Why all the fuss? Well, obviously this means that a much larger number of handsets around the world will have mobile access to a wide selection of mobile applications. RIM and WinMo phones make up the vast majority of handsets in the corporate world, and although the corporate world doesn’t revolve on having a wide range of apps for various tasks, it does mean this: all those business users who, for whatever reason, haven’t adopted handsets like the iPhone that already have apps stores, they will now have the access to apps they will want to use in their personal time.

And aside from those users that have chosen to sport two phones, one for professional use and one for personal use, most folks prefer to pack only one phone on a day to day basis. So most folks will now be able to download mobile apps to whatever phone they’re tied to.

Again, for many of you, so what? Application stores mean that users have access to a wide array of social applications; beyond that, developers compete aggressively to produce the most intuitive and powerful applications every day, and to offer them at the best price points. Right now there are certainly aren’t enough applications for the most popular social platforms, but we’re going in the right direction. With the added stores for Blackberry and Windows Mobile, even more developers will be drawn to projects for mobile platforms. I can almost taste the quality to come.

Also, one of my biggest problems with the nature of mobile social networking to date was that social media really can’t be mobile until every phone is able to partake in the community. Until now, that wasn’t possible; when you rule out Blackberrys and Windows Mobile phones, you’re left with just a piece of the pie. Now we can at least say that we’re at the right staging point from which developers can now start working on truly intuitive cross-platform apps that allow everyone to connect, regardless of their carrier or handset.

This is big. Get excited.

If you haven’t heard, Facebook updated its terms-of-service so that all user-generated content, be they photos, videos, links or annoying graffiti art, essentially belong to Facebook, not the creators.  Certainly, in theory it sounds ominous and invasive.  But at the nuts and bolts, it really isn’t in much different from the norm, whether we’re talking Facebook or any other social media or networking site.  

Aaron Brazell over at Technosailer.com concedes, “This is fundamentally not all that out of sorts from what most services do when licensing user content,” but then goes on to state that he’ll be advising others to abstain from uploading content to Facebook, perhaps only excluding links.  That sort of play-it-safe attitude might suffice, but it seems counterintuitive to the ideals and goals that many of us in the social media world share.  

The real question I think we should take time to answer before storming the castle with pitchforks and torches is this:  what does it change?  If Facebook is just now putting to paper what has been largely accepted by everyone until now, what’s all the hulabaloo for?  

Let’s say that Facebook used user content in the past without having the express rights written into the terms of service (which I’m sure has happened).  If the user in question wanted to fight it, they could take it to litigation, and they’d certainly have a case.  But I haven’t heard much from upset users bemoaning abuse of their content.  And the only reason we’re hearing anything now is because it seems like a huge privacy issue, when in fact it isn’t. 

Facebook is nailing up a loose end that could have been the source of endless grief, and one that could have been exploited by a savvy user looking to make a buck off the social networking behemoth.  Twitter user @Nazgul makes a very good point in saying, “@geechee_girl Just wonder if wasn’t issue of ‘How do we keep from having to pull an ad just because it shows screenshot of a deleted user.’”  I would add, how do we keep from getting sued when the odd situation arises in which a user objects to having his or her content used?  Express terms in contracts save a lot of time and money.

The way I see it, if you want to use Facebook, you need to know up front that Facebook could use your content.  But I’d venture a guess that most folks aren’t reading the terms of service as it is.  It’s only the social media and internet privacy people sounding the warning siren.  

And while it’s our responsibility to make it unequivocally clear what will and won’t fly to the less-than-visionary Zuckerberg, I don’t think this is one of those battles that needs to be fought.  Furthermore, what kind of job would we be doing by discouraging people from uploading their content to Facebook?  Are we really saying, “Yes, Facebook is the biggest and most-used social network, and you should definitely participate in the interests of advancing social media and your own brand/image…but scrapbook your photos and have get-togethers in your homes to share your video content instead of uploading it.”  

We talk about clouding and cross-network integration, and how amazing it could be if we just got the support of the general public behind it.  I use my Blackberry to update my favorite social networks all at once, and  I’m not going to stop doing so simply because Facebook did what any good business would do and put pen to paper to protect itself.  And I certainly won’t be advising anyone to hole up in a bunker socially just because Facebook’s looking out for numero uno.

CNN reported that on Facebook, arguably the most popular social networking site for college students and young people, Obama claimed 2.4 million followers, where John McCain pulled up the rear with a meager 624,000.  Obama’s own site was significantly more social in content, and John McCain’s team did make an effort to replicate some of the functionality Obama touted for McCain’s own site.

There is one point that I will not contend with Sanchez, that being that the GOP (and the Democratic party) should work towards reaching the young and old through social media. Social media is here to stay, and it would nothing less than irresponsible to not maintain a presence on networks and sites like Facebook, MySpace, Youtube, Twitter, Friendfeed and the like.

However, implicit to Sanchez’s article is the suggestion that if the GOP can match the Democrat’s technological savvy, they can swing a large group of young voters in the party’s favor. I respectfully disagree.

Let us consider the example of Facebook’s role in identifying each candidate’s young constituents during this latest election. A total of 3.24 million Facebook users responded to the survey, an impressive number to say the least. Though there is no way of truly knowing (without getting insider private information directly from the Facebook team) the ages of every single survey participant, I think it is fairly safe to say the majority would belong to what we would call the “young” vote. Millenials, Gen-Yers, or whatever we are called, our age group showed up in a force much larger than has been reported of previous elections.

But I don’t think that McCain or Obama’s involvement in Facebook really swayed many young voters one way or the other. After all, what exactly, aside from joining groups like “Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack),” or “1 Million Strong for McCain/Palin ’08,” can Facebook users do to really participate and show support? I write notes from time to time, but I don’t think Palin has stopped by to read and appreciate my comments.

Youtube is more dynamic in gauging support for political candidates, in that the campaigns can produce videos to reach Youtube users, and those users can actively demonstrate their support (or dislike) for a certain candidate by responding in videos of their own. Still, the candidates themselves can’t really participate much beyond being seen in videos.

Twitter might be said to be an exception to my previous examples of candidates’ inability to connect with supporters. Barack Obama (or his right-hand team) was fairly active on the micro-messaging platform, which is more than McCain can say. However, and I say this from both being a young voter and from being surrounded by an entire campus of fellow young voters, many college-goers don’t deviate from their time-consuming addictions to Facebook and Youtube, with some still frequenting MySpace (though, for what reason I have no clue). Twitter is definitely on the radar and used heavily by those of us who love everything social media, blogosphere and internet, but we aren’t the majority. Suffice it to say that from where I stand, Obama was reaching a slightly different group than the college-going young voter on Twitter for the most part.

So, if each candidate’s participation in the most popular social networks was limited, and there was still a significant amount of support from young voters, it must be seen that the support was largely volunteered by those supportive youths, not in response to the direct involvement of each candidate.

From there, we must ask ourselves exactly why the number of constituents for each candidate was skewed so heavily in Obama’s favor. I think the answer is simple: as cliche as it sounds (and is), young people want change and believe that they (assumedly alongside Mr. Obama) can achieve it.

There are two parts to that equation. First, it is no secret that as people age, they tend towards more conservative stances. Colleges are typically the most liberal institutions, and it is visible in the mentalities of students. Being liberal is popular in college. That is because we are surrounded with fellow liberals who tend to look badly on conservative stances.

In addition, I would argue that the needs and motives of young voters are best catered to by the Democratic party. Obviously, those interests like social welfare programs, lower loan and tuition rates and minimum wage tend to give way to more conservative interests as young voters graduate and start accumulating wealth and assets of their own.

The second contributor to the political leanings of young voters, in my estimation, are the mediums through which young voters get their political information. As I previously mentioned, that includes the influences of those professors we see from day to day, and also various media channels. What college student does not enjoy the entertainment of “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report,” or, dare I say them, “South Park,” and “Family Guy?” If you think that those last two shows don’t play a part in the way the young voters of America perceive the government, you would be oh so wrong. Every one of those hugely popular “college” shows influence the minds of young voters, and it is safe to say those shows are far from conservative. I won’t say that basing one’s political opinions on the incredibly skewed political stances of those media outlets is wise, but to each their own.

So, as much as it would be nice to paint a picture of proper social media usage being the key to victory for the GOP with young voters, I think it will take a far sight more to win the minds of that coveted demographic. In fact, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the GOP as it currently stands, comprised of neo-conservatives and moderate-conservatives, will never really serve the immediate interests (as they will see it) of young voters. But then, this country was never intended to be controlled by two parties that are more apt to scratch each other’s back than cater to the interests of the people. Maybe it is time for a drastic changing of guards…

I’m a Blackberry user.  You might even say that I am a Crackberry addict.  I won’t say it, because that means I have admitted that I have a problem, and experts tell me such admittance must preclude a recovery of some sort.   But for better or worse, you might say my life revolves around the shiny little Blackberry Curve Sunset that never escapes my person.

I have the Facebook application for Blackberry.  I can update my status, post photographs, and send messages to friends.  You’d think that I’d also be able to receive notifications of messages, comments and wall posts made by my friends to me.  In theory, that should work…but in execution, it doesn’t.  I don’t know whether T-Mobile, RIM or Facebook is to blame, but I know this: they probably aren’t suffering like I am.  After all, nobody likes a tease, and having a Facebook icon situated fashionably on my menu is really only torturous when it never talks to me.

Twitter is also a favorite social tool of mine, and one of the few Twitter clients developed for Blackberry is Twitterberry. I also installed that client, and within a few hours, uninstalled it along with Facebook.  Blackberrys are handy in that their indicator lights flash red when a new update, message or call has been received.  Unfortunately, Twitterberry won’t alert you to updates.  In fact, not only won’t it blink red for updates, it caused my Blackberry to flash red when I had no messages.  I found myself checking my Blackberry every 15 seconds in hopes that I was not being deceived by the flashy red light, which was both time-consuming and irritating.

My much-belabored point is this: the entire reason social media and networks were modified for mobile devices was so users could enjoy the convenience of accessing their content abroad.  If you remove the convenience factor and insert frustration, well…you certainly haven’t moved ahead, have you?  I consider my social networks to be a source of enjoyment; I don’t need more complication or frustration, thank you very much.

Of course, there really isn’t any one entity to point a finger at; data networks still aren’t really where they should be for proper enjoyment of mobile social content, nor are handsets (I’m sorry Apple, Google, et al, but sometimes the truth stings).

A large problem is that carriers don’t feel the need to vastly improve their networks so that they can handle proper mobile social content because, aside from monthly data plans, there isn’t a penny in it for the networks.  Believe me, providers are itching for ways to hook users into paying for mobile social platforms, but it hasn’t quite caught on yet.  Unfortunately, the free social platforms can’t move forward in design until carriers start providing data networks and handsets capable of seamlessly integrating those platforms that don’t pay dividends.  The closest thing might be Apple’s iPhone on the AT&T network, and I certainly don’t think it is correct to say they’ve nailed it.

For now, there isn’t much to do besides wait.  That, and make it very clear to providers by way of social networks, platforms and blogs that robbing people blind for mediocre services and devices won’t stand.  Say what you like, but I’m not willing to pay exorbitant prices for lackluster data service when I can’t access those things that make having the internet in my pocket worth my time or money.

You see, along with the many various hobbies I entertain, I’m a self-proclaimed gadget geek.  Full blown.  I read somewhere that my Myers-Briggs personality analysis explains my need to have a new shiny gadget in my pocket at frequent intervals; thank you, whoever managed to connect psychology to my gadget addiction.  I now effectively have a doctor’s note to wave around at loved ones who wonder why I can’t stick with a cell phone for more than a year (at most) at a time.  

With that said, I’ve been somewhat disenchanted with mobile web browsing until just recently.  The iPhone was the very first device that actually made me want to use the internet on the go.  I don’t have an iPhone, though.  All the folks who browse the internet on Palms, Blackberrys, HTC devices or any other smart phones probably can relate when I say that mobile browsing can be a bear.

That isn’t necessarily the fault of the handset or operating system manufacturers.  The biggest problem is that there really aren’t really any rules or established guidelines for websites to follow when it comes to designing mobile-friendly pages.  Text can appear all jumbled up, you have to scroll every which way like you’re playing a game of Snake to navigate —  no rules usually translates as anarchy.  

I said a quiet prayer of gratitude yesterday when I read that the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) finally laid out its first set of guidelines for creating mobile websites.  Anthony Ha of Venture Beat writes, “The consortium, commonly known as the W3C, is the primary international body that develops standards for the web, and now it’s turning its attention to the mobile world. The idea is to have a set of guidelines that developers can follow so that their sites can be viewed without difficulty on any device.”  If that doesn’t excite the pocket warriors amongst you, I don’t know what will!

With standardization of rules that demand mobile websites be accessible by any web-friendly mobile phone, more consumers will get on board with mobile browsing.  As more consumers become connected on the go, there will finally be the boom of users necessary for mobile social networking to really take off.  The scope and potential is huge!  With browsers being packed into every purse and pocket, we’ll see a huge boost in dependence on mobile social communities, and you can bet your britches it will change the way we think about mobile social networks and the devices we choose.

If, at this point, you still haven’t quite grasped how exciting this is (at least for me in my gadget-driven geek frenzy), I suppose you could imagine me doing an Irish jig in my office.  That’s not something I necessarily recommend.  

Information Week claims that the adoption of smartphones like the iPhone is the catalyst for the market’s shift towards mobile-based social platforms.  I agree with that opinion whole-heartedly, but there are a few very large roadblocks standing in the way of widespread adoption of social mobile platforms.

First, many consumers just aren’t ready to spend money on data transfer plans with mobile carriers because either the handsets that properly execute internet are too pricy, or the plan rates are outrageously priced.  The U.S. carrier market is preying on consumers; while other countries have high-speed networks and advanced handsets available at competitive rates, the U.S. market is exploiting customers while the getting is good.  For the U.S. market to truly adopt mobile social media, plans and handset prices will need to become truly competitive — what a novel concept!

Second, handsets will need to be powerful enough to operate mobile social platforms full-time without putting a huge strain on battery life, system performance or any other aspect of mobile communication.  Apple isn’t allowing mobile social platforms to run constantly in the background on the iPhone for fear of system slowdown and drained battery life.  Though that is a legitimate concern, by not allowing social platforms like Facebook and Twitter to run as background processes, the iPhone (which is the most popular touchscreen handset on the market) is stunting the growth of mobile social media.  If the industry is truly going in the direction iSuppli predicts, Apple and other manufacturers will have to bulk up their handsets to compensate for the shift towards proper mobile social networking.  

iSuppli also estimates that the cost of basic mobile social packages will be an average of $15.30 monthly.  I have to say that I disagree with this analysis, and here’s why:  the entire point of social networking is to share and communicate with friends, family and new people.  Sharing, by definition, implies no cost.  Do you think social networking and media would have become so successful if there were monthly price tags on every platform?  That obviously won’t stop carriers from attempting to tag social packages with price tags.  However, you can bet that people will choose to pay standard data rates and use free social platforms instead of opting into any carrier-exclusive for-pay mobile platform.  If carriers can’t see that simple fact now, they’re wasting time by building or purchasing mobile social platforms they intend to charge users for.  

It is likely that, like many other things in the mobile world, the U.S. will be stuck quite a few large steps behind other markets, simply because carriers aren’t willing to sacrifice a few pennies in the name of progress.  Though other markets might see a drastic shift towards mobile social networking by next year, our nickel-and-diming U.S. carriers probably won’t have any problem shooting up the party here.  

Of course, you’re now curious what I’m referring to.  Social media is starting to find a home on mobile devices so you don’t have to stress about staying connected at your home machine 24/7.  If you’re the kind of person who loves taking pictures with a mobile phone, many mobile social networks will allow you to upload photos to an entire mobile social community dedicated to sharing different media content.  If staying connected to a plethora of social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and others is more your flavor, there are quite a few newly-emerging platforms that aggregate all of your most important social activity right on your cell phone.

That, friends, means freedom — freedom from the confines of your home office, freedom to live your life as you want and still stay in contact with your social communities.  With smartphones, touchscreen handsets and very affordable standard handsets being compatible with these mobile social platforms, answer me this:  why are you still sitting at your computer toiling over each and every update your friends send you on all your different platforms when you could be out?  Instead of answering me, go out and go mobile!