1. Hide group and page memberships

Facebook changed its formal Privacy Policy to say that "pages you are a fan of... and networks" are now totally public information (along with many other things). There's apparently no setting to shield page and network data, which leads to terrible situation like this one, sent in as a reader plea:

All of a sudden my grandmother can see that I belong to the Queer Graduate Student Union and Open Relationships Networking Group. Please help. I can't bring myself to de-friend my grandmother!

UPDATE Dec. 17: We're not sure if this is new, but this can now be changed by going, confusingly, to "Application Settings." Go to the "Settings" menu at the top right of your profile page, then select "Application Settings," then scroll down to "Groups" and select "Edit settings." Set to "Only me" (click to enlarge):

Thanks to the tipster who walked us through this. Sadly, even as one privacy mystery was resolved, we were made aware of another. See below.

2. Block Facebook activity from appearing on your wall

There used to be a setting that allowed users to prevent Facebook activity from automatically showing up on their Facebook wall, thus blocking updates like "John commented on Jane's picture," "John is now friends with Bob," "John is attending Uber Gay Circuit Party 2010," etc. This setting is apparently gone, and you have to remove such notices one at a time.

Writes one tipster:

It is extremely annoying not to mention a complete tell of how often I use Facebook during work hours:)

3. Prevent strangers from friending you

It used to be you could keep non-friends from sending you a Facebook friend requests, although they could confirm. That's not the most, well, social way to use a social network, but judging from our email, it was a frequently used and valued feature. Wrote one Gawker regular:

Before the changes I wasn't searchable on FB and hence friended only those I wanted to friend, in essence, I would initiate the request. But... I am now getting friend requests from people I don't know, or worse, from people I know but I don't want to befriend on FB...

Facebook now makes you offer the "Add friend" option to all friends of friends — you can't restrict any tighter than that, so strangers can still send you friend requests. Screenshot (click to enlarge):

4. Completely hide friends list

Your friends list, too, is considered public information. Though you can remove it from your profile, you can't keep friends of friends from seeing it. They just have to pull up one of your friends' friend list, click you name, and view your friends list.

Writes one reader: "Many of us are concerned, seeing as how there are thousands of people faced with the threat of stalkers." Another, right on cue:

I have been dealing with a deranged, threatening stalker... There is no way of keeping your Friend list private... I have been obsessively reading about this topic [overall Facebook privacy]... To say I'm outraged is an understatement.

We thought Facebook might be improving this, but we continue to receive emails like these, and Facebooks written Privacy Policy still states that friends lists are now public information.

5. Block Wall announcements that you've been tagged in a photo

You can keep photos of yourself out of the "Photos" tab on your profile, even if they've been uploaded by other people. But it seems you can't block from your Wall announcements that you've been tagged in someone else's photo , which sort of defeats the purpose: It leaves your profile as a very convenient central location for any incriminating pictures of yourself.

You can remove each notification manually, but that becomes a game of whack-a-mole.

Wrote one Facebooker:

I've already blocked everyone from viewing photos that I'm tagged in, but I'd prefer that my friends not even see that I've been tagged in the small preview photo that gets posted to my wall every time someone tags me.

UPDATE: According to a helpful tipster, this can be disabled by going to the Settings menu at the top right of your Facebook home page, then to "Application Settings," then the "Photos" application, then click "Edit settings." Then click the "Additional Permissions tab," and there is an option to "Publish to streams." Uncheck this. Like so (click to enlarge):

UPDATE: 6. Profile photo

While it's possible to restrict your profile photo album, your main profile photo is one of the pieces of personal data that was forcibly made public by Facebook when it updated its formal Privacy Policy. The best you can do is upload a fake pic, or remove your profile photo entirely; there's no way to have a profile photo that only your friends see.

And more, we're sure

We'd love to be wrong about any of these privacy rollbacks, so if you know of settings or workarounds we've overlooked, do email us at tips@gawker.com. Conversely, if we've left out a lost privacy option you feel strongly about, let us know about that, too.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (pictured) originally said his social network's privacy changes were intended simplify and enhance the privacy experience on the site. Judging from our inbox, it would seem he's achieved neither.

Past coverage:
The Valleywag Guide to Restoring Your Privacy on Facebook, Dec. 15
Facebook's Great Betrayal, Dec. 14
Facebook CEO's Private Photos Exposed by the New 'Open' Facebook, Dec. 11

Ideally, we'd all be allowed to just accept Facebook's recommended settings. But the social network is defaulting most people to share their private content widely with strangers, in an obvious bid to grow traffic and to compete more directly with Twitter. Then there's the content the company is trying to take from you and make entirely public.

And, to borrow a phrase, what can't be attributed to Facebook's greed can be chalked up to ineptitude. Highly complex privacy schemes are bound to fail, as others have written, because most users don't have the patience to sit and learn intricate details of various options. That would seemingly include Facebook co-founder Zuckerberg, who initially accepted the default options, according to published reports. But he soon altered these defaults to make them more private, hiding his photos from friends of friends.

And now it's emerged in True/Slant that the CEO has also roped off his friends list and events calendar from strangers he has no friends in common with. (At least, he's removed them from his profile page; Facebook's official Privacy Policy still states that all friends lists are irrevocably public, and it's not clear whether that's been changed.)

If the CEO of Facebook is changing his default privacy settings, shouldn't you? Here are some things you can do (click any image to enlarge):

Hide your photos (as much as possible).

Most people don't seem to realize their old profile photos and albums are available to strangers The profile photos usually default to being shared widely, e.g. to "Everyone," while the photo albums are often only slightly more restricted, e.g. "Friends of Friends."

You can't hide your current profile photos, but you can hide the others that you've uploaded. (UPDATE 1: The wording of this part was updated to make it clear that you can't ever hide your main profile pic. So do, like, a picture of your cat or something. Or a building!)

From your Facebook home page, go to the Settings menu in the upper right corner, and select "Privacy Settings." Then select "Profile Information." Then scroll down to Photo Albums and click "Edit Settings"...

...and adjust to the level of privacy you are comfortable with ("Only Friends" was probably your setup before):

Hide other people's photos of you (partly)

If someone "tags" one of their Facebook photos with your profile, it can show up on your profile. If you don't want strangers (including "Friends of friends") to get to conveniently peruse these often candid shots from your profile, go to Settings/Privacy Settings, then "Profile Information" and adjust "Photos and Videos of me." We'd recommend "Only friends:"

UPDATE 1: To clarify, you can never remove pictures in which you are tagged from other people's accounts, as we implied before. But by removing them from your profile, you make it a lot harder for strangers to find pictures of you that you might not want them to see.

Hide your birthday

It's insane that Facebook recommended that many people share their birthday with "Friends of friends" in its defaults for the new "privacy" scheme. This personal information can be used by financial fraudsters to help impersonate you to your bank, credit card company, email provider and others. We'd recommend showing it to as few people as possible. Or, even better, set it to a false date.

Under Settings/Privacy Settings/Profile Information:

Hide your posts

Facebook is defaulting people to share their posts with "friends of friends," i.e. strangers. You may want to revert this to share only with your friends. Under Settings/Privacy Settings/Profile Information:

Remove your friends list from your profile page

Facebook has updated its privacy policy to say that you can never permanently hide your friends list, and last week it was impossible to hide the list from friends of friends (see Felix Salmon's second update here). This might be changing; on Monday, we couldn't find a way to view the friends list of certain "friends of friends."

In any case, it's definitely possible to make your friends list harder for strangers to view, by removing it from your profile. Go to your Facebook home page, then click on "Profile" in the top right corner to view your profile.

Then scroll down to the section of the profile that shows your friends (titled "Friends"), and click the pencil symbol in the upper left corner. This will reveal a checkbox to hide your friend list from some strangers, at least on your profile page:

UPDATE: We're getting "corrections" on this telling us exactly what we already said above, so we'll repeat it in bold: this does not completely shield your friends list. Friends of friends can reportedly still see it, for example, and as we said above Facebook considers it public information.

Hide your profile from search engines

Facebook is touchy about this one, because it's always displayed some data for search engines, by default, and suddenly people are noticing. That's why when you go to change your settings under Settings/Privacy Settings/Search, Facebook now pops up this ultra-defensive dialog:

What Facebook doesn't tell you is that it now offers a link to "View Such and Such's Friends" from the public, search-engine-indexable profile page. At least, that's what ours does. At the very least, you should look at your search engine page using the preview link under "Public Search Results" and see if you want to continue to make it available:

Hide your info from friends' apps (UPDATE 1)

This is a big one we missed the first time around — by default, your friends can share huge amounts of your personal information with applications they authorize, like quizzes and games. It would be a good idea to restrict this even if Facebook weren't sloppy about policing its apps and partners; as things stand, we'd recommend unsharing most if not all types of data from your friends' apps. (Thanks to the commenter and tipsters who sent this in.)

Go to Settings/Privacy Settings, then "Applications and Websites," then "What your friends can share about you - Edit Settings:"

Did we forget or mis-state something?

Email us and let us know; tips@gakwer.com.

UPDATE: Our other coverage of this topic:

The Facebook Privacy Settings You've Lost Forever, Dec. 16
Facebook's Great Betrayal, Dec. 14
Facebook CEO's Private Photos Exposed by the New 'Open' Facebook, Dec. 11

(Top pic: Zuckerberg, via Getty Images.)

Its new privacy policy have turned the social network inside out: millions of people have signed up because Facebook offers a sense of safety. For the last five years — as long as you're relatively careful about who you accept as your friends — what you do and say on Facebook for the most part stays on Facebook. Katie Couric's daughter first posted pictures of her famous mom dancing silly in 2006, but it took three years for them to leak to us. (Thank you tipsters!) But virtually overnight and without a clear warning, Facebook has completely reversed those user expectations. Their new privacy settings amount to making anything you post on Facebook to be public, unless you go to great lengths to keep your info private.

The most insidious part of Facebook's scheme to expose user data has been how the company framed them, claiming to want to enhance privacy. In an open letter to his 350 million+ users, CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed he believed the old privacy framework was "no longer the best way for you to control your privacy," and that the new system would give people "even more control of their information." It would be "simpler" and finer-grained.

But when the system came out a week later, it actually gave less, not more, control over information. Gone was the ability to hide your friends list, profile pictures, fan pages and network membership from all strangers; Facebook's new, formal privacy policy explicitly made this information public (despite the ability to keep some of it, like the friends list, off your profile page).

Meanwhile, the social network is pushing users hard to share their personal content with strangers. Users are being forced to update their privacy settings, with most default choices set to "Everyone" in the world or "friends of friends."

Facebook's business rationale here is clear. Rival Silicon Valley startup Twitter has grown extremely quickly in the last few years, almost entirely on the back of public content — from celebrities, people's friends and users' professional colleagues. That has brought traffic, money from search engines and a $1 billion valuation.

Facebook wants in on that kind of growth, and more public content means more traffic. But Facebook has historically been one of the most private of the social networks, functioning as a sort of safe alcove amid the chaos of MySpace and Friendster. "Privacy is a big reason Facebook users are so loyal," BusinessWeek's Sarah Lacy wrote in 2006 (via Big Money).

So Facebook needed to give users a big shove to put its business plan into play. As startup founder Jason Calacanis puts it,

Facebook is trying to dupe hundreds of millions of users they've spent years attracting into exposing their data for Facebook's personal gain: pageviews. Yes, Facebook is tricking us into exposing all our items so that those personal items get indexed in search engines–including Facebook's–in order to drive more traffic to Facebook.

But it's not just that Facebook is tricking its users; it's betraying them. It did so when it literally communalized private friend lists that people spent years accumulating, without which their accounts would be useless. It did so when it mislead them by saying it wanted to enhance their privacy, when the real goal was growth and profit. And it continues to do so every day it does not respond to the loud fedback of its users (and the implicit feedback of its own CEO).

And people increasingly know they've been betrayed. This past weekend, journalist Dan Gillmor publicly deleted his Facebook account. Heidi Moore at Slate's Big Money temporarily deactivated her account as a "conscientious objection." And look at the big-name tech journalists weighing in on all the shock and outrage on Facebook critic Calacanis' "Wall" (click to enlarge):

Facebook has been through embarrassing privacy snafus before, like the intrusive "Beacon" advertising system, which the company eventually abandoned. But this one was so pre-meditated, so pre-processed and so condescendingly hyped and spun in advance. It's obvious that Facebook is making a calculation, one that, for users, involved a lot more subtraction than addition. Barring mass defections, the difference will drop straight to Facebook's bottom line.

UPDATE: Our other coverage:
The Facebook Privacy Settings You've Lost Forever, Dec. 16
The Valleywag Guide to Restoring Your Privacy on Facebook, Dec. 15
Facebook CEO's Private Photos Exposed by the New 'Open' Facebook, Dec. 11

(Top pic: Zuckerberg, by Josh Lowensohn)

Today's initiative has been variously billed as "iTunes for Magazines" (correct philosophically, but wildly overstated) and "Hulu for Magazines" (incorrect, since Hulu is free). Basically you can now go to this digital storefront and buy all your favorite Conde Nast, Meredith, Hearst, Time Inc., and News Corp publications, to read on your "portable digital device" of choice. Your crappy mobile phone, or iPhone, or upcoming Apple tablet, or, hey, Time Inc. is making its very own tablet, & ad infinitum.

And, of course, this is not the only "digital storefront" thing—Hearst, a partner in this venture, is also going forward with its own personal digital storefront called Skiff , and there are similar services already operating, although, hey, there's not dominant iTunes-type player yet, so you never know.

This could be a successful venture. Then again, it could fade into irrelevance in months. Somebody will make the dominant digital storefront for content like this, just like someone will make the dominant digital reader. Magazine publishing companies, one would think, are likely to get smoked by someone like Apple in this particular sector. But they think it's worth the gamble, after watching what happened to the music industry.

But it'll take a few years. How much would you pay to read Sports Illustrated on your E-reader right now? You don't have an E-reader. And you can read Deadspin for free. So, you'd pay nothing. Changing that dynamic is what media companies need to worry about.

And here's Time Inc's announcement to employees, just because we have it:

December 8, 2009
To: Time Inc. Employees
From: Ann Moore
Re: New Digital Venture

Today, five leading publishers including Time Inc., Conde Nast, Meredith, Hearst and News Corporation announced the formation of a new venture to develop a digital storefront and a common reading application that will allow consumers to enjoy their favorite magazine and newspaper content on any platform they choose.

We already know that the next generation of mobile devices will be loaded with color touchscreens, flexible displays, video capabilities and other features that will make them ideal for consuming rich content and an appealing environment for advertisers. These devices will allow us to combine the best of what consumers love about magazines – quality, curated journalism, engaging content and beautiful photography – with the speed, convenience and portability of the latest technology.

While Time Inc. is pursuing a number of initiatives that will help us expand our current digital businesses and develop new products and revenue streams, our participation in this venture is an important part of our efforts. You'll be hearing more about it in the coming weeks and months.

In the meantime, for a look at some of the work Time Inc. is doing around portable devices, check out the demo Sports Illustrated developed, which will give you an idea of how our digital content might be enjoyed in the near future.

www.si.com/tablet

A.M.

And by "Google Phone" we don't simply mean another Android handset. We're talking about Google-branded hardware running a version of Android we haven't yet seen.

Over the next few weeks, Google Phones (most probably in early, prototype form) will flood the Mountain View campus. They'll don large LCDs while running a new version of Android—either Flan or the version of Android beyond it—which our source spotted running on Google's handset as well as a laptop. (Whatever the software was, it most certainly wasn't Chrome OS, we were assured.)

But maybe the most intriguing bit is what someone said to our source offhandedly, that the current Android, the we all know and love, is not the "real" Android. So what makes for a "real" version of Android?

Our best guess is an Android OS with Google Voice at its heart.

Those sites are claiming that there's enough space to fit an iPod nano camera in the iPod touch 3rd generation. This is their evidence:

That's ok. However, if you look at the guts of the iPod touch 2nd generation, you will find there's probably plenty of space to fit a nano camera too:

So Apple may be able to fit the iPod nano camera in the iPod touch third generation and the second generation. So?

The question is: Why the hell should they do that? Why should Apple include the lame 640 x 480 webcam of the nano—a camera that Apple doesn't allow to do still photos because they would look like crap—in a high end product like the iPod touch? Wouldn't people expect the same quality as the camera in the iPhone 3G or iPhone 3GS?

Like I already said in this analysis of the potential reasons, if there's no iPod nano camera inside the iPod touch, it is probably because the nano webcam sucks. Plain and simple. It just doesn't match the feature mix of the touch, and the standard set by the iPhone.

So no, I'm afraid there is no need to find mysterious conspiracies in this one, neither to justify failed rumormongering. In this case, Jobs points out perfectly valid reasons for the exclusion of the camera in the third generation touch, even if that fact sucks. It's a marketing decision on their part, not a technical one. He is not lying this time. You can crucify him for that, if you want. We already did.

I'm sure that, in time, they would include a camera in one of upgrade cycles, when they actually need it. But you can be sure that it will be a decent camera, and not the nano's. [iFixIt's iPod touch 2nd generation and 3rd generation teardown]

The first one is the Snow Leopard that comes in the box and Apple's site. The second one, which shows clear traces of blood around his mouth, is the one that ships inside Mac OS X Snow Leopard, as a desktop background. It seems that our Windows 7 killing Snow Leopard and eating it report was greatly exaggerated.

It was totally wrong in fact. It is Snow Leopard who killed Windows 7. And all its development team. A two zoo guides. And six babies and their moms. BAD CAT!

I was driving, and swerved a little bit, even though both hands were on the wheel. Someone honked at me.

"What was that?" 

They repeated themselves.

I switched on Bluetooth and pulled over to the side of the road to hear the story. You see, earlier in the day I'd given my phone number out to someone who sent me a cryptic email wanting to talk Apple. This must have been them. (Later on I verified to a high level of certainty that they were in the position to have access to the information and after talking to them for over an hour, I believe them to the same level of certainty.)

"The device, which I've held mock ups of, is going to have a 10 inch screen, and when I saw it looked just like a giant iPhone, with a black back— although that design could change at any time" they said, "with the same black resin back, and the familiar home button." That's obvious.

"But it will come in two editions, one with a webcam and one for educational use."  

Educational use?

They continued to explain the device as something that would sit between an iPod/iPhone and a MacBook, and would cost $700 to $900—"More than twice as much as a netbook," they said.

To make up for that cost and make the device more than just a big iPod there was, this person claimed, there was talk of making the device act as a secondary screen/touchpad for iMacs and MacBooks, much like a few of the USB screens that have come out in recent months from Chinese companies. Very interesting.

They went on to say that although the project has been going on under various names between four and six years, the first prototype was built around the end of 2008. Adding, "The time to market from first prototype is generally 6-9 months." That would place the device's release date in this holiday season, at earliest. (Update: Added, at earliest in light of John Gruber and Jim Dalrymple beliefs that the date is further out, however. Dates are easy to push out.) They then said, "There was a question of what OS the device would run, too." (Other people I've talked to have implied this remains a huge secret. Update: in variation. Obviously, it'll be OS X.)

My call dropped on some windy road off Skyline Drive. Fucking AT&T.

Later, I asked, was there a code name for the project?

"Yes...[redacted]." 

I thought about it for a second, googled the term, and it all made sense. 

"Don't publish that name, please," they requested.

Don't worry, I won't.

I had lunch with a friend at Apple today and as I was leaving the campus I saw Jobs getting into a chauffeured black Lincoln Continental. This was right outside 1IL [Infinity Loop] at about two PM today.

A Lincoln is, of course, not Jobs' usual ride, and the notorious micromanager usually likes to be behind the driver's wheel; his Mercedes is known for turning up in Apple's handicapped parking spots. But Jobs just underwent a liver transplant and is only traveling to the Apple campus a "few days" per week, according to an Apple statement heralding his return to the company today. Presumably, the CEO's health is such that he needs to conserve his energy for activities other than driving, like running a company.

Earlier today, Apple declined to tell Bloomberg News whether Jobs was on campus. The company had good reason to avoid such a discussion: Entertaining that line of questioning might have led to a discussion of Jobs' itinerary and unwelcome question about why the CEO had to leave early, and about his health. More practically, it also would open the company up to endless questions from reporters about where Jobs is on campus that day. Of course, there's a good chance Apple is going to be getting those queries anyway, whether it answers them or not.

Anyone else spot the newly-returned honcho today? We'd love to hear from you.

UPDATE: Last week, Reuters spotted Jobs leaving the campus in a "black car."

UPDATE 2: The original version of that Reuters story last week had Jobs being "driven off by men in black suits with ear-pieces."

(Pic: Jobs at a MacBook press announcement on Apple's Cupertino campus in October via Getty)

Two things. One, it's obviously Christmastime. Unless, of course, it's Halloween and Reindeer Man's wearing the world's laziest costume. Two, what's his friend doing? Holding his hair? Holding his head down so he doesn't splatter on his shoes? Google Street View should really stop and ask for clarification when they pass by scenes like this. [Google Maps UK via T3]

Update: British people are saying it's after a stag party, not at Christmas time. A thousand pardons, drunkards.

These next gods will, like their predecessors, be people whose professional and private lives, and even personal appearance, are of equal importance to hordes of obsessed nerds. They're people whose creativity and willpower are presumed to steer the course of personal technology, with legions of engineers and programmers and designers and manufacturing experts carrying out their vision. The key is putting themselves out for all the public to behold, with the hopes of becoming revered by apostles who buy anything they unveil. Seeing as we're running low on golden calves, let's check out the current options:

APPLE
Tim Cook
People say Cook is the man who makes the beautiful products turn into a beautiful pile of money, and he actually took over Apple when Jobs was recovering from his first surgery. A southern gentleman, avid cyclist, iron-fisted boss, mysterious loner, emotionless decider—man, Cook is so easy to reduce to two-word stereotypical descriptors, he's bound for godhood. Even his name comes packaged in a suave but unforgettable two syllables. The catch of course is that he can't ascend the mighty throne of Apple until the big cheese retires or bows out due to health. Cook's trod the boards at Stevenotes before, but now he's holding back—or being held back—perhaps because if he becomes big boss, he'll need a fresh start. All eyes not on Steve are on this guy. Can he fill the shoes left open and be the forceful visionary that Jobs is?
Chance of Godhood? 75% with a few variables we'd rather not think about

Phil Schiller
Schiller has helped sell Apple products since forever, but the general impression is that he's best used as a right-hand man, a Boy Wonder to the real Batman. The mullet/beer gut combo probably doesn't do wonders for his public image, either, though "death diving" from 30 feet up like he did back in '99 isn't a bad way to entertain the fanboys. It's easy to forget that Phil used to be involved in product development, including notebooks, and some even credit him for the addition of the iPod's clickwheel. We also hear that the man can kick some ass behind the scenes. He might have what it takes to be the next product don of Apple, but the current hierarchy won't make it easy for him.
Chance of Godhood? 35% assuming the Apple board is thinking like we're thinking

MICROSOFT
Steve Ballmer
The Monkey Man act may work to get attention, to rally your troops and put fear in your enemies, but it's too easy to make fun of in Photoshop. This kind of attention has taken Ballmer pretty far along the road to godhood, but the public doesn't often see the quieter, shrewder Ballmer that we know exists. The key is this: He is not a code nerd, but a Harvard-educated marketing-and-sales guy. Being able to climb inside the mind of the Average Joe, typically oriented around useful features instead of sheer software power, is what Microsoft needs to limit bloat in product design. If Windows 7 is a success, we'll see the Bruce Banner in this Hulk, but if it's not, it'll be "BALLMER SMASH!!!!" and the end of Microsoft.
Chance of Godhood? 85% assuming Windows 7 erases the terrible memory of Vista

Robbie Bach
Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices boss has Xbox, Zune, Media Center and a lot of other potentially tasty toys in his workshop, and he's rumored to be the man who would replace Ballmer. What's most important here? His group accounts for most of the Microsoft products that don't suck. Word is, though, that the limited profitability of his group, today, limits the amount of respect he gets internally. We say the rest of the company should stop and see what he's doing right. He certainly understands the art of the keynote, strutting around and working the crowd with the shoulders-forward energy of a college football coach. He may be too good at sticking to the script, though. His cautious replies may be good for stockholders, but you can't inspire the masses without a little bit o' crazy.
Chance of Godhood? 70%, higher if he is heard matter-of-factly admitting that Windows Mobile sucks

SONY
Sir Howard Stringer
Usually you get the "sir" appended to your name after you live a wild and crazy life in the public eye, but this guy is only more and more in the spotlight each year. When he talks he brings delightful controversy and charisma, but he doesn't do enough with big crowds. How come no gloaty Blu-ray victory dance party? Chilling with Charlie Rose isn't a direct path to divinity, but showing up with Tom Hanks at CES is a start. Still, Sony needs to regain gadget clout, not remind the world that it's a piracy-fearing movie maker. One thing he has done is give the Japanese firm a leader who isn't afraid to lay off when the company is bloated with employees not pulling their weight, unlike traditional Japanese CEOs. And he encourages Japanese employees to work abroad to increase their understanding of the customers of the world. But he's also been working hard to unify the company's software and hardware development not only in each division, but across product groups. Only Apple and Microsoft have done this successfully, but Sony is actually making progress here, behind the scenes.
Chance of Godhood? 45% because it might just be too late for the guy—or for Sony

GOOGLE
Larry Page/Sergey Brin
Never mind that Google keeps more products in beta than it launches or that these two are tech titans already on the web. Their first foray into hardware was received lukewarmly. But Google is here to stay, and no matter what CEO Eric Schmidt does, these two dudes' faces will be the ones people think of. The last 60 years of tech are full of dynamic duos—Woz and Jobs, Hewlett and Packard, etc.—but unless you've got the timing of Martin and Lewis, it's hard to pull off a tandem keynote. It definitely doesn't help when you show up late wearing rollerblades. We just hope that the company can give their Android division the support it needs to compete with the companies full time in the gadget game, because Android is not only disruptive, but it's the ammo that the phone makers need to compete with the all-in-one giants from Redmond and Cupertino.
Chance of Godhood? 60%, could go up if they release more products, or undergo the operation Damon and Kinnear had in Stuck On You

ASUS
Jonney Shih
Netbook-revolutionary Asus is probably the company (companEee?) doing the most with Apple's old mantra, "think different." Their stuff coming out of Taiwan is radical and fun, and Jonney Shih, little known in these parts, is the sole capitano up top. He's not afraid to rock the microphone, but he keeps doing it at other people's events. Asus also makes a lot of notebooks for competitors, and has hardware expertise to spare. But in terms of software, they're still limited by a strong dependence on Windows for their notebooks. As for their weak brand presence in the mainstream: Dude, you got some cash, time to throw bigger parties of your own, and not just ones timed with CES. And take another page from Apple: Learn how to keep products secret until they're finished and shipping.
Chance of Godhood? 40%, more if he finds a good barber and a dealer of fine turtlenecks and presentation sweaters

HTC
Cher Wang
The phone maker who first teamed with Google and launched the T-Mobile G1 is chaired by, yep, a lady! Named Cher! Cher actually got her start selling computer parts for a computer company, and helped found HTC to realize the vision of the true handheld computer. Even if the HTC brand is only a few years old to consumers, HTC has been making phones for other companies for a while: One in every six phones sold in the US this year were from her factories. They'll grow stronger now that Android is here and Windows Mobile is (hopefully) in a period of major improvement, but their branding and design is still a bit on the chunky side. From the looks of her official corporate portrait, she could probably use a queer eye or two—I know I sound like a dick here, but sadly society does judge women more harshly than men on personal appearance. My guess is that as someone who emphasizes being a "devout Christian" in her bio, she'd probably frown on the whole "tech god" thing anyway.
Chance of Godhood? 30% since Cher's probably too busy to take our advice anyway—she also runs the chipmaker VIA

PALM
Ed Colligan
Colligan's generally stormy course at Palm's helm finally reached some smooth waters: He just unveiled Pre, a fresh, attractive take on the smartphone, bolstered by healthy chunks of DNA from Apple and other new smartphone platforms via the talent they aggressively poached. He's proven he has what it takes to make big aggressive changes with this handset, and get the right talent in place, just like Steve Jobs would. And Colligan isn't afraid to make bold brash statements, a requirement of godhood. But can he go all the way? Currently, his problem is with presenting—he's not all that memorable, which might actually be good if you're the guy who introduced the world to the Palm Foleo.
Chance of Godhood? 15% cuz did I mention he believed, not long ago, that Foleo would "redefine how people work"?

Jon Rubinstein
The "executive chairman" to Colligan's "president and CEO," it's hard to tell if Rubinstein is sitting on the throne or next to it. He has our vote. The man in charge of bringing about Palm's would-be salvation, the Pre, previously at Apple led development of the frickin' iPod (maybe you've heard of it), and has actually out Apple'd Apple with the UI in this new handset. And Rubinstein's team is one of the only in the world that is capable of revolutionizing cellphone operating systems. He keeps it cool on stage, reminding us a little of Nintendo's amiable US boss, Reggie Fils-Aime. And his more than passing resemblance to Jeff Goldblum is a plus, too. One limitation in Palm that both Rubinstein and Colligan have to face: Palm will never build an end to end personal tech environment the way Apple and Microsoft can, even if they are on par in terms of making interfaces from the future.
Chance of Godhood? 55%, but sky's the limit if he can shoo Colligan away

AMAZON
Jeff Bezos
Bezos already was a god—a dotcom god. Many of those other former household names are now mercifully forgotten, but Bezos still shows up on magazine covers. He recently heralded in the eradication of DRM from online music retailers to the applause of paying music customers. But what really surprised us, and earned him a place on this list was that he had such a grand vision of what the ebook should be—the replacement of the book—and the funding and drive to make it happen. But he should do more live appearances to drum up more mainstream excitement over software initiatives like the DRM-free MP3 store and video on demand. And he needs to keep Kindles in stock long enough for people to buy them. Most importantly, he's finally learning that tech gods are only as good as their next products. Just because Bezos understands books on a deep level doesn't mean he'll ever be able to do any other type of gadget besides E-Ink tablets. That's ultimately limiting when it comes to building next-generation personal tech ecosystems. In the meantime, where's my Kindle 2?
Chance of Godhood? 30% if he does more bragging in person, though that braying laugh of his could be a liability

DEKA/SEGWAY
Dean Kamen
Back in 2001, the rumor mill leading up to the launch of the Segway rivaled any Apple buzz. Before the product was even seen, people wrote about it being civilization-changing, and as important as the internet. Kamen's been on a roll (get it?) since then, not just developing the police Segway, the golf Segway and some kind of Segway footstool, but also perfecting a water purifying technology and a truly robotic prosthetic arm, all while greening up his own private island. He's did it all with few mainstream public appearances: Showing up at All Things D with a video of the robot arm—not the real thing—was a misstep in our minds, but appearing on Colbert with a working water purifier was definitely a sign of publicity (and worship) to come. If he can invent something for the gadget lovers of the world that is as bright and thoughtful and life changing as his humanitarian tech, he'd become the Jobs that Jobs wishes he was.
Chance of Godhood? A tragic 45%, seriously, this guy is Q, MacGyver and Hank Scorpio rolled into one—why isn't he a god already?

FACEBOOK
Mark Zuckerberg
The sad fact is that our whole world is shifting over from hardware to software. Sure, Kamens are still needed to make sure there's progress in mechanical devices, but our toys are less and less mechanical. Facebook is probably the best example of an internet platform that has stolen thunder from the gadget world. Trouble with Facebook is that it's big and amorphous, and the charming Zuckerberg needs a second act to propel him into the heavens. Still, he's like 13, with his whole life and a lot of money ahead. He'll think of something. But to be a Gadget God, he'll have to always depend on the hardware of others. At least until we have browsers in our brains with which we can access our social networks with.
Chance of Godhood? 95% even if it doesn't happen in my lifetime

These are all strong candidates, but the assumption is that there will, in fact, be new gadget gods. Maybe, like the ancient gods themselves, our new era doesn't have as much use for them. Maybe it's not just the transition to software, but the shift from bright ideas to massive team efforts. Or maybe Jobs and Gates are the kinds of guys that only come along once a century, and we're gonna have to wait a little longer for something that divine.

Steves health is rapidly declining. Apple is choosing to remove the hype factor strategically vs letting the hype destroy apple when the inevitable news comes later this spring.

This strategic loss will be less of a bang with investors. This is why Macworld is a no-go anymore. No more Steve means no more hype. Saying they are no longer needing [Macworld] is the cover designed by the worldwide "loyalty" department.

This source has repeatedly been 100% correct before. Those times, however, were always related to news and images of unreleased Apple products. I can only hope that, in this more personal matter, it is absolutely wrong. And that if he is not, that sentence just means that Steve Jobs is retiring according to his plan.

While Steve Jobs' health is nobody's business—not the press, not investors, not the public—we believe that there's a line between saying "no-comment" and plainly misleading—once again—the public.

Steve Jobs have been giving Macworld Expo keynotes since he came back as interim CEO of the company in 1997. Since then he has never failed once, always introducing notable products both at Macworld San Francisco and Macworld New York. During his latest Macworld keynote, in 2008, he introduced the MacBook Air. Later this year, he used his WWDC presentation to announce the new iPhone 3G. In his last two show-n-tells, for the new iPods and the new MacBooks, he used less time on stage, giving more limelight to key members of Apple's executive team.

According to our Deep Throat's report, the fact seems to be that whether or not Apple had other reasons to pull out of Macworld, they weren't the only ones, and they certainly weren't the same ones used for not putting Steve Jobs through the ordeal of a two-hour presentation.

Apple did not comment on this story after being contacted.

Future, Cupertino — After a long and fruitful tenure as CEO, Steve Jobs steps down in early 2009 to fanfare and industry fawning. Apple needs a new leader. It's time to choose your own adventure.

Much deliberation and coin tossing goes on in the back rooms of Apple. Their board of directors choose a person who they strongly believe can lead Apple into its next phase of growth, a person who can, at the very least, match Steve Jobs' product development whip cracking, if not his outsized public persona.

The board chooses...

• Jonathan Ive, Apple's Senior Vice President of Industrial Design. Turn to page 10.
• Phil Schiller, Apple's Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing. Turn to page 11.
• Tim Cook, Apple's Chief Operating Officer. Turn to page 12.
• Bill Gates, Super Rich Dude. Turn to page 13.
• Yourself, Super Poor Dude. Turn to page 14.

Choose Your Own Adventure is property of CYOA.com.

To set the scene, December is the season where all the PR companies are throwing out 50x the normal amount of emails in order to gear up interest for their clients for January's CES (the largest consumer electronics show in US of the year). This means massive distribution lists, massive list blasts and everyone having to wade through piles of pitches that may or may not be right for their publication.

This particular event all started with a blogger (not us) asking politely to be removed from an email distribution list because they don't cover the products the firm was pitching. Then, this happened:

CES publishes a list of press. You are one of a few thousand.

Everyone has access to that list for all kinds of reasons.

It is publicly published.

As a PR agency we use that list so we can solicit press for booth appts

I hope you can appreciate that.

If you don't, let me introduce you to the "delete" button

Or in the future do not sign up as a press person for CES.

Furthermore, do not make any threats to my company.

I don't need you to tell me what is right or what is wrong.

I have been in the CE business for 42 years

I have seen nasty people like you melt away faster than a snowball going
up hill in the rain

I am waiting for an apology

Maybe we can meet at CES for a hug or a slug

P.S. I just visited your web site. I would hardly call your blog a
publication,

However, you do have very interesting content and we have lots of client
you would like to know more about to help you in your endeavors.

Call me

[redacted]
President/Owner

Yeah, the president and owner of the firm sent that email. Wow.

C'mon folks, if we can't get along, let's just be civil. Thanks for passing on the email dudes.

Update: The emailer added his original email here.

Please remove me from your list. My publication does not cover these types of products.

I did NOT sign up to receive info in this category, nor anything close. By CES guidelines, I should not have received this, making it dangerously close to spam. That reflects poorly on your company.

Thank you.

Instead of Jobs, delivering this year's supposedly final Macworld keynote is Phil Schiller, Apple's senior VP of worldwide product marketing.

While we have confirmed this information with Apple, what this means for WWDC or town halls is unknown. We had predicted that Steve Jobs was preparing his farewell following his highly de-centered introduction of the new MacBooks. At the very, very best, this is another step in that direction, preparing the world for an Apple without Steve. We don't really want to think about the worst.

But we have to. This sudden, dramatic announcement says to some, loudly and unfortunately clearly, that Jobs' health has taken a significant dive since his appearance introducing the new MacBooks. One theory might be that Jobs had to step down one day, and while we noticed a transition towards other execs at Apple events, starting this fall, a true control freak would want to step down on his own terms before something like health required them to do it without any say in the matter. That's one theory. But there are far better ways to do this. The best way being Jobs finishing his long career of on stage presentations by giving the last and final Macworld Keynote presentation in person. There's not really any reason why they wouldn't have planned it this way. At least a brief, headlining appearance Jobs, followed by a team effort announcing new products—if for no other reason than to dispel the alarm that's already shaking the internet, but also to make the transition even smoother.

What's Wrong With Macworld?
There are other possibilities besides illness, we suppose. Is it a decline in the confidence and importance of Macworld? Also possible, but let's remember this is where Apple launched the iPhone, its most important product since the iPod, and this past year, the MacBook Air, which set the tone for its notebooks for the rest of the year. True, this year's rumored products—an updated Mac mini (plausible), iPhone nano (stupid) and tablet/netbook (dream on) aren't mind-blowing, but still. What we have seen happen in the last few years is Apple use the internet and their marketing dollars to reach the mainstream without the mainstream press. They probably don't need Macworld or that major expense, even if Apple can afford it. Apple's launched plenty of product at Cupertino HQ recently and they've all done well, and on Apple's own timetable. (Macworld is in January, at the slump of the retail world's cycle.)

Money, Money, Money
So why not announce a full retirement, if he is too ill to continue—a possibility if he's too ill to show up on stage? This opaque announcement is more mysterious, and uncertainties tend to be more troubling than truths, even hard ones. Apple stock hasn't quite felt the impact, only down 5 points in after hours trading, but if Steve really is worth $20 billion to Apple's market cap, once the news spreads, expect it to plummet further, faster. An iPhone delay rumor might knock off a few billion, but the suddenly realer than ever possibility Apple's wizard-in-chief really is about to fade into the night—something that spooked traders even when Jobs actually did make an appearance—is an even more drastic event. In the long run, Jobs handing over the reigns is a GOOD thing to start doing now, to reduce dependence of the stock price on one man alone. If Steve leaves the day to day entirely, the only way any one is going to have confidence in the company is if they see and feel other executives have been in place for awhile. Like Ballmer taking over for Gates, a transition that took years upon years, Apple would be dumb to start this process late. And incredibly dumb to do so on the leader's deathbed, as the world is now speculating.

Who's Next?
And why Phil Schiller? Why not the man most likely to wear the crown, Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, who resembles Jobs more than anyone else at Apple? If Steve Jobs was retiring, why wouldn't he announce his retirement himself? Or have his immediate successor do it? All questions we'll have to wait until Macworld to get answers to, unless Apple's iron secrecy dissolves in this apparent crisis moment. Another one: If a transition isn't what's happening here, but Steve is too ill to appear in public, how is he possibly well enough run Apple from behind the scenes? Why wouldn't he make the transition more smooth if at all possible, gradually transferring power to his chosen successor. An opaque announcement—that Apple had to have known would spark this speculative frenzy is NOT the optimal way to do this.

Timing
The timing of this whole thing is really off, too, in more ways than one. News that you want buried, you drop on Friday, not Tuesday, which is actually the optimal day for the MOST coverage. Also, if Steve Jobs is in fact retiring, the best, most controlling way to do announce this would be at Macworld, Apple's final Macworld, without this back-handed press release sending the press (us) into a frenzy before the fact. This seems like the worst way, but there are other paths that even crappier, which is likely why they're doing it this way: him appearing seriously ill on stage, or worst of worsts, dying before Macworld. Which if the latter were the tragic case, it's unlikely, given how (very rightly) guarded he is about his health, that Steve would announce its imminence. Maybe burying news would have seemed weak, and so Apple launched this on Tuesday in an unflinching message of bravado. Crazy, but this is a cult we're talking about.

The Next iThingies?
Even supposing the worst of all possible scenarios, we don't think this will change Apple's roadmap, at least not for the immediate future—products have to be designed and engineered way in advance, so 2009's slate is likely already completely mapped out, so even if Jobs does leave Apple soon, his direct hand will be felt in Apple products for at least the next year, if not longer. (That's even assuming too much; just because he's not presenting doesn't mean he's actually stepping down day to day.) And undoubtedly, his impact and legacy will endure far beyond that. Lack of product is a possible but unlikely thing to happen in the near future, specifically Macworld. Maybe the fact they have an uberproduct in the wings is a good counterbalance to losing Steve's presentation skills? But then again, one way to look at it is that the Macworld cycle is, again, broken, and Apple has nothing to present this year and Jobs won't get on stage for that. So, just as likely, if not more so than health issues, is that Apple simply has no amazing product to present at Macworld, so they're sending the B-team to present it, conveniently broadcasting the irrelevance of Macworld at the same time. The possibilities are endless.

Apple spokesman Steve Dowling reiterates the irrelevance of Macworld as the rationale for their pullout, saying that ""It doesn't make sense for us to make a major investment in a trade show we will no longer be attending." But it still doesn't address why Steve won't speak at the final big show.

The End of an Era
So maybe this is the real announcement at this year's Macworld, the one everyone knew would come one day, though it doesn't make any less shocking.

More on this very topic:

• Steve Jobs Skipping Final Macworld Apple Keynote
• How the News of a Job-less Keynote Was Forced Out
• Valleywag: Control freak Steve Jobs's chaotic Macworld no-show news
• Will Trade Shows Survive?
• On Steve Jobs-less Keynote: Sometimes I Hate It When I'm Right
• Do You Think Steve Jobs Is Retiring Very Soon?
• Is Steve Jobs Preparing His Farewell?
• The Quiet Man Who May Become Apple King

Apple Announces Its Last Year at Macworld

CUPERTINO, Calif., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Apple(R) today announced that this year is the last year the company will exhibit at Macworld Expo. Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, will deliver the opening keynote for this year's Macworld Conference & Expo, and it will be Apple's last keynote at the show. The keynote address will be held at Moscone West on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Macworld will be held at San Francisco's Moscone Center January 5-9, 2009.
Apple is reaching more people in more ways than ever before, so like many companies, trade shows have become a very minor part of how Apple reaches its customers. The increasing popularity of Apple's Retail Stores, which more than 3.5 million people visit every week, and the Apple.com website enable Apple to directly reach more than a hundred million customers around the world in innovative new ways.
Apple has been steadily scaling back on trade shows in recent years, including NAB, Macworld New York, Macworld Tokyo and Apple Expo in Paris.

Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its
award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.

(C) 2008 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. Apple, the Apple logo, Mac, Mac OS and Macintosh are trademarks of Apple. Other company and product names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

The nav market is a tough one, and with the added economic difficulties, Dash feels it can do better work by focusing on their open-source OS, which they will then sell business-to-business. More important than the OS, which is fine but not fantastic, is the back end traffic mesh system. A Dash-powered mid-range Garmin nav sounds like a pretty appealing propect, and will help bring a Dash-like system to more people for less dough. New CEO Rob Currie also notes that the Dash's GPRS chip and 400MHz ARM processor are quickly being outpaced by even low-end mobiles, so a move toward adding Dash functionality to GPS-equipped smartphones sounds like a plan to me.

Dash is going to keep the Express back end running for existing owners, but no word on for how long; because these devices hold almost zero local data, once the service goes you will have yourself a nav that can't do much more than direct address routing. Dash friends, care to let us know how long we have? [GigaOM]

Xgoes.mobi is definitely iPhone-only – it won't work on your computer's browser if you try it. What do you get when you go there and plunk down a membership fee? Access to a slew of cam feeds of both the single and couple variety, although mostly just single, sad girls on ugly bedspreads. The quality ain't great, and this is on WiFi. And if it's not worth it on WiFi, it's definitely not worth it on 3G. But hey, this is the only game in town for mobile cam feeds, so if you're the type of person who really gets your rocks off talking to a stripper on the internet in the back of a cab, your ship has come in. [Xgoes.mobi (iPhone only, NSFW) via Fleshbot (NSFW)]

Hello! I’m a PC – and I can’t answer your email right now. I’d like to say that I’m out climbing Mt. Rainier or biking across Europe with the Swedish Beach Volleyball Team, but in fact I’m probably just chained to a desk somewhere in the depths of Redmond pounding out product specifications.

Now that I have been in a commercial, Microsoft has given me access to super-secret “BillyG” level of executive resources. That’s right – I have my own email auto-responder!

This, as you have probably surmised, is my pre-prepared auto-response (All natural, no filler. No animals were harmed in the making of this response. Except for a ferret.) I really would like to have answered you myself, but if I did, (a) I’d probably get no work done, and (b) then I’d get fired, and (c) then I’d have no chance of doing any more of those really awesome commercials.

So let me try to prognosticate a few of your questions and answer a few of them.

Why did they put you on TV?

I think it’s my devastating good-looks and animal magnetism. No, really – there’s a ferret stuck to my leg right now.

But really – you aren’t even an actor!

No I’m not. But I play one on TV. I really am a Microsoft Program Manager. I work on IPv6, and other things that you haven’t heard of.

How did you get selected?

I auditioned along with a couple of hundred others. I guess I looked very Engineery. And the ferret probably helped.

Are you interested in more acting?

Oh no, I think that Engineering is MUCH more fun.

What’s with Windows Vista?

You’ve been watching those commercials again, haven’t you? Windows Vista rocks. Listen to real users, not actors.

-The Real PC, Sean Siler

[via crunchgear]

You'll be able to search for people outside of your friends, make/approve/ignore friend requests, and search your inbox and sent folder, for starters. Notifications will also arrive in real time while the app is running. The version of iPhone for Facebook after this will deliver them to you even if the app isn't running using Apple's push notification service. Overall, it's pretty excellent, check it out. [Facebook]