DISQUS

It is great to see you standing up for what is important to you and making it your first priority. I'm sure you'll be much happier as a result. Good luck.

This is awesome. Thanks for all of your hard work on this. We really appreciate it.

Rachel, it was great meeting you at SXSW. Thanks for mentioning Profilactic. Keep in touch.

Stan, Thanks for the kind words about Profilactic. We really appreciate it.

We just released a new version that allows you to have more control over your friends' content (i.e. you can pick and choose which feeds to follow).

Thanks again for the mention.

I'll be the lone nut in favor of stretching.

It doesn't bother me because most SD content already looks less-than-stellar on a large display.

I'd vote for leaving it in OAR and letting the user decide, tho.

Oh, I need one of these!

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-01/james-kim-m...

Would love to give this a try.

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-08/gameflys-sl...

I'm getting one as well. Will probably ditch my XBOX 360 HD-DVD add-on if I can score an A2 tomorrow.

Count me in.

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-05/pga-skype-s...

Dave,
I could definitely use the HDMI-HDMI one. I just ordered a 5-port HDMI switch and don't have enough cables yet.

Thanks,
sm

Thanks for great write up on Profilactic. We really appreciate it. It is by far the most comprehensive review I've read.

BTW, I'll be watching you!

It's your blog, so you should cover what you want.

What, I think, is turning some people off is the fact that very few people you cite are looking at Facebook with a critical eye. Jason Kottke has Facebook pegged for exactly what it is IMNSHO.

And the fact that everyone's talking about Facebook doesn't mean that it "matters."

A couple of weeks ago, every news outlet was talking about Paris Hilton. Does she matter?

Actually, FB and Paris have a lot in common. I think both of them are trying to build hype (not a truly useful product) in order to get a big payday. Very little substance or originality.

And I'm not saying that Mark and team shouldn't cash out. That's their call.

It is just a little disturbing to me to see and hear the people on the "A-list" pretend it isn't the next AOL/MySpace. Why? Because they have little widgets now?

Your justification that FB is relevant because people are talking about is disappointing (If everyone jumped off a bridge...). People expect a little more critical analysis. This FB fawning is anything but and, ultimately, erodes credibilty.

Again, this is your blog. You should post whatever you want. You'll never make everyone happy. But since you asked... :)

Wow, Mario is a true believer :)

Actually Mario, Jason Kottke got it exactly right.

http://www.kottke.org/07/06/facebook-is-the-new...

I would love to hear Robert (or anyone else here) explain just what makes Facebook worth $2B. I've heard a lot of hyperpole, but very little else.

I think a better question is "If you had $2B of your own money on the line, would you buy Facebook?"

Thanks for mentioning Profilactic again on Mashable. We really appreciate it.

We know we have some work to do; hoewver, we are willing to take the Pepsi Challenge against any other site in this page. So give us a try and let us know what you think.

And, MrJones, Read/WriteWeb just named us the #2 worst-named web app of all-time. We wear that badge proudly :)

Thanks again, Mashable!

Robert, SoWhatChuThink,
I know there is more to Facebook (and I generally enjoy the site); however, I just wanted to address the topic of the apps (since that what this post was focusing on).

Sure, the Google Reader app lets you see what your Friends are sharing and see trends across the entire network. That's definitely cool and useful.

My larger question is the fact that, while Facebook is facilitating it, they are not really taking advantage of it by baking it into the product. They are letting the Mario Romeros of the world do that.

So while it is great that they are allowing users to extend their platform, the fact that they aren't doing more of this cool stuff themselves seems like a lack of vision on their part.

I actually regret bringing up my site (see, I left the name out :) in my previous post because it makes all of my comments about Facebook seem to have the agenda of promoting our service. I was just using it to point out that Facebook could be doing more with apps on the product side, rather than just enabling them on the platform side, to make a much more integrated and cohesive product.

And I agree, there is a lot to Facebook. I was just commenting on the apps since that was the topic at hand.

While I think it is great that Facebook is allowing sites to build apps that plug into their service, it doesn't feel like they have much of a strategy around the best way to take advantage of it at the product level (i.e. what's the point of all the apps in the big picture of Facebook?).

For example, my Facebook page is quickly becoming a mess of random boxes from one web service or another. There is no integration of the data into the Facebook experience.

In other words, Facebook isn't really adding any value to the experience by letting me add these boxes. Sure, I can add whatever you want and move the stuff around; however, what does that give me, the people who read my Facebook page or Facebook itself long-term? I'd say not much. Seems kind of like MySpace with a better look-and-feel.

DISCLAIMER: I am the co-founder of Profilactic, so the rest of this post may come off like an infomercial :)

The reason we built Profilactic was to actually add something to the experience, not just give people a place to throw random feeds.

On Profilactic, you add the feeds for the networks you belong to (we support over 40 by default and you can add unlimited custom URLs and feeds) and we put them together into a cohesive package that's easier to consume.

To me, Facebook is missing the point by just supporting random 3rd party apps. While it will definitely get them some attention in the short term, I think people are more caught up in the hype of adding the latest app than they are getting real benefit from the apps.

Just as a comparison, check out my Facebook page which has iLike, Google Reader, twitter, Shelfari etc.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500320191

And then check out my Profilactic mashup that has all of that (and more) in a much more useful (IMNSHO) format. And there is no need for a 3rd party app.

http://www.profilactic.com/mashup/smorty71

I think Facebook is being lazy because they have huge member numbers and ridiculous valuations; however, if you take a hard look at the product itself, there isn't much there.

Congratulations, Davis.

I'm using Mozy Unlimited as well. Even with all of the storage available in my home (Drobo, Windows Home Server, etc.), I, too, wanted something off-site. So far, I am very pleased with it.

I was thinking the same thing. Very early to pick a winner.

I also wonder why BB is willing to ignore 30% of their customers while claiming they are listening.

RE: #24 Robert, you're right. I think, in this case, Google is clearly showing stuff you'd see with the naked eye from the street.

Found some more detail on the zoom lens issue from USA Today article. It appears that my memory is still intact.

"You can take any photo that does not intrude upon or invade the privacy of a person, if that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Someone walking in a mall or on the street? Fair game. Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No. Using a long lens to shoot someone in an apartment? No."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewka...

I thought there was some limitation to using a zoom when you are photographing inside a home from the outside (i.e. I can't set up a huge zoom lens outside your home and zoom into the back bedroom from a living room window, for example).

In public, it is fair game. But I think the naked eye thing applies when shooting into a private residence. Maybe I am remembering incorrectly.

Thanks for mentioning Profilactic. It's nice to be included in the same article with Flickr, digg, reddit and Tumblr.

Robert:
We have a son with Asperger's Syndrome which is one of the mildest forms of autism. We, too, think his condition is linked to his early vaccinations. Fortunately, years of occupation therapy worked wonders for him and most people that know our son don't know that he is autistic.

Rolling Stone published a controversial article by Robert Kennedy Jr. back in 2005 on the link between vaccinations and autism and on the alleged cover-up/damage control that has been done by friends of Eli Lilly, the maker of the additive that is believed to be the cause/trigger.

It is definitely worth reading:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395...

Thanks
sm