The first time it died in the middle of a paper during finals in fall of sophomore year. The second time, only months later, before a major presentation as part of a case competition for my business school. The time after that? Girl spilled water on it the day before a 20+ page paper was due, during finals, while I was in the middle of finishing my communications capstone, spring of my junior year.

This time? Beginning of this semester, while taking six classes, working three jobs, designing three websites, and of course, traveling to rural Kentucky, where nary an Apple store is to be found. That’s why I traveled an hour and a half this morning to Louisville, to visit one of only two Apple stores in the entire state, to see if they could figure out why my computer seems intent on giving me a gray screen of death every time I attempt to turn it on.

The Apple “geniuses” offered up plenty of improbably solutions and then declared it beyond their capacity to fix. In other words, “it would be best” if I just wrote them a $320 check and shipped it off to their fixer-upper facility in Houston. No thanks.

This is where I plug the ultra-amazing, super-responsive, best-bang-for-your-buck Mac repair service I’ve seen, heard of, and used: Expert Mac Repair. They’re so nice and responsive (including on Twitter, @expertmacrepair) that even if they weren’t cheaper than Apple–which they certainly are–I would gladly pay a hefty premium just to work with them instead.

Don’t get me wrong, Apple does alright. But they don’t answer phones immediately at 11 p.m. at night, order a part without even knowing if they’ll need it, and drive to my house the next day at the time I request (and show up early!) to fix it in-person, as soon as possible. Nope, Apple can’t do that. does.

I caught this Ad Age article yesterday and simply couldn’t resist sharing it. The article discusses a new job function at many Web-savvy companies today: “Chief Listener.” It sums up the point of this new role in only two sentences:

The big task? Data mining — and figuring out who needs the information.

As I’ve said over and over, the trick over the next decade is going to managing the sheer amount of data thrown our way each and every day. Nowhere is this more important than with social media. Some have called it the Social Data Revolution, pointing out that in 2009, there was more data produced than in every single year preceding it–combined. The key to managing this incredible amount of information? Listening.

And it’s not just listening, period; It’s all about listening well. Listening efficiently. Listening to the right people, at the right time, in the right medium.

Anyway, read the article, shout out your thoughts in the comments or on Twitter (@alexpriest), and expect plenty more on this topic from me in the future.

Today I will reach my 30,000th tweet.

Or I might have already, depending on when this is published. It's been a long and winding journey and my 30,000 some tweets so far tell a number of stories, but primarily that of myself, a young professional making my way through college, traveling the world, and working towards career success (with a little luck).

I started it all on July 20, 2007, sitting in a cramped little apartment outside of Tokyo, Japan, where I was staying for six weeks as part of a cultural exchange scholarship program. I signed up not knowing what this little micro-blogging service called Twitter was, and with no possible idea where it would take me over the course of the past three or so years.

As I tweeted out my excitement about hitting 30,000 tweets this morning, a follower asked me, "How many were of value?" That got me thinking. How many of these little 140 character messages really provided value to anyone? What have I accomplished in my 30,000 tweets, my approximate 4,200,000 characters, those 50,000-some-odd words?

To me, all of them provided value, and I've accomplished more than I ever dreamed I would with a social network.

With social media there's a constant struggle between quantity and quality. Do you want to be the one who's always present, always first on the news, and with the highest stats and metrics? Or do you want to be the one with the highest quality, who provides intense value in a small number of tweets, updates, or blog posts?

I think that depends on your goals, and I don't think there's any rule saying you can't have both, as long as you balance it right and engage with those around you–it is a social network, after all, not a wire service.

For me, my 30,000 tweets have taken me around the world, transformed my relationships, integrated me into the city I live in, and propelled me on a career path I never would have expected even two years ago.

With those 30,000 tweets I've made thousands of friends and I've shared countless lessons. I've shared my joy during the 2008 presidential election, participated from afar in the attempted Iranian revolution, shared my experiences protesting for action to solve climate change in Copenhagen, and enjoyed the calmer moments in life with thousands upon thousands of both digital and real-life friends.

After those 30,000 tweets I can now look at how I've evolved on social media. I can look at my activity from a personal and a professional perspective–as a student, marketer, communicator, citizen journalist, activist and more. And taking a step back and looking at those 30,000 tweets, I see that I've created incredible value for myself, and I hope I've created value for those that follow me and those I've gotten to know through this remarkable social network. Here's to 30,000 more.

For people running WordPress.org installations, it’s super easy to install–you just drop the line of code in where you want it to go. For me, for example, it goes in a tiny footer at the bottom of each of my posts.

The only minor hiccup I had when installing it was getting it to tweet the correct entry title and URL when someone clicked on the button from my homepage. Because you’re technically on my homepage, the button’s default settings led users to tweet nothing but my homepage and the URL for alexpriest.com. Thankfully, it’s a super, super quick fix.

The line of Twitter code is simple:

<a href=”http://twitter.com/share” class=”twitter-share-button” data-count=”horizontal” data-via=”alexpriest”>Tweet</a>

This, by itself, will do nothing but create a Tweet button sharing the current page. In order to get it to tweet the correct post (even from the homepage), you need to add these two bits of code to the link HTML in the Twitter button:

data-text=”<?php the_title(); ?>” data-url=”<?php the_permalink() ?>”

This makes it so that the text of the tweet is the title of your entry (<?php the_title(); ?>) and the link is the permalink to that post (<?php the_permalink() ?>). In the end, my final code looks like:

<a href=”http://twitter.com/share” class=”twitter-share-button” data-text=”<?php the_title(); ?>” data-url=”<?php the_permalink() ?>” data-count=”horizontal” data-via=”alexpriest”>Tweet</a>

Good for them.

Say what? you might be thinking. Companies should always listen to the customer, right? No. Quite the opposite in the case of social media, actually, and the success of Facebook and failures of Google tell the story pretty convincingly.

Facebook grew to be the world’s largest social network, because it did what it wanted to do, when it wanted to do it, regardless of the backlash from its users.

Whether it was the advent of the news feed, the introduction of a new UI or privacy concerns, Facebook has been firm with their “f#$% you” to their users’ opinions. But they’ve also been right. The news feed was the smartest move the company has ever made. And from a privacy perspective, Facebook will always be fighting a losing PR battle–it’s best to just suck it up, do what you want, and let it blow over.

And blow over it has. Every time. Not once has the outrage of the users grown to amount to, well, anything. The great “Facebook Quit Day” of 2010 was a joke, and Facebook gleefully announced their 500 millionth user only weeks later. Everyone has some reason to complain about Facebook, but no one will quit and they will continue to grow, barring any absolutely extraordinary circumstances.

Google sucks at social media because they listen too much.

It’s no secret Google sucks at social media. They have yet to release anything of consequence in this sector and well, again barring any extraordinary circumstances or a major acquisition, it doesn’t look like this is going to change anytime soon. The problem? Well, there’s several, but for the most part they just don’t get it, and they keep listening to their users.

Facebook, for example, doesn’t do beta. They soft launch a feature and let it go. That’s it. No feedback, no tweaks, none of that crap.

Google doesn’t do anything without a beta. They want nothing but feedback, feedback, feedback. They want to tweak and poke and play around with each product until it’s–in their eyes, at least–perfect. But you can’t do that with social media.

Social media is a whole new ballgame. The users don’t know best.

Twitter figured this out.

“Who To Follow” is a feature that many users hate. But none of those users are going to quit Twitter over it, and it’s going to generate even more traffic and users for the social platform. It’s win-win.

That said, Twitter has a unique history of development with its users. As most know, many features–including hashtags, @ replies and more–began as behaviors users were doing anyway, that Twitter then turned into features. But those were different circumstances. Twitter has taken the good ideas from its users, and thrown away the bad ones. Twitter has released features that users hated, but–and look at the new-style retweet if you want proof–they still ignored their users.

It doesn’t make sense, but that’s because it never worked this way before.

Very few companies can say they’ve succeeded by ignoring their users as opposed to listening to them. The Walmart mantra of “the customer is always right” has become so ingrained in consumer culture that it seems unfathomable that a company would go out of their way to ignore the outcry of millions of frustrated users.

So welcome to social media land, where things don’t work the same way anymore. Social media has turned hundreds of entire industries on their head–from media to advertising to public relations and even the act of governing–and that’s because it is a fundamentally different beast.

So complain all you want, fellow social media users. Whether you love it or hate it, that new feature on Facebook or Twitter probably isn’t going anywhere. Because like it or not, they know this business better than you do. That’s why they’re who they are. That’s why they run these platforms. And that’s why they’re kicking Google’s ass at social media. They aren’t listening–for a reason.

Mashable, God love ‘em, is convinced that if (and that’s a BIG IF) AT&T loses exclusivity on the iPhone, they’ll see a major decrease in income and revenue. This just proves, once again, that just because you’ve got a big microphone doesn’t mean you understand the business or the technology behind the mobile industry.

To their credit, the author explains some of the caveats–sure, AT&T isn’t going to lose all it’s iPhone subscribers over night, but then, naturally, he goes right back and contradicts himself:

If, on the other hand, Verizon got the device next year, the incentive to switch to AT&T would go up in a puff of smoke. The number of new wireless subscribers would drop like an iPad thrown out of an airplane.

You are just. wrong. And including juvenile and unrelated Microsoft paint graphics about how tethering means losing your unlimited data plan only exacerbates the fact that you don’t get how this business works.

Harsh? Maybe. True? Yes. Here’s the deal, folks.

If (once again, that’s a big IF) AT&T were to lose exclusivity on the iPhone–which I’m still not convinced will happen until at least 2012 (not to Verizon anyway, to T-mobile is a whole other, much more rational and likely possibility)–then yes the market would change. No, AT&T would not suffer and die because they are just soooooo dependent on the iPhone. That’s nonsense. There’s a couple factors at play here:

1. There’s no such thing as a finite market. This is the number one rule of business, marketing, and well, it’s important and you need to get this. We will never reach a point where every single person on earth is just so satisfied with their cell phone and wireless coverage that they will never ever want to switch or buy a new phone. It’s never going to happen. EVER. Which means that there are always customers to market to, and always new people to buy phones, iPhones or not, AT&T or not. If AT&T loses exclusivity? They’ll keep selling the iPhone to millions of people, along with other networks, and they’ll continue to sell millions of other inferior phones to ignorant customers who don’t understand they’re being ripped off by the quality of their device.
2. Moving to Verizon would be a huge pain in the ass for Apple AND Verizon. On the surface, most people probably don’t see any downside at all to Verizon adding the iPhone to its mobile product line. They’re missing 80% of the substance in this argument. For Apple, they would have to create an entirely new iPhone. Not just a slightly different one, but an entirely different one. Switching to CDMA is not as simple as simply switching out a chip in the phone. With CDMA they would have to rework the entire infrastructure of the iPhone 4, since it’s antennae is specially designed to work on AT&T’s GSM network–meaning this would have to be reconfigured and re-tested, thousands and thousands of times, before they’d let it see the light of day on Verizon’s network. They’d also have to change the software, as the CDMA network will not allow phones to access both the voice network and the data network simultaneously. So all you AT&T customers who enjoy browsing the Web as a distraction while talking to your parents on speakerphone? Kiss that blessed distraction goodbye. For Verizon, they would lose the best mobile partnership they’ve ever, ever had–Google. No, they wouldn’t lose it straight out, but you can bet Google isn’t going to be happy about it. Verizon has now spent over two years all-out marketing the Android operating system and phones (even directly attacking the iPhone on occasion), and going back on all those millions of ad dollars is just about the biggest, most hypocritcal, “f*#$ you” to Google they could pull. Would that stop them? Maybe not alone, but if Android surpasses the iPhone in market sure in the next two years, as has been projected, then Verizon might be crying a little when AT&T starts making bank on both Android and iPhone phones, while Verizon has to catch up by spending millions of dollars in advertising to remind customers that “Oh hey, we have the iPhone now, too! We’re five years late, but trust us, our network can handle it!”
3. Verizon does not have a stronger network, and it won’t take long for customers to figure that out. Regardless of how much the “I’ve got a map for that” ads might be drilled into your brain at this point, Verizon simply doesn’t have a stronger network. They have a better quality network because there is less strain on it. If they get the iPhone, you can kiss that goodbye, too. You think AT&T is bad? Just wait until Verizon unleashes the iPhone on the pitiful networks of San Francisco and New York. AT&T has learned their lesson and is constantly bolstering their network to correct for the insane amount of data usage iPhone customers manage. I’m willing to bet Verizon has underestimated just how much strain the iPhone would put on their network. And if they try to roll it out on 4G… it’ll be like going back to the EDGE network.

But what do I know. I’ll firmly admit I’m not a mobile technology industry expert either. But I’ve spent enough time watching this and learning about it that I think I get it better than most people now. Does it mean that I’m 100% sure of everything I just wrote? No. But ridiculous doomsday theories for AT&T and fanboyish journalism for Verizon is just getting out of hand.

Chances are, nothing will play out like almost anyone has predicted it will, including myself. Chances are I’m wrong about something in this post, just like Mashable is almost certainly wrong in theirs. So let this be your disclaimer before you go off ranting online or in the comments (although feel free, really, I don’t actually mind) about how I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Some of these applications are just nice alternatives to some of my favorite Mac apps, and some are just great apps that I use at home as well. Others make it easier to sync your work between computers. Regardless, they’re all great apps and features, and I couldn’t recommend them enough.

Without further ado, I present my list for making your cubicle your own.

DropBox
DropBox I really can’t recommend enough. It’s one of the best apps out there, and I use it at work, at school, on friends’ computers, and at home. I haven’t used a flash drive in years thanks to DropBox. Just go download it. Really. Right now.

Every Web Browser
Yup, I’m talking about Firefox, Chrome, and Safari. They all serve excellent functions and, if you’re looking for compatibility, unfortunately there’s rarely a catchall solution. Obviously Internet Explorer is, sadly, sometimes necessary on Windows PCs. For regular browsing I use Chrome. For MobileMe and Apple-focused Web apps, I use Safari. And for design and Web development, I use Firefox. Too many apps? Who says you have to have a limit?

The MobileMe Beta
I just recently began using the MobileMe Beta, and it rocks. It’s so much faster, smoother, and well, just better email interface than ever before. It’s still not quite as snappy as gmail, but if you’re a MobileMe user (and if you have an iPhone I’d strongly recommend it), it’s a must. Sign up for the beta as soon as you can.

iTunes
Own a lot of music? Want to play any videos at all off the Web (with the exception of YouTube, obviously)? Download iTunes. ‘Nuff said.

Spotify
Want to play music at work? Get Spotify. Technically, it’s still not available in the U.S. But if you get an invite there are ways around this. Not that I’d ever recommend breaking the rules or anything.

GIMP
Do any photo editing? Image manipulation? At all? You need GIMP. Consider it free Photoshop. You can thank me later.

Tweetdeck
If you spend any time at all on Twitter, you need to be using Tweetdeck. There is simply no better client. Tweetdeck lets you manage multiple accounts, open multiple columns for different categories, run searches and view multimedia within the app, access your Facebook, Foursquare, LinkedIn, Myspace and more, and the list goes on and on.

Pidgin
Consider it your Windows alternative to Adium. It’s free, manages every instant messenger account you can think of, and has plenty of cool plugins to give you all the features you might need. Check it out.

I hope you found this list useful! By all means, “Like” it on Facebook and share it on Twitter using the links below.

Illustration for the video was done by Cognitive Media, which looks to be an equally awesome organization.

1. Verizon doesn’t want it. They’re making plenty of money. They also know that they do not have the strongest, fastest, most reliable network. AT&T does, although it might not seem like it thanks to all the iPhones clogging up the system.
2. AT&T will do anything to keep the iPhone. Despite the way their PR has suffered thanks to shoddy service (again, thanks to too much data and not enough bandwidth), AT&T knows that the iPhone is the lifeblood of their service. Nobody is that attached to a service provider–as long as it works decent and does what it’s supposed to without ripping you off (too much), people will go to whoever has the best phone. And right now, the iPhone is king (despite competition from Android phones).

So, a couple excerpts from the article:

Newcomers will have two options: Under the DataPlus plan, subscribers can pay $15 a month for 200 megabytes of data; that would handle about 400 photos or 100 minutes of streaming video. The DataPro plan offers 10 times that capacity, 2 gigabytes, for $25.

Good move. Both plans are cheaper than what you’re paying now. And who doesn’t like saving money? Plus, very few will actually have to pay extra for additional data:

AT&T says 65% of its smartphone customers use less than 200 MB a month, and 98% use less than 2 GB… And just 3% of AT&T’s smartphone customers account for as much as 40% of its data traffic, contributing to slow transmissions and dropped calls. AT&T must control heavy users, or at least get them to pay more…

Soon, I can virtually guarantee Verizon will roll out a similar pricing structure (if they haven’t already… I’m not familiar enough with their pricing plans).

But not all is rosy for AT&T today. They made some stupid mistakes too. First, this same pricing structure is in place for the iPad as well, which uses significantly more data, as would be expected. Now I’m not sure this will be quite as big a deal as lots of people are saying, because it sucks using that much data on a 3G network anyway (for streaming movies, etc. most people will hunt down a Wi-Fi signal). Who knows, maybe they’re just kind of testing the water with this–if people get too outraged I wouldn’t be surprised to see them tweak this down the road.

Secondly, the last paragraph just boggles the mind (emphasis mine).

IPhone customers who pay an extra $20 a month soon will be able to use the phones to provide Internet connections for laptops or other devices. That process, called tethering, will be available on 3G iPhones this summer when Apple releases a new operating system, AT&T says.

But wait, you can already do that. Just not in the U.S., and not in many other countries. It’s embarrassing that they are literally re-announcing a feature from last year as if it’s some kind of revolutionary feature. Gimme a break.

[USA Today]

Social media is a business, and it amazes me how much social media users are, quite frankly, acting like entitled, spoiled brats.

Reality is striking the social media space and it’s hitting hard and fast. As we all know, it’s centered on the Facebook privacy debacle, set in motion by a changed privacy policy meant to help further the business–and the continued existence–of a growing international corporation. Couple that with some bad PR on Facebook’s part and a spoiled user base, and you’ve set the stage for a crisis of poisoned Tylenol proportions. But Facebook can relax, because they’re in the right on this one. People need to wake up and smell the roses, because there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Three things I want you to learn from this post.

Privacy Is an Illusion

First, some contend Facebook needs to get serious about privacy. In Facebook’s defense, I’d argue that Facebook’s users need to get serious about their own privacy and stop posting stupid shit online they don’t want other people to know.

Don’t want people to know your phone number? Don’t put it on Facebook. And delist yourself from the phonebook, contact Google to get yourself removed from their database, and be sure to call up every company you’ve ever subscribed to, filled out a warranty card for, or enlisted in a loyalty program for to get your name off their lists, while you’re at it.

The thing is, privacy doesn’t exist. Not only is privacy dead, but it’s been dead for a long time. If I want to find you, I can. And I can almost guarantee you I can do it without the help of the Internet.

Social Media is a Business

Secondly, Facebook needs to make money, and advertising is how they do it. By taking usage statistics and the information that we, its loyal users, are posting on their site, owned by a private corporation, they are more than entitled to take our information and make those ads more relevant, targeted and profitable. And to be perfectly honest, I’d prefer to see an ad about PR and marketing services (as I often do on Facebook, thanks to my chosen career path) than an ad on nail polish or enlargement pills (circa 2001), any day.

Facebook is a business and if you’ve got a problem with the way they run their business, fine. But don’t act like you are entitled to anything, because you aren’t. They aren’t public, so you certainly don’t own any shares. They never signed an agreement with you–you signed an agreement with them. And they have a responsibility to themselves and their employees to make money and to continue to grow. Are they pushing the boundaries of privacy and the social web? Sure they are. Is it 100% morally right and something they should be doing? Maybe not. Is it their prerogative to do so? Absolutely.

The best way to complain about a business is to leave. So do it. Just leave. Quit complaining about their privacy policy. If you don’t want to be as social as Facebook thinks you should be, perhaps you don’t belong on their social network. There’s nothing wrong with that, and that’s your decision. But making ridiculous claims like “Facebook’s invading my privacy” and that they are “stealing your identity for profit” is getting nothing done, and to be brutally honest, Facebook really doesn’t care about you. You don’t have a legal leg to stand on, and the thousands of lawyers they’ve had write their privacy policy know that.

The “Customer” is NOT Always Right

Finally, to those of you arguing that Facebook should “listen to its customers more”–I think you’re wrong, too. On more than one level. First of all, we aren’t customers because we aren’t buying anything from them. We’re users. Of their service. That they’re providing to us completely free of charge.

Secondly, where do you think Facebook would be today if it had always “listened to its users?” I’ll tell you. They would’ve abandoned the idea of the newsfeed–which single-handedly revolutionized the way we consume and share content on the web. They would’ve abandoned their latest series of redesigns, which undoubtedly make information on the service easier to access and digest. Oh, and they would’ve abandoned the idea of every leaving Harvard University, because I’m sure those users were enjoying having the service very much to themselves. If they abandoned their current line of development–specifically, sharing content and interacting with third-party websites–it would be a remarkable leap backwards in social media technology. They know that, and that’s why they aren’t going to do it.

Look at what happened to Myspace. Myspace didn’t fail because it “stopped listening to its users.” It failed because it listened too much. There’s a fine line to walk when it comes to customer service in social media and those boundaries are still being explored. However, by giving its users so much free reign over the service, Myspace collapsed into a jumbled mess of spammy-looking profiles and pedophile stalkers.

Facebook has succeeded because it took a hard line on what they thought was best, and what they thought would best propel the social web forward. They’ve done well, so far. It’s hard to argue with their kind of success–500 million users is nothing to balk at, and the innovation they’ve brought to the web (minus some feature-stealing from Twitter) can hardly be considered minor developments.

Now obviously this all just my humble opinion. I’m not looking for a fight, and I’ll gladly entertain other opinions and respect other views. But to be perfectly honest, I think this entire debate is just getting ridiculous.

P.S. Twitter is a business too.