> Facebook seems to be blitzing lately, rolling out product after product, as fast or faster than we’ve ever seen from anyone. Not all of them will succeed, but you can’t say that [Mark Zuckerberg](http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Mark_Zuckerberg) and company aren’t busting their asses trying. > > Maybe it’s a coincidence or an optical illusion. But it really looks like Facebook is in attack mode — especially moreso than Google — with a strong team and a hunger (and a sense of self-importance) that should frighten anyone in its path. > > Today, it’s attacking email. Maybe tomorrow, it will be attacking Google and [Apple’s](http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Apple_Inc.) core businesses, like search and [mobile platforms](http://www.businessinsider.com/chamath-palihapitiya-facebook-phone-2010-10). Look out. So Facebook announced some sort of email/IM/SMS integration service today. I’d say more about it, but I honestly don’t think anyone knows more about it yet. Facebook is mum on the details of how it will work.

Given Google’s monumental failure to “revolutionize” email with Wave earlier this year, it’s hard for me to take this one too seriously. At least not until I get some, you know, details.

But that doesn’t stop ridiculous reporters from spewing nonsense like this article I found in the SFGate, which is itself just a rehash of an article in
Business Insider.

Facebook is blitzing lately? Really? Groups. Places. And now a vague enhancement to its messaging services? That constitutes a blitz of new products that everyone should be afraid of?

And since when is blitzing new products into the world, knowing that “not all of them will succeed” a good strategy? That hasn’t worked out too well for Google this year. Just ask the Wave, Nexus One, and Buzz teams.

And Apple should be worried? About what, exactly?

This guy should have stopped after his first sentence, which is the only accurate statement in the article.

Don’t get me wrong; I think Facebook is doing well lately. And I do think that Google should be worried about this service’s impact on Gmail subscribers. At least in the long term, I can see people drifting toward a Facebook messaging system as an alternative to GMail, which hasn’t been given any significant update in years, beyond the priority Inbox.

But what does any of this have to do with Apple? Apple’s email service is part of a paid subscription model, and Apple doesn’t depend on it for any significant portion of its revenue. Ping is certainly suffering from not being tied to Facebook, but it’s not like Facebook has the resources to bring the record labels to Facebook directly, so I assume they’ll work out a deal on that one eventually.

Unless this guy is suggesting that Facebook is going to magically announce a brand new phone platform tomorrow, and that it will somehow be more successful at killing the iPhone than Palm, Microsoft, Nokia, or even Google has been, I don’t think I’d be worried if I were Steve Jobs.

> “It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago,” said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy. He’s worked with the RCMP, the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world. > > “Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don’t take s— from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for — not for hours — but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, ‘We’re not going to do this. You’re going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport.” > > That, in a nutshell is “Israelification” – a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death. > > Despite facing dozens of potential threats each day, the security set-up at Israel’s largest hub, Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, has not been breached since 2002, when a passenger mistakenly carried a handgun onto a flight. How do they manage that? Look no further than Tel Aviv, if you want to see an airport that actually has good security, rather than our pathetic puppet show security.

Seriously read this article, and then explain to me why we can’t have it the same way here.

And why is it that the Israelis have much safer airports, despite a greater threat, with far less inconvenience to normal travelers? Because the people stood up and refused to be inconvenienced for no good reason. They literally demanded better security, and then got it.

This change isn’t going to come from government, in other words. We have to start exercising our right to either not fly or to resist these ridiculous procedures in any small way we can. Make them grope all of us, and they’ll change their minds about these scanners, believe me. Stop flying, and the airlines will start pressuring congress more to stop making flying such a chore.

> Obviously, everybody has their own perspective about their personal screening,” TSA official John Pistole told CNN. “The question is, how do we best address those issues … while providing the best possible security? The essential flaw in the TSA’s logic here is that these new screening procedures “provide the best possible security.” They don’t help provide security at all, but rather the false illusion of security. And after many years of comedians, trained-security professionals, and other smart folks poking holes in the logic, the illusion is finally wearing off.

I’m glad this guy, and many others are standing up. There have been a number of stories floating around the web about this just over the last few days.

I’ve been shouting about the ludicrous procedures of the TSA since 9/11. I think the rest of the country is finally getting tired of it, too. Let’s hope so.

Seriously, is there anyone left who doesn’t get that the whole airport security thing is lining the pockets of equipment manufacturers who lobby our congressmen for this nonsense? They certainly don’t spend the money on personnel.

Like most security measures, the X-ray scanners only inconvenience and invade the privacy of the innocent, while not stopping the real criminals at all. You don’t react to every threat by treating every passenger as someone who is likely to repeat the same method as the last guy.

One guy puts one bomb in his shoe, we all take our shoes off forever. One guy puts a bomb in his underwear, we all get virtually strip-searched.

What happens when the next guy puts the bomb up his ass? Are you all prepared for that one? Because it’s coming.

Good security starts with trained professionals who seek out suspicious behavior and concentrate resources on the true threat. If you can’t tell the good guys from the bad, you don’t just assume that everyone is bad. You hire and train people to be experts in determining the good people from the bad. Does that sound like the TSA to you? Have you taken a good look at the average TSA employee lately? No offense, but I don’t get a James Bond vibe from any of them.

Meanwhile, doctors are not convinced that the scanners are as “harmless” as we’re led to believe. (There’s a reason why your dentist makes you wear a led bib when taking X-rays.) So we’re all getting zapped with radiation while some fat cat pockets millions in scanner contracts.

Until the TSA can demonstrate how the X-ray scanners are of any help to actually preventing terrorism, I will be opting out. Believe me, no one is more uncomfortable with being touched by a stranger than I am. But I’m going to make the agent grope me, I don’t care. Might as well make both of us uncomfortable.

And while we’re at it, can we all stop taking our shoes off and subjecting ourselves to a massive germ infestation for no reason? Seriously, I’d rather take the 0.0000000001% chance that someone on the plane has a bomb than the 100% chance that I’m going to get some sort of foot fungus from that disgusting floor.

Okay, I’m not even going to guess on this one. 7 a.m. tomorrow in California? That seems like an odd time to me.

You can call it the usual Apple marketing hyperbole engine at work, but since Apple has replaced its entire home page with this graphic, I’d say it has to be a fairly big deal. There’s a lot of lost revenue associated with taking away valuable home page links, even for a day. They clearly want to make an impact, though they didn’t consider it big enough to host another live keynote event.

None of the usual rumor mills picked up on this one, either, so I’m guessing this particular announcement on this particular day was a fairly recent decision.

It seems way late in the season to be announcing anything that effects holiday shopping, too. So again, I’m not even going to try and guess. Will we finally find out what that big server farm in North Carolina is for? Will iTunes finally go to “the cloud,” whatever that means? Has Apple made that big acquisition that Jobs hinted at a few weeks ago?

I guess we’ll have to wait until tomorrow.

> To sum up, RIM is at risk because its natural market is saturating and many of its customers are considering a switch to other platforms. The company may be able to bumble along in this situation for years before the problem comes to a head, but once a migration away from BlackBerry starts it would be almost impossible to stop. So if the company wants to ensure its survival, it needs to act now. Two steps are needed: > > –The BlackBerry line needs to be given a several fundamental, visionary innovations that will give its core customers a reason to stay; and > > –The company needs to change its development process to guarantee proper design and integration in all of its products. > > Given the time needed to create a new product, these changes will take at least 18 months to bear fruit, probably more like two years. During that time RIM will remain at risk of a platform collapse. What’s worse, the company’s engineers already have their hands full copying iPhone features, customizing phones for a huge range of operators, and simultaneously creating a new operating system and developing a new version of the current one. The sort of changes I’m suggesting would disrupt that work, forcing the cancellation of some projects and slips in the schedule for others. They would make the problem worse before they make it better. In the meantime, the company would lose serious revenue, and might even miss earnings projections for a quarter or two. The stock’s value would be trashed, and there would be calls for firing management. > > As the founders of the company, Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis could probably pull this off without losing their jobs. And I know they have the courage to make big changes. But I doubt they can see the need, or especially the urgency. Their current processes and business practices got them to $15 billion in revenue; why should they change now? It’s much more prudent to focus on making the numbers for next quarter. > > That’s probably just what RIM will do. And if it does, that’s why the company will probably eventually fail. This is an older article that I meant to post about a long time ago. But it’s an excellent, thorough analysis why RIM is losing, and it’s not what most people assume.

When I saw the PlayBook tablet announcement, I immediately thought that RIM has a serious problem with forgetting who its loyal customer base is. It’s chasing after Apple’s audience, instead of redoubling efforts to hold on to the current audience of Enterprise business professionals. A tablet aimed squarely at the serious business professional would have been a much smarter choice for a product. It could have cut off enthusiasm for the iPad in the Enterprise, which in turn would have dulled enthusiasm for the iPhone in the Enterprise. Instead, what the PlayBook does is assure Enterprise users that the iPad is as good as RIM’s tablet at being a serious business tool. If the PlayBook is seen only as a hip consumer device, why wouldn’t customers just go for the hipper, better consumer device? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

As I’ve said before, the only thing people should be copying from Apple is the STRATEGY. Build products that complement your other products. Make your customers want to buy everything you make, and make them keep buying your products instead of someone else’s. With the Torch and now the PlayBook, RIM is trying to change its image; it’s copying Apple’s actual products, instead of the philosophy driving those products.

But you can’t beat Apple at slick, clean, consumer electronics. No one can.

Believe me, if Sony can’t do it, RIM certainly can’t.