives Google a strong background in advertising on social networks, in the end Microsoft remained and signed a deal with Facebook through 2011.

Although smaller in scope, Microsoft’s positioning with Facebook is more influential in potential advertising dollars than Google’s MySpace deal due to Facebook’s ability to filter by demographics such as schools, location and age. This is also known as an advertiser’s wet dream.

Now out of the Facebook fight, Google may announce as early as next week its answer to the social networking problem. Google’s new platform, code-named Maka-Maka, hopes to transform the social data Google already has by integrating it into its large network of sites and services.

Frankly, this is the least Google can do (other than change the name of the platform) for a company that is usually ahead of the innovation curve. Maka-Maka could be Google’s Facebook killer – possibly leveraging Gmail, YouTube and Google Docs integration.
Now cozy with Facebook, Microsoft – caught with its pants down developing its latest Xbox console – is quick to jump back into the battle of social networking sites. Acquire, acquire, acquire. This is Microsoft’s mantra as it settles into the Karate Kid crane position.

Microsoft has been flirting to buy Facebook to the tune of a possible $10 billion. An expensive prom date compared to the $580 million fast food lunch-in that Fox gave MySpace back in 2005.

Although Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has said an overall buyout of the company is unlikely, last week Microsoft bought 1.6 percent of the Facebook for $240 million. Microsoft essentially wants to buy its way into the social networking party. Something not uncommon for a company of its size.

So as Microsoft and Google return to their corners at the end of the first round there’s a lot to be said.
Lightweight Google, slapped around by the loss of the Facebook bidding war, still sits atop the wide social advertising network of MySpace. Will Maka-Maka be Google’s secret weapon?

Old school heavyweight Microsoft – initially scrambling for any ties to a social network – stays in the fight with a renewed friendship with Facebook. Will the friendship turn into a Facebook haymaker for Microsoft?

Or by gaining strength with its new API and flattering popularity among Microsoft and Google, will Facebook become the young new hotshot and go toe-to-toe with Microsoft, Google and Yahoo?

Stay tuned for round two.

Joining business, home and university internet service Providers, Comcast Corp. – the largest ISP in the United States – is now blocking the BitTorrent file sharing protocol.

But this BitTorrent blocking is censoring your ability to access the internet to its full potential.

This growing trend is justified by ISPs as a way to reduce bandwidth usage and suppress illegal file sharing. This is both effective and true. However, it is also ill conceived and unpractical.

Destroying your computer by fire also reduces bandwidth usage and suppresses illegal file sharing. Again this is unpractical. However, this is the logic of ISPs.

BitTorrent is a protocol – a method of transferring files online. Hypertext Transfer Protocol is also a protocol as well. You might recognize HTTP because it the method used by all websites on the internet.

Considering bandwidth-hogging video sites like YouTube and the convoluted logic of ISPs, websites should be abolished from the internet – or at least ISPs should start blocking them too. Effective, but unpractical.

So why pick on BitTorrent? One word: Pirates.

Internet pirates share illegal movies and software online through BitTorrent. As well as websites, chat rooms and even DVDs.

However fearing potential lawsuits and criminal activity, ISPs are becoming so scared into providing only a limited internet experiences – akin to America Online’s “walled garden” experience.

The problem with this logic is there are legitimate uses for BitTorrent as well. After all, it is a method, what you do with it is up to you. Therefore there is nothing illegal about BitTorrent itself.

So why then haven’t ISPs blocked e-mail because of e-mail spam?

BitTorrent’s decentralized nature is its greatest strength and also, according to ISPs and copyright holders, its greatest threat.

This month, the British band Radiohead decided to boldly offer its latest album “In Rainbows” freely downloadable from its website. The album is now so active through BitTorrent methods that Big Champagne, a company that tracks BitTorrent activity, is indicating that BitTorrent downloads will overtake Radiohead’s website downloads in the coming weeks.

This is where BitTorrent really shines. As the number of downloaders increases, the speed of the downloads increases.

Therefore blocking BitTorrent is becoming something of an issue of censorship. While many downloads are available through BitTorrent as an option, many are only available through BitTorrent because of its efficiency with larger downloads. If you are using and ISP like Comcast or a university connection, this is quickly not becoming an option.

With BitTorrent, content is king. Content producers are releasing content legitimately through BitTorrent as a cheap and independent route, circumventing expensive servers and distribution providers. However as more and more ISPs block BitTorrent as a protocol rather than the illegal content that they are truly afraid of, internet users are loosing out.

Long live BitTorrent. And stay tuned for the harmless/useless internet of 2015.

Customer satisfaction being the center of any successful business venture, Microsoft often resorts to surveys and focus groups to improve its products.Recent alterations to this feedback loop have Microsoft filing for a patent back in August, for mind reading.

Yep, no typo there, the reading of minds.

Looking over patent number 20070185697, Microsoft outlines the process in brilliant patent ambiguity. The system uses electroencephalogram (EEG) machines wired to subjects’ heads like copper dreadlocks. The subjects are then told to navigate Microsoft’s latest doodad software.

The system then measures what the user thinks they should be doing to accomplish the task against the actual interface the Microsoft product has to offer.

So if the software industry were a high school dance, Microsoft would be the shy 800-pound gorilla in the corner too afraid to ask someone to dance. What happened to just asking?

Sci-fi or not, I understand where Microsoft is headed. The competitive nature of business isn’t making technology any easier for the end user.

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD continue to do backflips for customers’ attention while China has introduced a third format – the Enhanced Versatile Disc – just to keep things complicated.

Hardcore gamers can start the paperwork on their mortgage in anticipation of NVIDIA’s upcoming triple Scalable Link Interface graphics card system – which will require computer users to buy not one, but three $300+ graphics cards for their computer to receive the most realistic looking effects. And despite the weight of MySpace and Facebook, more social networking sites popup every day – requiring a new username and opening the door for more e-mail spam.

With the growing complexity of technology, the users are as confused as ever. As a result, companies continue to scratch their heads trying to anticipate what users’ preferences might be. So as desperate as the Cold War-era mind reading program sounds, it may just be an unconventional attempt for technology companies to answer the question, “What are you thinking?”

Competition between companies trying to one-up each other has companies offering new products with a constant array of models, configurations, styles and versions. Each with a new standard, interface or method to adapt to.

I’m all for picking the color of my widget, but the economics of technology have overwhelmed users with every new product release. As a result users are becoming desensitized to specific products or interfaces. Forced to accept the burden themselves, users are becoming more flexible to technology in a general, leaving technology companies guessing their every move.

No wonder you don’t know what users are thinking, Microsoft. The users don’t even know what they are thinking anymore.

I hate AT&T, and apparently they hate you too.

Cingular Wireless, a joint venture between BellSouth and SBC Communications, acquired AT&T wireless, which at the time was a part of AT&T Corp. AT&T Inc., which isn’t the same thing as AT&T Corp., later acquired Cingular Wireless. This resulted in AT&T Mobility, and turned its parent company, AT&T Inc., into the largest telephone, wireless and DSL provider in the country.
This is just within the past couple of years. As you can see, it’s been rough for AT&T.

Now that AT&T is almost as big as it was 23 years ago when the U.S. Department of Justice split up AT&T Corp. after recognizing a near monopoly on the telecommunications system, life should be a bit calmer.
But that would be too simple.

Last week, just to keep things exciting, AT&T updated its Terms of Service agreement on its website referring to all internet customers. The TOS, which is a legal document that often goes through many lawyers before being published, was updated to make some pretty bold statements.

Specifically section 5.1 “Suspension/Termination,” where the TOS states AT&T can terminate your DSL internet or phone connection if AT&T believes you engage in any conduct that “tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.”

As large as it is, is AT&T worried about getting its feelings hurt by users’ opinions? By opinions I mean content that “tends” to.
The company’s partnership with Apple and its iPhone promised “loyal” subscribers as many new users were required to sign a new two-year subscription with a mandatory data plan.

However, many of the iPhones have been released from AT&T and freed to other wireless providers as more users discover ways of controlling the device.

Despite the fuss, Apple has to be happy with iPhone users paying in full before they leave the store. AT&T’s wireless service subscription model is not so lucky. As wireless customers leave AT&T for more favorable carriers, AT&T is losing out, not Apple.
That’s why awkward TOS updates like the one mentioned earlier couldn’t have come at a worse time. It doesn’t place AT&T in the most favorable light. AT&T looks as if it is feeling out of control and doesn’t want to play anymore.

Now matter how confusing the business/legal battle is, AT&T just wants to be a monopoly – and take your money while it’s at it. It has gobbled up its subsidiaries and now it wants more control.

Being such a large telecommunications provider means there’s a pretty good chance that some, if not most, of your daily communications go through AT&T’s network on some level.

So be nice to AT&T. Buy their services. Use phrases like “best carrier ever” and “I know I’d give them all my money” when you talk about AT&T in the future. Then maybe they won’t silence your thoughts.

Idiots walk among us every day. Maybe you know one. Maybe you are one.

My idiot list includes Stella Liebeck, the woman from New Mexico who sued McDonald’s for having coffee served hot. How dare McDonald’s. Liebeck is either a genius or an idiot, depending on what you feel was accomplished with the suit. Our coffee is now cooler, but we seem lawsuit-happy as a result.

Similarly, this week’s addition to my idiot list is Dongmei Li, a woman from Queens, N.Y. Li filed a lawsuit on Sept. 24 against Apple Inc. for lowering the prices on the iPhone by $200 since its release. Why? Because Li stood in line for hours in order to be one of the first to have the new phone and now she can’t resell it.

Now her original $600 4 gig model is no longer being manufactured and the current 8 gig model is getting all the buzz as hackers keep unlocking their phones and freeing them from their AT&T contracts. Li is therefore accusing Apple (and AT&T) of price discrimination, underselling, and unfair and deceptive practices. Oh yeah, and for a pretty $1 million.

I guess I’m no wizard when it comes to basic algebra, because the jump from $200 to $1 million was a number I consistently did not come up with in my calculations.

I’m pretty sure Li is just pissed that her new toy isn’t as expensive as it was last summer. But she does have a point.
Apple is no doubt a evil company – with its price lowering and their iPhoning. What would drive a company to lower the price of a product after its initial launch? Oh wait, that’s called marketing (something Apple is very good at).

That’s really messed up – screwing with your customers like that. What kind of sick company would do that?
Well – companies like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Sharp, Toshiba, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Panasonic and now, Apple. So to sum it up, evil companies that do this are known as “technology” companies.

Technology is constantly changing. Yes, it’s a pain to upgrade often, but that is what keeps you up to date. Yes, there is a premium for having the newest, most expensive gadget as well. Li’s lawsuit makes as much sense as suing because your typewriter doesn’t hook up to the internet, or because your clothes are no longer the current style.

I’m waiting for Li’s next suit, where she may shrug her shoulders and tell the judge that she doesn’t understand why swiping a little plastic card with a Visa logo makes the money disappear from her bank account. This is ignorance, not evil
puppeteering.

Technology is never static. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called technology. Research and development is no small penny for companies releasing new products. If they so wish to charge a little more than the break-even point, that is their choice. You don’t have to buy it.

It’s not like Li was expecting the iPhone to be the end-all-be-all last gizmo she would ever need for the rest of her life. Or is Apple’s marketing that good?

So Ms. Li, I’m sorry you feel left out because you didn’t get the cheaper deal everyone else is getting now. However, you are right in your accusations. You were discriminated against. But that’s called being an idiot, and there’s nothing illegal about that.

We’ve all done it. You are desperately trying to explain a concept to a friend only to get frustrated, whip out a napkin, and proceed to draw your thoughts.

Eventually, because your concept is so grand, you may end up with a series of napkins generating a storyboard of ideas that spreads out across the table. Hopefully the drawing helped and your friend now has a clue to what you are talking about.

That’s the concept behind sketchcasting. You draw what you want to explain on your computer and narrate your thoughts with every stroke. Sketchcasts are a simple and quick way to draw on that napkin virtually again and again.

Basically it is just a video with line drawings on a white screen. I’m sorry to burst your bubble if you thought it was anything more complicated than that.

But it is a fresh take on the cookie-cutter vidcasts that litter the internet with talking heads and flashy intros. After all, sketchcasts just start with a clean white screen and builds upon the idea as it is drawn.

Not a bad idea if the napkin sketch has been serving you well in the past. But what about the rest of us who can’t draw a stick figure without people interjecting that spiders have eight legs, not four?

In the past, sites like YouTube have lowered the production costs of video by placing local Saturday night antics videos next to Hollywood movie studios productions. Sketchcasting lacks this technological handholding.

Audio can be processed to add authority. Colors can be saturated to provide production value to a video. But what can you do to a sketch?

No enhancement is going to make my stick Spiderman look more human. Just as no musical soundtrack is going to make my sketch of a lopsided circle seem amazing. Sketchcasting reverts to a simpler requirement of presentation: talent. However this also limits its ability for mass adoption.

Podcasting has taken some of the power from radio stations by letting many create some kind of personalized show. The same for vidcasts from television stations.

However, as a twist in a time when technology is lowering the bar for media producers; sketchcasting is separating the artists from the rest of us. Not that artists needed another reason to be outcasts.

I can only hope someone develops the technology for me to take advantage of my natural eat-Cheetos-and-watch-TV-casting abilities to be shared online. Until then I’m looking hard for a site that will take my stick figures and turn them into a masterpiece. That will level the playing field for once and for all.

Or I guess could just learn to draw … Now back to editing Saturday night antics videos.