The bottom line is that both Facebook and Google essentially rely on income from advertising to support their business models and that successfully delivering an own-brand smart-phone would allow for greater control over such activities. Yes, Android is thus far enjoying massive success in giving Google a strong foothold in the smartphone market - but the same could not really be said of their previous attempts to team up with handset manufacturers to deliver a Google phone (from the G1, G2, to the Nexus One, and now more recent Samsung models).

Anyway, Google is clearly trying and that is no secret. Officially, Facebook isn't - though it has been rumoured in the past, and probably will be again in the future. Now, in terms of the likelihood of this speculation ever turning to reality, I should be upfront and let you know that I simply have no new info to add (just in case you thought I was Zuckerberg's secret confiante and had a breaking-news bombshell to announce).

I have no idea if Facebook will try to launch their own smart-phone - and if they did, it would probably for all the reasons discussed in the Guardian article linked above. The reason I'm even here (in the digital debate so to speak) is simply to ponder the question from a consumer point of view: why would anyone buy a Facebook smartphone?

After all, Facebook's brand presence is unlikely to get it much traction in the market. People are not used to paying for something with Facebook written on it and, moreover, Facebook's brand image is so massively tied up in social networking that to see a single other 'Facebook' product out there would be downright confusing for many consumers.

So what's the strategy going to be? Obviously Facebook would have to team up with a currently established smartphone manufacturer (most of whom would welcome the deal) in order to design and build the device although I would be curious if the terms of co-operating with Google on the same task prohibit such a partnership with Facebook.

In any case, who would be an attractive partner for Facebook (i.e. who could sell enough devices to make it a success)? Apple? They tend not to like compromising their brand image at the core level (though they do have partnerships with various lower-level start-ups and companies). Is HTC or Samsung likely to be attractive if they're also working with Google? Probably not.

Motorola, RIM, Nokia (and increasingly also HTC) are all slightly worryingly poised in terms of their own business positions that a partnership as huge as this would represent somewhat of a risk for Facebook when those companies are all undergoing something of a change in direction and re-design of their smartphone strategy in order to try and get back on track after previous initial success (apart from Nokia who are now aiming for their first smartphone hit with the their Windows phones).

OK, so it's hard therefore to say that a Facebook phone is likely to be attractive to consumers because of some superior and revolutionary handset, which means that the only real unique selling point for consumers could be something to do with Facebook functionality on the phone. But what could this actually mean?

• A better user experience with a superior Facebook app? What would stop others from copying this (the technology in these devices is pretty similar after all)? Even more pertinent - how could this app actually improve user experience? Surely Facebook mobile is currently as optimised as it could be (I doubt they've deliberately kept better features 'on-the-shelf' to save as some kind of joker for later).
• Related to the above - the All Things D post gives the very good point that it might be attractive for users to 'escape the confines of the app' - since a Facebook phone wouldn't need an app to access Facebook functionality - and allow integration of normally app-native info like events into a phone's calendar function. This does indeed sound good assuming people use Facebook functions like events in the same way as they would a 'normal' smartphone calendar - which I don't think they always do. In other words, this would certainly be a unique feature (as it's unlikely that Facebook would allow optional integration with other smartphone's native calendar apps) - but it might not be strong enough to tempt consumers into buying the phone. In other words, escaping the app is only significant if the user experience is noticeably improved, and while there is some scope for this, it really depends more on how people are currently using Facebook and if more of this can be done on a smartphone than is the case right now.
• New functions which are only available on the Facebook phone? Again, unless this was built upon a unique technological basis, it would be simply ridiculous to restrict it to only a small group of Facebook phone users (after all, Facebook mainly works because people can interact on an equal level). Even if some new technological innovation could offer a uniquely superior Facebook mobile user experience, how long would this edge last? How good does it have to be in order to become a significant market factor (for both Facebook, and consumers)?
• Some other Facebook-unrelated USP, with Facebook coming as part of the deal, but not being the major selling point. So imagine for example a much cheaper smartphone option (price as USP) which also doubles up as Facebook phone. This would probably work for consumers - but only for as long as the USP held up. In other words Facebook's success would be at the mercy of factors over which it has no control.

Anyway, I'll end this speculative ramble here with the only conclusion which seems solid to me right now (and probably also to you if you've read all of this flimsy conjecture) - I can't think of a single really sound reason why a Facebook phone would gain significant traction in the already congested smartphone market. The original blog post at All things D does come up with a few good ideas, but I'm personally not convinced that this alone would be enough to achieve the kind of success that would make such a venture worthwhile (i.e. that the gulf between an app and non-app experience of Facebook could be big enough in a way that favours the latter).

But that is only the case in my opinion - and right now - if Facebook succeeds in furthering some of its key partnerships (like the Skype integration for instance), which also works to change the way people use the network, then the Facebook phone will surely become increasingly logical. After all, it's not to say that the idea doesn't make sense for Facebook from their own point of view (I fully agree with the Guardian tech analysis linked above - it makes perfect sense for Facebook to think about something like this) but just that it simply doesn't seem to be that viable from a business perspective, for now at least. We'll see how things develop - I doubt this'll be the last we hear on the issue...

Imagine for example someone keeps talking to you about their refrigerator cooling fan - you can kinda relate; you even probably possess the same piece of technology yourself, but nonetheless there's about 50 other things you'd rather think and talk about than that. Browser extensions can be a bit like that for most people. You really need to be in the right company for that kinda thing.

But despite knowing all this, right now I just can't help myself: I'm going to tell you all about a Chrome extension I really like and just hope that somehow it's not a complete turn-off. The main reason for this is that Klip.me really is just so damn good.

The main function of the extension is simple: it adds a button to your Chrome toolbar which allows you to instantly push web articles that you are reading in your browser to a mobile device - either an Android/iOS phone or tablet or your Kindle. But that's not all - Klip.me also removes all the annoying c**p which sometimes makes reading in the browser additionally tedious (i.e. all the stuff around the text: ads, tag clouds, link bars etc) so that you just get the text which you actually want to read and not the hundred other things competing for your attention.

I have mainly used Klip.me with my Amazon Kindle and the performance is simply superb. The average waiting time for an article to transfer is probably about 20 seconds in my experience, while the success rate of transfer is 100% - in other words, the extension never misunderstands which bit of the page I want 'klipped' and which bit I don't. It almost never drops any of the text either, probably about five or six letters and two words across the 20 or so articles I've used it for this week.

For someone that hates reading from a computer screen (and thus loves the Kindle), Klip.me is a godsend - you can just whizz everything you want to read over in a matter of seconds and then enjoy it all from your mobile device whenever (it's pretty good for stocking up material for a holiday for example).

Anyway, that really is all there is to it, such a simple and basic extension but one that provides a function that hugely enhances the potential for Kindle owners (and Android phone owners - though I haven't personally tested that option) to massively expand the uses of their device and, in general, enjoy a less cluttered, less eye-straining, more mobile - all round better - reading experience of web content.

However in a simultaneous, but rather sobering piece of news (for Android developers, and for Google), a team of computer scientists from Intel Labs, Duke University, and Pennsylvania State University have just published a less than complementary report on the privacy violations of a number of top Android apps. There's proof (if any were needed) that Android is being taken seriously as a major app and smart phone player (it's not like you can attract the attentions of a team of seven top computer scientists to carry out such a project if you're an insignificant fledgling start-up).

Anyway, the short summary is that, from a selection of 30 of Android's top apps, 15 were found to be carrying out data sharing activities with third parties - without even notifying the app user. While Google has responded today to the story and justified that users need to pay attention to the terms to which they agree when installing the app, this nonetheless speaks of the need to regulate a little better the practices relating to data sharing and the notification of users involved. (For developers interested in the so-called 'TaintDroid' which enabled the team to do their investigation, the full paper is available here).

As we know these days from various recent privacy debates over services such as Facebook, Google Streetview etc: when people start seriously scrutinising your data sharing practices then that's when you know you've arrived in a particular market. As Android looks set to continue its impressive rates of expansion, with the aid of numerous new global markets, the Taintdroid study acts as a cautionary warning for this expansion to be managed responsibly and carefully - something which takes time and potentially threatens one of Android's biggest strengths over a competitor like Apple for example: the quick approval turnaround of apps. As for developers, the best thing is surely not to have your app named in respected academic papers as one such violator of privacy and data principles; in this case bad press is simply and exactly that, and perhaps even deservedly so.

So, this is basically the first of a series of such compilation lists, each of which will have a different OS platform and theme. This inaugural post will focus on Android and work-related apps for those working in the IT industry. N.B. It goes without saying that, though I'm choosing to focus on this one particular usage of such apps, most can be helpful no matter what your profession: with that said, let's get straight to it...

1. Wifi Analyser - A great free app for checking the Wifi channels around you so that you can find a less crowded one for your router. Pretty handy if you have a smaller office with many neighbours and want to optimise your connection.

2. Password Keeper - Another free one: does exactly what you'd expect, uses 128 bit AES encryption and is perfect if you have many accounts with various sites and services. Makes it much easier to create different passwords for everything (which is the sensible and safe thing to do), as you only need to remember one master password to operate PW.

3. Colour Detector - A clever app for developers which can provide you with the HTML, RGB, or HSV reference for any colour that you point your phone camera at. A nice example of augmented reality principles working in reverse, imagine the colours of a bar room wall inspiring and facilitating a new web design with the aid of this app.

4. Spending Monitor - Very useful for keeping track of expenses, especially if you move around a lot and find keeping receipts for everything to be annoying or difficult to implement. Has a nice interface and will be even better if a 'photo' option is added to you can just snap your receipt and then not have to worry about keeping it filed for two months until the next accounts are filed...

5. Skyfire - Nice web browser to have as a back-up since it neatly fixes the problems many others have with Flash. The search isn't so bad either so could potentially be a decent first pick as well.

6. Quick SSHd - Handy SSH server which allows a computer to connect to the Android device for remote access or file-sharing. Useful for about a 1001 things and can also write to SD cards.

7. Blackmoon Attachsave - Excellent attachment downloader for Gmail accounts which saves file contents to the phone's SD card for offline viewing. Has both a Full and Lite version so you can vary the amount of access to your email content.

Ok, that about does it for this app list - be sure to check Google's Android Market Showcase for more general highlights from the best up-and-coming apps. Look out for the next top app list on this blog in a few days time.

However, there is also one other significant detail about the Web Store, which is already worthy of some serious discussion - and that is Google's pricing and revenue models for the product. Initially a 70/30 developer-Google revenue split was expected (similar to Apple's app store model), though Google have since confirmed that their slice of the pie will now actually only be 5%. This is quite a considerable strategy decision which has clearly been made at some point during the development process.

I find this especially interesting in the context of some recent discussion and posts we had on this blog last month, about Google's emphasis on value-for-money in the mobile market, both for consumers and developers, which has arguably been one of the reasons why Android is continuing to grow very impressively in terms of its market share. In essence what we discussed back then was that Android boasted the highest proportion of free apps, as well as having a relatively competitive average price for its priced apps, unlike the app market leader, Apple, whose apps typically cost much more and were less likely to be free. This wasn't intended as a criticism of Apple (they have a splendid business strategy in the app market - tailored to work for them), but more as an observation of one key area in which Google has identified that it can distinguish itself and win users in such a dynamic and crowded market place - to which it arrived later than many rivals.

Well, it seems that the lessons of Android's success (fast growth and market penetration IS achievable by the deployment of serious financial incentives for users and developers) are now being applied to the Chrome Web Store. The folks at Google are clearly aware that in terms of corporate economies of scale, they are sitting at the helm of the super giant of the industry sector, and you don't need a business MBA to know that such companies often maintain their position by offering good value-for-money to customers, as they can afford to implement price cuts that squeeze out smaller competitors.

To return then to the Chrome Web Store, I expect that the considerable incentive offered to developers by the low 5% cut will yield impressively rapid growth in the number of apps available, and likewise in the number of users purchasing them (who will probably also feel the benefit of Google's low cut in the form of cheaper finished apps). In other words, I expect we will see some overlap with the way Apple's iPad app store works for example in terms of interface and app types etc, but also a considerably contrasting revenue model driving things behind-the-scenes. Anyway, that's about all we can say on this for now - more details and comment to follow as the launch approaches.

But let's discuss events in the present first before we go reeling off wild speculations about the future. Here's the low-down on the App-Inventor for now:

• It's still in beta mode, but is free to download from Google
• Requires no coding skills at all, instead offering users a drag-and-drop interface for easy and quick App creation
• With the launch, Google joins Nokia in being the only companies currently offering such a tool
• Inventor uses Open Blocks Java Library (designed at MIT), thus saving you the effort of actually learning Java

The big debate in the immediate wake of the beta launch is over the quality control issues that often arise from the distribution of such easy-to-use builders. Techcrunch for example highlights the flood of low quality websites that emerged following the launch of similar html editors like Geocities as a potential problem, with Google's app environment in danger of being swamped by useless and poorly designed junk.

However, one expects that as long as there is an effective way to manage the app ecosystem, relegating the rubbish to obscurity and ensuring the quality gains prominence and visibility, this potential pitfall can easily be avoided. In such a case, the App Inventor surely becomes an additional asset in the Android locker, which has recently also received a boost following Youtube's HTML5 compatibility announcement (thus rendering obsolete native Youtube apps such as those found on the iPhone).

While Google's smartphone market share continues to be well below that of the dominant players (Apple & Blackberry RIM), it is currently the only company seeing really significant growth in this department over the past few months. It is interesting to discuss this market trend in the context of Google's strategic positioning vis-a-vis some of their rivals.

For example, while Apple builds much of its success on the concept of customer lock-in - offering an excellent range of vertically-integrated products and apps, it nonetheless ensures that the boundary between creator and consumer remains firmly in place. In other words, there is no place for getting clever or creative with your iPhone unless you're a pro developer: no open source possibilities, no drag-and-drop app inventor tool, low cross-compatibilities with non-Apple hardware etc etc.

While there is nothing wrong with such a strategy (indeed Apple's success proves there is more than a little right with it), it does nonetheless inevitably turn-off those of us who like to have somewhat of a give-and-take relationship with our technology.

You know the kind of people I mean here, those of us with soldering irons and custom-built motherboards lying around the dining room table, people who set up their own servers in the airing cupboard, your friends who spend hours overclocking their processors just for a few extra frames per second on their favourite computer game - and so on. Basically those who aren't daunted at the odd line of code or a glimpse at what lies beneath the slick UI's which organise our interaction with technology these days - people that like to get under the bonnet and have a little poke around for themselves.

Well I would expect that these people are especially likely to be won over by Google's commitment to creating open technologies (rather than Apple's 'sealed' products) and it is as a result of this that Android's market share might continue to grow in the smartphone sphere. In any case, for now it seems Google has done extremely well to identify a weakness in the formidable positions of rivals such as Apple and Blackberry, and seems to be making a good fist of exploiting it to establish a decent market position of its own thus far.

Dejan Levi

Update: Check Techland for a great list of top Android apps to get you up and running with a Google phone

While this might not necessarily be the most exciting news for developers, it is certainly a key piece of info for consumers choosing their next smartphone, and indeed with the latest version of Android (2.2) also being touted as an all-round hit, I'd say that despite the recent high-profile launch of the iPhone 4, Google also has a rather enviable position in the smartphone game.

However, it should also be noted that, when it comes to paid apps, Nokia and Palm lead the way in terms of the cheapest average prices, while Apple is way out in front with the most expensive. Of course, while none of this counts for much unless we consider the quality of the apps (loads of free rubbish is not going to get anyone excited), it does provide consumers with some very handy info when choosing which smartphone suits their needs best. All in all, hats off to Distimo for filling in with a much-needed analytical role in the emerging app market, especially since most high-street retailers currently undersell smartphone app capabilities with inadequate info.

Dejan Levi

Well, worry not ladies and gentlemen! To satiate your desires, at least for a few minutes, I now present a general round-up of what's going on in relation to this headline-hogging mega high-profile device, which somehow continues to entertain (even before anyone has one) simply by its endless ability to generate news items (some of which are rather bizarre).

Take for example the recent advert for Blendtec (which can be found on Youtube) in which an Apple iPad is rather cleverly employed for the task of boosting sales of the Blendtec's domestic use blender products (I don't want to spoil the surprise - check it out for yourself). All in all, quite a clever hijacking of the iPad media fuss and I don't doubt Blendtec will soon be able to look back on this as a very successful example of a viral video ad campaign.

Now let's turn our attention to more serious matters - namely, that the iPad has been banned (!) in Israel because it actually contravenes the legislation on the permitted potency of Wi-Fi emitters and is therefore a potential disruptor of existing networks in the country. Furthermore, the iPad contravenes similar laws in Europe on the same issue - but has not yet been (and is unlikely to be) banned here. Nonetheless, it is remarkable that either a) Apple didn't design the device to comply with existing laws in some of their most major markets and instead simply hoped they would 'let it slide' or b) that Apple is unaware of the relevant legislation - surely even more unlikely a scenario?

I don't expect that there's any chance this issue could escalate further for Apple - especially with European release dates pending very soon - but there's no doubt that it will damage profits somewhat (at least for the small-ish territory of Israel). Teething problems are of course inevitable with the release of such a high-profile product on a global scale, especially with Apple's decision to get the device out as soon as possible rather than spend years re-re-developing, but this one could surely have been avoided...

However, good news for Israeli gadget fans comes in the recently circulating rumours that Google is working on an android-based rival to the iPad (which hopefully won't also be banned in the territory). I imagine this will come as welcome news also to those who take issue with Apple's slightly 'unique' pricing policies (i.e. their stuff costs absolutely loads). Anyway, there's not much concrete information available on this yet but the current rumours seem highly plausible as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, back to the matter at hand with some practical information for UK iPad-curious readers: detailed pricing plans should be released on May 10th, with O2, Orange, and Vodafone all confirmed as carriers of the device (T-mobile is still in discussions with Apple, but should follow suite soon enough). Until then I hope the ever inflating volume of speculation and rumour in the blogosphere keeps you going...

Dejan Levi