Two More Reasons Apple is Overrated September 19, 2009
Posted by Daniel in WebApps, WebStuff.Tags: Apple, AppStore, FCC, Federal Communication Commission, google, GoogleVoice
2 comments
A follow up to the Top 10 reasons Apple is Overrated
Reason number 11
A claim by security expert Charlie Miller that “Snow Leopard’s more secure than [previous release] Leopard, but it’s not as secure as Vista or Windows 7.”
Interesting when one of the loudest horns Apple keeps tooting is their resilience against virus’ and spy-ware.
Address space layout randomization (ASLR) is the key difference Miller points to. Vista upgraded their version of this random memory placement tool, but Apple has ignored Vista’s updates and made none of their own.
Charlie says that Macs get hacked less, but not because they’re harder to get into, but simply because there are significantly less out there than there are PCs. He says “That’s because if [the hacker] can hit 90 per cent of the machines out there, that’s all he’s gonna do. It’s not worth him nearly doubling his work just to get that last 10 per cent.”
So Apple’s claim to security fame… not so impressive.
Reason number 12
Apple has been lying to the FCC – a federal offense.
Image via CrunchBase
Ok so I know it’s not a technical reason, but still. Apple has rejected (or according to Apple, is still pondering over) the Google Voice app. Apple has been denying this rejection but Google recently submitted a letter to the FCC stating that they have screenshots documenting the rejection.
But Apple won’t back down and in a recent letter to the FCC still says they have “not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google.”
Apple lists in that letter that Google Voice falls in the same category as 3 other third party GV apps. Those apps strangely enough have all been removed from the app store. In fact, the company behind one app sent a screenshot confirming their rejection from the app store to Tech Crunch. So why would Apple categorize Google Voice with other rejected apps if GV wasn’t rejected, but merely “under consideration.”
Lying to the FCC – there’s an app for that.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=134aa8b8-24f2-4737-acbf-7b27841dc23f)
Link Strategy Site Gets A Facelift 3 Years in the Making September 17, 2009
Posted by Daniel in Advertising, SEO.Tags: Advertising, Blackhat SEO, Blogging Advice, google, PayPerPost
add a comment
PayPerPost is one of a growing crowd of link strategy sites hoping to broker deals between advertisers and bloggers. After 3 years of user input, Ted Murphy announced in April that they were releasing PPPv4 – “A complete re-write of PayPerPost from the ground up.”
After checking out PPPv4 for a couple weeks, I’ve found it very easy to use/understand. The interaction between advertisers and bloggers is the best I’ve seen from a review site. The approval process involves the bloggers and advertisers in a way that makes sure both parties are happy with the pricing, posting, and approving.
On top of that, they have a 25% deal going on right now – rewarding advertisers with a 25% bonus if they deposit $500 or more into their account. A big chunk of change, but a sweet incentive to do so. The blogs are priced relatively well compared to the industry.
All blog posts are required to contain full disclosure. Advertisers can pick whether they’d like disclosure to appear within the post, site-wide, or a combination of both. While disclosure isn’t ideal from an advertiser’s perspective, it is closer to being aligned with Google’s best practices than most paid reviews. Perhaps following such guidelines will warrent some favor from King Google.
All-in-all, from my experience, Version 4 of PayPerPost is a decent upgrade to the sponsored reviews industry. Well done PPP.
How the Google Stole Christmas… July 14, 2009
Posted by Daniel in Search Engines, SEO, WebStuff.Tags: google, Regulation, SEO
1 comment so far
An anonymous post on TechCrunch.com calling for SEO/SEM regulation supposedly “written by a well known executive at one of the largest sites on the Internet” has sparked a tremendous amount of discussion and debate. I agree that we should find someway to credential or license exceptional SEO’s. However, I don’t agree that the government needs to be involved or that total transperancy from the search engines is necessary.
The post makes Google look like the Grinch who stole E-commerce. The author does this by arguing that Google abuses its position as the sole gatekeeper to most of web-based commercial world by changing its search algorithms without warning and disabling clients pay-per-click accounts without notice or reason.
The mysterious author draws the comparison to Los Angeles where the entrances are guarded by one company, and the streets changed sporadically by the same company – restricting the customer’s travel and often completely blocking access to some vendors.
The funny thing is, as I was reading through articles this morning on SEO techniques and tips, one of the articles (from SEObook.com, Is PageRank Important) pointed out that because search aglorythms are always changing, the best approach to search engine marketing is a traditional marketing strategy – provide great content, products, or services and people will come back with their friends.
In constantly updating their algorithms, Google isn’t being a Grinch, they’re attempting to weed out the trickery and magic of SEO to find honest, helpful search results. On the other end, SEO’s are finding out more and more that their goals should be to produce accurate and high quality content and market it to the right crowd.
In other words, the market is already regulating itself. Nobody is forcing the public to use the Google gateway to the e-commerce world. Who knows, maybe bing.com will turn out to be a surprisingly strong competitor for Google. The consumer will dictate which gates to use in their online experience, and if Google fails to produce relevant results, the consumer will find another gate.
Thanks Mr. Anonymous for sharing your feelings about regulating SEO/SEM. But its already fixing itself as you write.
