I knew I would be touching a raw nerve with my last two posts, on patents. But I was really surprised at the divergence of opinion. Entrepreneurs overwhelmingly supported my stance that software patents hamper innovation and need to be abolished, but friends at Microsoft, IBM, and Google were outraged at my recommendation. The big companies' executives argued that abolishing patents would hurt their ability to innovate and thus hamper the nation's economic growth. (They believe that companies like theirs create the majority of jobs and innovations, and they claim that without patents they cannot defend their innovations.) I am not convinced that software patents give Google any advantage over Microsoft and Yahoo, or make IBM's databases any better than Oracle's. But I do know one thing for sure: it isn't the big companies that create the jobs or the revolutionary technology innovations: it is startups. So if we need to pick sides, I vote for the startups.

Let's start with the question of who creates the jobs. This is one of the issues that I recently took Intel co-founder Andy Grove to task for, in BusinessWeek. Grove wrote a profound essay lamenting the loss of American manufacturing jobs. I share his concerns about jobs. But Andy's protectionist recommendations for restoring America's competitiveness were largely based on his flawed premise that companies like Intel create all the jobs—not the startups. I also discussed the tradeoff between bailing out companies like General Motors, AIG, and Citibank and nurturing startups in this BusinessWeek piece.  This question is more important than it may seem.

Kauffman Foundation has done extensive research on job creation. Kauffman Senior Fellow Tim Kane analyzed a new data set from the U.S. government, called Business Dynamics Statistics, which provides details about the age and employment of businesses started in the U.S. since 1977.  What this showed was that startups aren't just an important contributor to job growth: they're the only thing. Without startups, there would be no net job growth in the U.S. economy. From 1977 to 2005, existing companies were net job destroyers, losing 1 million net jobs per year. In contrast, new businesses in their first year added an average of 3 million jobs annually.

When analyzed by company age, the data are even more startling. Gross job creation at startups averaged more than 3 million jobs per year during 1992–2005, four times as high as any other yearly age group. Existing firms in all year groups have gross job losses that are larger than gross job gains.

Half of the startups go out of business within five years; but overall they are still the ones that lead the charge in employment creation. Kauffman Foundation analyzed the average employment of all firms as they age from year zero (birth) to year five. When a given cohort of startups reaches age five, its employment level is 80 percent of what it was when it began. In 2000, for example, startups created 3,099,639 jobs. By 2005, the surviving firms had a total employment of 2,412,410, or about 78 percent of the number of jobs that existed when these firms were born.

So we can't count on the Intels or Microsofts to create employment: we need the entrepreneurs. And there is an important lesson here for the states and cities that offer huge incentives to companies like Dell, Google, and Intel to locate their operations there. The regions should, instead, be focusing on creating more startups, not providing life support to technology behemoths.

Now let's talk about innovation. Apple is the poster child for tech innovation; it releases one groundbreaking product after another. But let's get beyond Apple. I challenge you to name another tech company that innovates like Apple—with game-changing technologies like the iPod, iTunes, iPhone, and iPad.  Google certainly doesn't fit the bill—after its original search engine and ad platform, it hasn't invented anything earth shattering. Yes, Google did develop a nice email system and some mapping software, but these were incremental innovations. For that matter, what earth-shattering products have IBM, HP, Microsoft, Oracle, or Cisco produced in recent times? These companies constantly acquire startups and take advantage of their own size and distribution channels to scale up the innovations they have purchased. They let the startups take the risk and prove the business models.

This raises an interesting question. Google and Microsoft have always prided themselves for hiring the cream of the crop of software developers. It is ridiculously hard to get a job at either company. But when technology's top guns join these companies, they seem to make a smaller impact than those that don't get hired. So would these companies be better served by releasing their most brilliant developers into the wild and arming them with seed financing to start companies? (They could negotiate partial ownership and right of first refusal on acquisition.) We would certainly get more innovation this way.

Simply put, if we are serious about lifting the economy out of its rut, we need to focus all of our energy on helping entrepreneurs. Provide them with the incentives (tax breaks and seed financing); education; and infrastructure. And gear public policy—like patent-protection laws—toward the startups. Let's not bet on the companies that are too big to fail or too clumsy to innovate.

Editor's note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at the School of Information at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. You can follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwa and find his research at www.wadhwa.com.

I'm hardly the first person to have had the idea: I'm going to shut down my Twitter account.

I'm probably not the first to have decided to delete Facebook, Foursquare, Blippy, Google Buzz, LinkedIn or Delicious either. I may be the only person this year to have deleted my Friendfeed account,  but only because I'm probably the only person this year to remember that he has a Friendfeed account.

No, I would hardly be the first person to decide to embark on a Social Shutdown (as Blippy's Philip Kaplan termed it) having grown tired of the relentless look-at-me-ism of the Status Update Generation. And I wouldn't be the first to realise that there's more to life than feeding the insatiable blood-eating plant of social media – imagine Audrey II in Little Shop Of Horrors – just to keep the fifteen people who care appraised of my every move.

But that's not why I'm doing it. Quite the opposite in fact: I may be the first person to decide to close down most of my social media accounts for purely narcissistic reasons.

Huh?

What?

Well. This might be news to people who only know me via Twitter, or who assume I write these columns just for the good of my health – but I actually get paid to do this shit. Specifically, I get paid no small amount of money to write about myself: or about technology, or whatever takes my fancy, as seen through the lens of my own experiences. Twice a week I do this for TechCrunch. Less regularly I do it for my publisher: my second memoir-style book, about my adventures living in hotels, will be published in a couple of months.

Narcissism, then, is my stock in trade. The moment people stop being interested in what I do, or what I think about things, then I have no career.

For that reason, I have embraced social media wholeheartedly. I've looked at bona fide celebrities of the age – Lady Gaga, Ashton Kutcher, Justin Bieber – and I've admired how they used Twitter and Facebook and Myspace and the rest to connect directly with the people who buy their music, their DVD's, their whatever it is Justin Bieber produces. I've understood that if I want to build – and keep – an audience, then I have to do the same. I have to tweet every meal, photograph every date, create a fanpage on Facebook (actually, I could never quite bring myself to do that one) and I even have to share my credit card purchases on Blippy.

My publisher understood this too: as I was finishing my last book, they sent me a cheque to encourage me to bulk out my blog and create a social media strategy: safe in the knowledge that any increased awareness of my life would, by extension, lead to increased awareness of my book. It sort-of worked too: it was the blog that got me my most recent gig at the Guardian, which in turn lead to me writing for TechCrunch, where I take obvious delight in plugging the book at every possible juncture. Score one for social media.

As I shared more, though, I started to notice a funny thing happening. Rather than people becoming more fascinated by my life; the exact opposite occurred. "I loved your book, so I started following you on Twitter" people would tell me at parties. And then their expression would change: "your real life isn't as interesting as you sound in print."

"No shit", I'd feel like replying. That last book took me a year to write and spanned almost ten years of my life, distilled down into just shy of 300 pages. Included were the drunken fuck-ups, the disastrous relationships, the business failures, the nights in prison cells, but consciously edited out were the boring parts: what I had for dinner on any given day, the uneventful dates, the minor successes and occasional parking tickets.

Whatever the excuse, though, the result is the same: people who enjoy my day-job writing are inevitably disappointed by the humdrum reality of my actual life, as laid bare by social media.

And if that realisation is jarring for people who follow me on Twitter, I can only imagine how it must feel for people who follow actual celebrities. Take Justin Bieber who this week got into a back-and-forth with some teenagers who claimed, on Twitter, to be at a party organised by him. Bieber shot back by DM: "I didn’t have a party. I don’t know who those girls are. I'm with 6 of my friends and my family…" He couldn't let it go at that, though, adding: "what are their twitter names… they are liars." And with that exchange, Justin Bieber – global pop sensation – became Justin Bieber – regular kid on his cellphone, pissed off that people are making shit up about him. He's just like we were at that age. How dull.

Still, at least Bieber has an excuse for tweeting like a teenage: he is a teenager. Ashton Kutcher on the other hand…

If you're one of the three people in the world not already following Kutcher (I'm another), then take a moment to browse his latest tweets: with every 140 character nugget, Kutcher becomes less 'social-media savvy husband of Demi Moore who was in that show once' and more 'over-enthusiastic teenager with a cellphone'. The more we know, the less we want to know.

Go a step further. Contrast the hell-raising antics of classic stars like Richard Burton and Oliver Reed, with today's famous drunks like David Hasselhoff and Lindsay Lohan. Why did the problems of the former only add to their legendary status, while with the latter it only makes us pity them? A difference in acting ability? Well, sure. But mainly it's because in the case of Burton, Reed et al, fans only read about their heroes misbehavior in newspapers after the fact: stylised accounts of nights spent stumbling out of bars and brawling in the street. With today's stars, social media – everyone having a camera, and every misstep ending up on YouTube – means that we can actually witness the drunkenness as it happens, or shortly afterwards. That's never pretty.

Social media allows us to become familiar with people who in a previous life would be unknowable "stars" — and we all know what familiarity breeds. There's a reason why reality stars fade from the limelight so quickly and why none of the movies on Project Greenlight became a success: to mix a metaphor, you can't become a star if everyone has seen the sausage being made.

In Esquire, S.T. VanAirsdale argued recently that we're on the cusp of a rebellion against over-exposed celebrities: that tomorrow's stars will not be Twitter-whores like Bieber and Gaga but virtual recluses in the mould of Greta Garbo and JD Salinger. If that's true – that fame and fortune will soon be inversely proportional to social media exposure – then God help someone like me: someone who can only dream of the level of success attained by Salinger or, uh, Bieber.

Not only is my constant lifecasting boring to tears people who actually want to like me but, worse still, I'm spending hours every week dicking around keeping those half-dozen profiles up to date when I could be using the time writing another column, or researching another book. You know, something with the potential to actually make me seem interesting. Something that could – probably won't, but could – one day make me famous. Quelle irony.

For that reason, them, as the publication date of my next book approaches, I've decided to take precisely the opposite self-promotional strategy to the one I took for the last one. Cue the Social Shutdown: I've closed down all of my social media accounts: deleting Foursquare, Plancast, Buzz, Facebook, LinkedIn, Delicious, Blippy and all of the rest.

All, in fact, except Twitter. I was going to axe that too, but then I paused: I really enjoy writing those little 140 character updates, for the amusement of friends and because they occasionally allow me to test-drive jokes and ideas before throwing them out to a wider audience (I have just under 10,000 followers – a big number but considerably lower than the readership of even my least popular TechCrunch post. And a number dwarfed by how many people have read my last book in its various forms).

Twitter, then, might survive the cut – but with one significant change: I'm a couple of hundred followers away from reaching 10,000 and after that I've decided to lock my account. (Update: done) Ten thousand is more than enough followers for one person, and it's a number that will still allow me to have fun with the service – keeping up with friends, testing ideas, responding to amusing @replies – without obsessing about what the wider world will make of my frighteningly mundane life.

So that's that. Finally social media is put back in its place: a closed way to connect with friends old and new, rather than a sprawling, digital re-incarnation of Seymour's plant: demanding my constant attention while at the same time plotting my professional demise.

I miss it already. Anyone want to know what I had for lunch?

For the last 30 or so hours self-described Apple fanboy MG Siegler has put his iPhone 4 aside (Jason Kincaid and Greg Kumparak held him down while two interns broke his Kung Fu grip) to give Motorola’s Droid 2 a proper test drive. The verdict? A definite step above the HTC EVO 4G.

If you read MG’s review of the EVO back in May, you know he gave HTC’s bundle of joy a merciless, swift kick to the head. Thus, saying Siegler prefers the Droid 2 to the EVO, probably doesn’t say very much. To get a more nuanced review, we enlisted MobileCrunch editor, Greg Kumparak to go one-on-one with MG.

Click above for their full review of the Droid 2 and a discussion on Google Voice Actions, the Android ecosystem and yes, those rampant Verizon rumors.

A few trips to India ago, I wrote a piece on Deep Kalra of MakeMyTrip.com, an Indian online travel company that I guessed would be the first big Indian ecommerce IPO. Yesterday, the company made good on that—listing on Nasdaq and surging nearly 90%. It fell 5% today, but that’s not bad considering yesterday was the best one-day pop of any American IPO since 2007.

Does that mean a flood of Indian Internet IPOs will follow? Not necessarily. MakeMyTrip is a rare company in India, where Internet penetration is low and more money has been lost than made hoping it would take off faster. Here's what Indian entrepreneurs should learn from what Kalra did right.

1. He was committed. Kalra started MakeMyTrip in 2000—when Web mania and private equity funding first swept through India. After the crash, foreign investors either sold off stakes or outright reneged on deals countrywide and only the most stubborn entrepreneurs survived, among them Indiagames, Indiabulls and MakeMyTrip.

In MakeMyTrip’s case, SARS also tanked the Asian travel market, making the environment even worse. With a background in banking and a wife and newborn baby, getting a real job was the sensible thing to do. But great entrepreneurs don't do the sensible thing. Kalra and two other managers bought back their equity and worked without salaries for 18 months. More than a third of the staff walked out when he asked them to take 40% paycuts. But a year later, the company broke even and he raised money to invest in growth again.

I've met at least 50 Web entrepreneurs over a few trips to India. Most are based in Bangalore, most worked at a multinational, made a huge salary saved up money and quit to start a company. Nothing wrong with that. What worries me is how many of them have said the equivalent of, "If this doesn't work out in a year or two, I can always get another multinational job." As Kalra's example shows, that's not how it works. Entrepreneurship is about commitment, even in the Internet where products can be launched over night– especially in India where the online market is growing, but it’s growing slowly.

2. Invest in Culture. It's worth noting that when Kalra asked his staff to take paycuts in those dark days, 17 left but about 25 stayed. He wanted to make sure he rewarded them for their loyalty and invested in the company’s culture, inspired greatly by Zappos' culture book. He organizes annual staff retreats and offered to pay half for any employees that wanted to attend TEDx when it came to Bangalore in 2009. Frequently startups in India complain that multinational jobs have lead to a culture of mercenaries who don't value stock and will leave for a higher paycheck. But Kalra's experience has proved that like anywhere else, retention is possible if you build the right culture.

3. If you're going to be a copycat, do it the right way. MakeMyTrip isn't exactly a new idea. The functionality and even the look-and-feel are similar to a lot of US online travel sites. But Kalra played the copycat game the right way. Online travel is almost always one of the first categories to take off in new markets, in part because it has a clear revenue model that doesn't rely on mature advertising markets or sophisticated shipping routes, since many of the tickets are issued electronically. And in the early days, he tailored his site for India’s domestic travel market— business US competitors weren't going to target. I’ve used the site to book routes within India that I couldn’t have otherwise booked without a travel agent and pricey fees.

Unlike entrepreneurs who waste their time trying to build, say, "an Indian Facebook" – MakeMyTrip wasn't a re-skin, it actually solved problems unique to India. And Kalra assiduously studied competitors to see what had worked for them and what didn't. Those in the United States, and ones in other emerging markets like China. When done well, copycatting is about adjusting to local markets and learning what the first generation did right and wrong. You can't copycat something you don't deeply understand.

4. Timing the Market Isn't Everything, but It Helps. I can go on and on about the things MakeMyTrip did right, but let's face it—a lot of this stock pop has to do with scarcity. After all, the company's revenues are growing at an impressive 49% a year, but its net income is a paltry $1.3 million a quarter.

But in the markets, what a company is “worth” is in the eye of the investor and MakeMyTrip is the first Indian company to go public in America in four years and it was just the fourth India-based company to go public in the US since 1999. For the sake of comparison, 14 Chinese companies have gone public in the US just this year. So while China's economy may be growing faster, Nasdaq and NYSE investors have more chances to buy a piece of it than those interested in India.

Let it be a lesson to other anomalies like MakeMyTrip– price high and build the war-chest while you can.

Last month, I wrote that it was hard to feel sorry for AT&T. The context there was that their love/hate relationship with Apple over the years has been tough on them. Boo hoo. Today, AT&T is playing the sympathy card again — this time in the context of net neutrality.

Pathetic.

In a post entitled “Wireless is Different,” AT&T makes the case for why they agree with the Google/Verizon net neutrality proposal. Specifically, they agree with the wireless aspect of it, noting that the need policymakers to protect “wireless broadband networks from onerous new net neutrality regulations.“

Now, AT&T shared some interesting data about the insane growth of wireless data expected over the next few years. And I’m not going to argue that there aren’t many challenges is getting these wireless networks to scale going forward. But it’s once again just so hard to feel sorry for AT&T given their actions in the past to block basically all aspects of net neutrality, and to block the opening of the wireless spectrum.

Obviously, Google’s new buddy Verizon agreed with AT&T on both of those things back in the day. In fact, it was only because Google made a ballsy commitment of billions of dollars that the spectrum was opened. Of course, it was both Verizon and AT&T that won that bidding for the spectrum. The two spent a combined $16 billion to win those spectrum licenses.

Here was Verizon’s statement on that at the time:

We were successful in achieving the spectrum depth we need to continue to grow our business and data revenues … and to continue to lead in data services and help us satisfy the next wave of services and consumer electronics devices

Notice the first things mentioned? The growth of their business and of their data revenues. At least Verizon was being upfront about that at the time.

Like Google, AT&T is now trying to play the “what’s best for the consumer” card. But again, this is all about their business. That’s not to say they’re not entitled to make money — of course they are — but their wrapping of this debate in their spin is nauseating.

Here’s my favorite part:

In order to provide consumers with the high quality wireless broadband services that they demand, wireless carriers must to be able to dynamically manage traffic and operate their networks in an environment free from burdensome, arbitrary and unnecessary regulations.

High quality? AT&T? They can do whatever they want now and I have yet to see them deliver what I would consider a “high quality” network given what I’m paying them each month. Many seem to agree.

Once again, the real issue here is a complete lack of competition. Yes, it’s worse in wired broadband (it’s actually pathetic), but competition is awful in wireless as well. A few companies control the entire ecosystem. They’re now bitching about how they can’t handle the growth, but they won’t cede complete control and let other companies in to innovate in the space.

Yes, they’re spending billions of dollars to grow and expand their networks, but they’re also taking in billions more in revenues and profits each quarter. They can do more.

Sadly, at this point, I’m afraid it’s only the government that can make them — and believe me, it pains me to say that. But Google lost its spine somewhere a few miles back, apparently.

The way we’re going to solve the wireless data boom problem is not with caps and walls, it’s with innovation. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. That’s the way it works. Restrictions do not help innovation. But innovation threatens incumbents. You know: AT&T and Verizon — and yes, now Google as well.

We will solve this problem, but we need competition to foster that. Right now, there’s basically none. And Google acknowledged that in 2006 when they called Verizon and AT&T “monopolies.“

AT&T then twists their argument at the end of their post to say that what we really should be focusing on is the National Broadband Plan. Jesus. I can’t wait to see their post trying to suggest their looking out for our best interests there as well.

I’ll make this really simple:

• Net neutrality = good for customers, good for innovation, bad for AT&T
• Data caps and walls = bad for customers, bad for innovation, good for AT&T

Just stop talking AT&T, you’re making it worse.

We would like to take a minute to thank all of our amazing sponsors!

After the huge success of Disrupt NYC, we’re expecting Disrupt San Francisco to be even bigger, better and more badass. Get your Early Bird tickets until Aug 31!

Interested in supporting TechCrunch and sponsoring the event? Contact us.

Kyte | Spigit | Constant Contact | Joyent | RedBeacon | Web 2.0 Expo | Line2 |Atlassian |Firehost | SRS Labs | Crucial |Terremark |MediaTemple | Ooyala | Clickatell | Loopt | Cotendo

Kyte is the 360° video platform for live and on-demand content. The Kyte Platform enables media companies and marketers to engage audiences across online, mobile, and social platforms through interactive video experiences.

Spigit is a purpose built social networking tool used by leading companies to connect their employees, customers and business partners for idea and innovation discovery.

Constant Contact helps small businesses, associations, and nonprofits connect with their customers, clients, and members. They are running a developer challenge with a $15k grand prize.

Joyent is the only cloud computing company that has built its own complete technology stack, runs a major public cloud on that stack, and makes the technology available for anyone who wants to build a cloud.

RedBeacon allows consumers who need a service performed to find and interact with local businesses and professionals. They are hiring now.

Web 2.0 Expo a conference in NY focusing on the theme “Platforms for Growth”

Line2 lets you add a second number to your iPhone. Line2 is the first and only dual mode calling app allowing you to place VoIP calls over WiFi and 3G or over cell when VoIP isn't available all from the same number. Free 30 day trial.

Atlassian provides issue tracking and project tracking for software development teams to improve code quality and the speed of development.

Firehost Web hosting. Secured. Fully managed, scalable, and compliance ready with Enterprise-level security.

SRS Labs has developed the most advanced audio plug-in for the PC.

Crucial The memory experts; offering over 280,000 memory upgrades for more than 40,000 systems.

Terremark flexible, high-performance cloud computing the way you need it, when you need it by giving you the power and control to configure resources exactly the way you need them

MediaTemple Hosts websites, big and small. Designed to be powerful, affordable and relevant.

Ooyala Publish, manage and monetize your videos online.

Clickatell offers your business a hosted messaging platform to SMS-enable any application, website or system. We give you the immediate capability to deliver and receive messages to and from any application

Loopt Find and stay connected with friends while you're mobile. Join the TechCrunch community on Loopt.

Cotendo Offering website performance acceleration, real time content control, and integrated CDN services.

Just what you’ve always wanted to do, “glimpse inside Facebook’s headquarters”! Except that does sound kind of cool when you imagine Facebook bringing in top engineering talent and talking about new product development. But no, Facebook kicked off their live stream video service today with the incongruous choice of an advertorial for actress America Ferrera’s latest film “The Dry Land.”

We watched it live, along with another 359 people apparently. And while the Livestream counter on the widget did oscillate, we snapped the above screenshot while being generous. The ratio of 360 Facebook Live viewers to 500 million Facebook users (1:1,388,888) is shockingly low, especially when considering how many other media outlets embedded the pretty snazzy Facebook Live widget.

There are plenty of good explanations for these meager numbers: There’s no one on Facebook late Friday afternoon, maybe there’s a bug, maybe you have to log in to your Livestream account to be counted as a viewer? If it is the latter login problem then the 360 number is still insanely modest considering the massive size of Facebook.

When asked why the follower count was so low and if perhaps the was some analytics mistake, a Facebook spokesperson offered the following statement (Livestream has yet to respond):

“We just wrapped our Facebook Live interview and are looking into all of the results but at this time we can say that we received nearly 3000 comments from people watching the interview live.”

Right now the feature is currently on repeat (looks like about 149 people are raptly paying attention). You can add to that number by tuning in here.

Another update from Facebook:

“We’re still working on pulling the analytics but can say the number you saw on the screen during the interview was not accurate. Also, we were not counting the embeds.”

This week Additech, a fuel systems maintenance and software business in Houston, scored a $4.6 million investment SEC filings revealed.

The company’s earlier backers Adams Capital Management, BEV Capital and 9 individual angels provided the tranche money. To date, Additech has raised about $35 million.

The chairman of Additech, Ralph Koehrer, explained in an e-mail that his company will use this money to “grow the number of fuel centers [that have] our service,” and launch a new, “drive clean across America” marketing campaign short term.

Additech’s systems include interactive merchandising software, and dispensers of engine cleaning fuel additives, as well as displays that play commercials while drivers fill up. These are installed at gas stations in 16 states, from Texas to Florida and up to the Carolinas.

Its main customers include H-E-B, Kroger and the operator of Wal-Mart stores’ gas stations Murphy USA.

The company is eyeing new business in California and Arizona.

With its technical capabilities and reach, Koehrer confirmed, Additech could help gas stations distribute biofuels (or other renewable liquid fuels) in the future, though the company hasn’t committed to do so yet.

Adams Capital Management general partner in Austin Martin Neath says for now, Additech is “Mak[ing] it incredibly easy for people to make their cars and trucks run cleaner and get better gas mileage. You pick your grade of gas at the pump and you’re asked ‘Do you want to put some additive in…? Yes? Well, you don't have to get dirty or anything.’ Do this once every three months or so and get better mileage. It’s good for the environment, and your pocketbook.”

Gas stations (or “fuel centers” in industry parlance) get a share of Additech’s revenue for allowing its systems to be installed and maintained at their stations.

Additech makes about 10% of its revenue from its media business, and 90% from its merchandising systems, and sales of its custom-blended fuel additives at the pump. Its fuel additives are made by Afton Chemical and include two detergent cleaners and a friction modifier.

Appbistro, a marketplace for Facebook tabs that businesses, bands, and brands can use to add functionality to their Facebook pages, has just scored some angel funding. The company has raised a $550,000 convertible note led by Sand Hill Angels, with participation from Alfred Lin (TellMe, Zappos, Sequoia) Dave McClure’s 500 Startups, i/o Ventures, Zelkova Ventures, Seraph Group, Erik Moore, and Thomas McInerney.

Appbistro launched in May at TechCrunch Disrupt. The startup offers a directory of tab applications for sprucing up Facebook Pages, with apps for quizzes, signup forms, contests, multimedia, and a broad range of other categories. Each app listing includes a link to install that app on your Facebook Page, as well as supplementary reviews and screenshots.

Appbistro also has a payments system, allowing developers to charge users for premium tab applications (something they can’t do through Facebook itself). Cofounder Ryan Merket says that there are over fifty apps on the marketplace right now, and that he expects that number to nearly double in the next few weeks. Wildfire, a popular promotion building platform, is on board, and more partnerships with established Facebook developers are in the works.

10,000 applications have been installed to Facebook Pages using Appbistro, but most of them have been free so far. Merket says that the company will be using the money to hire more engineers, and also to optimize the service for paid applications.

Some of you may recall back in 2009 when there was not one, but two Twitpocalypses. As a quick refresher, it was an issue with the unique identity number for tweets and the 32-bit signed and unsigned integer limits. Twitter recommended developers switch over to 64-bit, which they did, and now we’re a long ways away from another issue like that (I’m told something like 316,887,646 years, in fact). But a new issue is much closer: OAuthpocalypse!

Starting on Tuesday, Twitter is going to begin phasing out the Basic Auth support that third-party developers have been using for a long time. Beginning on August 31, they will no longer be able to use it at all to connect third-party apps to Twitter. Instead, they’re being asked to use OAuth, the more secure version of authentication.

And actually, Twitter actually did a quick test of this move today. Here’s what developer advocate Taylor Singletary notes in the Twitter Development Talk Google Group:

You may have noticed that we temporarily shut basic authentication off today for 10 minutes. We gave minimal notice today, and recognize that more notice would have been optimal. We will be doing these integration tests a few more times before the total deprecation date.

Another such test will take place on Monday.

Twitter let users know about this bigger switch was coming a while ago, the update today is more to get everyone on the same page and give a firm timetable. Here it is:

- Basic Auth will be completely shut off on August 30th.
- Beginning Aug 17, basic auth rate limiting will decrease by 15 requests
on each week day (10% drop per weekday)
- Aug 16, 8am Pacific – we’ll shut basic auth temporarily off for 10
minutes
- Aug 31, 5pm Pacific – we’ll shut basic auth temporarily for 10 minutes
- On August 30th, all basic auth requests will be served with a 401 HTTP
status code.

If you’re a developer concerned about the transition, read over Singletary’s post or check out this page. But this move shouldn’t be taken lightly, as Singletary notes:

We’ve discussed at length in the past why this transition is important. We recognize that it significantly increases the difficulty of working with the  Twitter API. OAuth is not a silver bullet for security, but protects our users and the platform ecosystem notably better than basic authentication.

The move to OAuth is probably overdue for Twitter. But they’re moving quickly after this. I’m told the move to OAuth 2, the even more secure new version, is already in the works.

Smells like victory.

“The new Internet. If AT&T and Verizon have their way.”

That was the final warning in a public service announcement that ran on television in the run up to the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2007. Guess who made that video? Google.

That’s striking, of course, because of the news this week that Google has now compromised with Verizon on a proposed net neutrality plan. Google says the compromises made were necessary to move the debate forward. If you read my post last night, obviously, I disagree. And so does much of the rest of the web, it seems. Judging from this video, 2006 Google would disagree too.

Who besides Google and Verizon do agree on this compromise? AT&T.

Earlier today, we were pointed to a new site made in protest of the Google/Verizon plan. This site is appropriately named Voogle Wireless. Apparently, this site was made by someone who helped produce the 2006 PSA for Google and is now pissed off at the blatant hypocrisy.

Watch the video below:

Further, here’s the note Google CEO Eric Schmidt also wrote in 2006 leading up to the act (which was co-sponosored by then-Senator Barack Obama, by the way):

A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:

The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There’s a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called “net neutrality” – and it’s a debate that’s so important Google is asking you to get involved. We’re asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.

In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.

Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.

Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.

Eric Schmidt

Those “phone and cable monopolies” sure sounded like the enemy in 2006. Now they sound like partners.

Earlier this week we broke the news that Jambool and their Social Gold virtual currency platform had been acquired by Google. Jambool founders Vikas Gupta and Reza Hussien have just confirmed the deal on their company blog. While the founders did not reveal a purchase price, our sources have it pegged at around $70 millon.

Jambool’s Social Gold monetization platform allows game developers to integrate payment systems into their games. Google’s most recent gaming grab is in line with its current “Google Games” focused acquisition thrust; The search engine recently picked up Slide for $182 million and reportedly just plunked down a $100 million investment in Zynga.

From the Jambool blog:

August 13, 2010

We are excited to announce that Jambool is becoming a part of the Google family today. Jambool started as a social collaboration platform in 2006. In 2007, we shifted our focus to build applications on social networks. Along with success, we found fun and lucrative ways to monetize our apps – specifically virtual currency and goods. That led us to create a platform to help developers create, host, manage and monetize their virtual economies.

Social Gold has grown by leaps and bounds since it went live in 2008. In the first half of 2010, we've processed more than double the entire payment volume we processed in all of 2009. And we've welcomed hundreds of developers to our platform. The fact that our highest revenue day was in the last week attests to the continued growth of online gaming.

Our vision is to build world-class products that help developers manage and monetize their virtual economies across the globe. When the opportunity arose to join forces with Google to execute against this vision, we couldn't pass it up. We are thrilled to bring the Social Gold platform to Google's global users. And we invite you – our customers, partners, and friends – to continue on the journey with us.

Over the last few years, we have had the great fortune of working with an incredible team. Every day, we are amazed and humbled by what they have accomplished. We have had terrific support from our partners, investors and advisors; and we are lucky to have worked with each of them. Thank you!

As a team, we remain passionate about innovating on behalf of our customers. We aim to deliver the most frictionless, seamless transaction experience inside applications and games on every platform. We are thrilled to be part of Google, and we look forward to the exciting road ahead.

The game has only just begun.

Vikas & Reza

Yeah, if by “game,” you mean war.

Y Combinator-backed Gantto is launching its easy to use web-based project management application to the public today. Designed to take on Microsoft’s project management software, Gantto focuses on helping users visualize and present project schedules.

Gantto, a play on words of ‘gantt chart,’ not only allows you to create project schedules but also lets users turn schedules into presentations. In previous work at a medical robotics company, Gantto’s founders had to manually reproduce their Microsoft Project schedules and charts in PowerPoint presentations when showing their progress in meetings. With Gantto’s application, you can present directly from the application.

New users can actually import their projects and data from MS Project, or create their own from scratch. The task management application also features drag and drop functionality, sticky note reminders, and the ability to format presentations by color, font and more.

And you can make adjustments in schedules and data on the fly within Gantto during a meeting or discussion. Eventually Gantto will create a collaborative system that incorporates email as well as other communications.

MS Project currently has over 20 million users so the market has significant potential. And Gantto is a nice alternative for any bootstrapped business because it’s free, scalable and simple to use. Of course, Gantto faces competition from web-based project management applications such as Basecamp.

I would estimate I spend roughly 20 percent of any given day in Gmail. So naturally, I want a way to spend more time looking at the Gmail logo. Luckily Paul Truong, a “creative technologist” (I want that job) at Google spent his own 20 percent time coming up with a way.

Truong has made a new HTML5-based game called Galactic Inbox. When you start it up, a little Gmail logo envelope guy pops out of a “20% Projects Lab” and starts flying. Essentially, he’s a spaceship and can shoot objects coming his way. It’s simple, but fun.

“While I'm not on the Gmail team, I felt a little celebration of how far we've come was in order, so I wrote a little HTML5 game, in part as a “thank you” to the Gmail team for their ongoing work to improve the webmail galaxy,” Truong notes on the Gmail blog today.

He also notes that you need a “modern browser” to play the game. That’s Google’s fun way of saying “not IE6.”

When AT&T’s monopoly on the iPhone ends in the U.S., it is not going to be pretty. With increasing evidence that Verizon is preparing to offer the iPhone 4 early next year, many people are waiting before buying one or upgrading. Many of those are existing AT&T customers who want the same phone on a better network. According to a new survey by market research firm Morpace, 34 percent of AT&T iPhone owners are waiting for the iPhone to be available on another carrier before upgrading, and a full 47 percent of current AT&T iPhone owners say they would consider switching to Verizon. So almost half of AT&T customers surveyed are not completely satisfied with AT&T’s network.

Those aren’t just angry bloggers. Morpace surveyed 1,000 consumers, and 29 percent (across all carriers) said they are likely to buy a phone from Verizon. Of those, the majority (51 percent) are existing Verizon customers.

These survey results suggest two things. First, there are going to be a lot of people switching from AT&T to Verizon. Second, when Verizon does get the iPhone, it could start to hurt Android sales. Verizon is the biggest seller of Android phones. If 51 percent of Verizon customers are likely to buy an iPhone, that will definitely put pressure on Android sales. So far, Android has been the best choice for Verizon customers looking for a smartphone. When the iPhone becomes an option, the choice won’t be so simple and iPhone sales will begin to cut into Android’s share on Verizon.

The other unknown here is how Verizon’s network will be able to handle all the increased data traffic from new iPhone users. Everyone assumes that it has a better network, but a few million iPhone subscribers could quickly test its limits. Then everyone is going to want to switch back to AT&T.

eBay is launching its rewards program today: eBay Bucks, which allows any eBay shopper who lives in the U.S. and is a registered member of the marketplace, to earn 2 percent cash back on most items purchased through the site with PayPal.

Consumers can earn ‘eBay Bucks’ made both on eBay’s website and via its many mobile apps. The catch-users have to redeem ‘eBay Bucks’ towards other purchases on the marketplace. Rewards money is accumulated during a three month period and at the end of each period, an eBay Bucks certificate is issued to consumers, who then have 30 days to redeem their eBay Bucks towards purchases with PayPal on eBay.com.

I was curious which purchases are excluded from earning rewards. eBay says that the Bucks program excludes all purchases from Classifieds, Business & Industrial Capital Equipment, Real Estate, and eBay Motors categories (except Parts & Accessories in eBay Motors). eBay has been implementing Bucks through a pilot program over the past year and says that consumers enrolled in eBay Bucks spent five times more on eBay than those not participating in the program.

Cashback programs haven’t had the greatest success in the past. Bing shuttered Cashback recently due to lack of traction. eBay’s offering would certainly be used by loyal customers but it’s unclear if it will be able to bring outside traffic to the marketplace.

The fact that U.S. eBay sales are showing weakness and not growing as rapidly as international sales could be a possible reason for the rewards program’s exclusivity to the U.S..

Last night, Oracle filed suit against Google over its Android operating system, alleging that Google was infringing on seven Java patents with Android and its Dalvik virtual machine. Oracle acquired the rights to the patents when it bought Sun Microsystems last year, and now that Android has taken off, it’s looking to shake Google down for a big payday. Google has been quiet until now about the suit, but they’ve just given us this statement:

"We are disappointed Oracle has chosen to attack both Google and the open-source Java community with this baseless lawsuit. The open-source Java community goes beyond any one corporation and works every day to make the web a better place. We will strongly defend open-source standards and will continue to work with the industry to develop the Android platform."

Obviously, Google is positioning this as an attack on the community at large (many developers have already written negative responses to Oracle’s suit). It’s unlikely that the lawsuit came as a surprise to Google — James Gosling, the father of Java who left Sun soon after it was acquired by Oracle, writes on his blog that Oracle was eying the Java patents as part of the Sun acquisition:

Oracle finally filed a patent lawsuit against Google. Not a big surprise. During the integration meetings between Sun and Oracle where we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer’s eyes sparkle. Filing patent suits was never in Sun’s genetic code. Alas….

I hope to avoid getting dragged into the fray: they only picked one of my patents (RE38,104) to sue over.

Plenty of developers have also chimed in on the case. One particularly insightful post by Miguel de Icaza, who started GNOME and Mono, provides some context to the suit:

There is very little public information on the Google/Sun split over Java ME and the creation of Dalvik. The rumors on the grapevine were that Google and Sun could not reach an agreement over the Java Micro Edition licensing. Sun wanted to sit in the middle between Google and the handset OEMs, while Google wanted to create a free-for-all operating system.

When it became clear that they would not be able to reach an agreement, Google started a project to replace Java Micro Edition and they used some clever engineering techniques that blended the best of both worlds.

…

Needless to say, Sun was not happy with Dalvik. Not only because Sun had lost a large licensing deal, but also because it had the potential of becoming the de-facto Java virtual machine that everyone on the embedded space would pick instead of Sun’s own Java Micro Edition.

This isn’t the first time the Java patents have been wielded in court — in 2004, Sun got Microsoft to cough up $1.6 billion to resolve patent disputes and antitrust issues.

This review is by photographer Rich Svinkin.

"Nice Equipment."

It took a second to process that the wedding photographer was talking about my camera. It was the shock of phrasing, not the awe displayed, that startled me. When I'm carrying this beauty around I get stopped by strangers all the time. Camera junkies are boundary blind like dog lovers. And like a champion breed, the M9 takes some effort to tame and train if you aren't a professional. But if you go into it eyes open and put the effort in, get ready for blue ribbon results.

Zynga has hired former Facebook Chief Revenue Officer and MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta as EVP Business, reporting to CEO Mark Pincus. Van Natta was most recently in the news in February, when he stepped down as CEO of MySpace after just less than a year on the job. Van Natta has been an advisor to Zynga until now, says the company.

Van Natta will also join the company’s board of directors, joining Pincus, Bing Gordon, Reid Hoffman and Brad Feld.

In January, while he was still running MySpace, I sat down with Van Natta in Switzerland for a long video interview.

Zynga continues to soft sell the idea of an IPO, saying not to expect one any time soon. But they are clearly putting together an executive team that will take them to that level when they’re ready. In addition to Van Natta they also recently brought on a new CFO, Dave Wehner.

Van Natta is considered one of the top deal guys in technology, and has helped scale larger startups operationally. At Zynga he’ll be managing all of business operations, including revenue, corporate development, international, customer service, marketing and communications. He’ll also be reunited with GM Corporate Communications Dani Dudeck. Dudeck, who gave an in depth interview with TechCrunch here, left MySpace to join Zynga shortly after Van Natta stepped down.

Fast growing is certainly the only way to describe Zynga these days. Most of their competition has been acquired or otherwise sidelined, and the company is quickly forging business deals with the largest portals to help wean Zynga off their dependence on Facebook. Yahoo and Google are in the bag.

And they’ve also been acquiring companies at a brisk pace: XPD Media, Challenge Games and Unoh in just the last few months. Given Van Natta’s appetite for acquisitions, expect more of them, soon.

Foodspotting and Zagat Survey, two major food focused brands we’ve featured here before, have today announced an iPhone app integration move that pretty much sets the pace for mobile social dining in the future (You listening Michelin?).

Zagat, who has previously hooked up with Foursquare, is the first partner to utilize Foodspotting data in their apps using the Foodspotting API. Because of the move, Zagat users will now have access to thousands of Foodspotting photos and guides. Foodspotting CEO Alexa Andrzejewski suggests that the partnership will be the first of many, hinting that the Foodspotting API will be open to the public very soon.

To celebrate the partnership, Foodspotting users will now be able to earn a “Zagat badge” (see top left) when they add food photos to the Foodspotting app from any Zagat-rated restaurant in San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York.

From Andrzejewski:

“We’re excited to have Zagat be the first partner to leverage Foodspotting data to enhance their restaurant listings. By integrating Foodspotting photos, the Zagat apps will not only be a great resource for helping people decide where to eat, but they’ll also help you decide what to eat once you’re there.”

Zagat Mobile Lead Ryan Charles told TechCrunch that the integration leaves room for many co-branded opportunities, “Looking down the road, we plan to add special offers including promotional access to our website for Foodspotting users who complete the badge related tasks.”

The full Zagat/Foodspotting integration will be available on future versions of both mobile applications.

The two parties did not disclose the terms of the deal.

Like many projects in Silicon Valley (see: Twitter), Chrome To Phone started as a mere side project at Google.

Dave Burke, Google’s Engineering Manager for Mobile and the chief architect for Chrome To Phone, was just tinkering around with Google’s third party developer tools in his free time. Fascinated by the divide between mobile and desktop, he stumbled upon Chrome To Phone. “I created an early version that I sent around internally, and then I started getting sort of notes and e-mails from people going ‘Wow, this is really useful, thanks for creating it!’ And over time people started using it more and more because it really just addresses a need today and I guess it just generated some momentum after that,” Burke says.

On Thursday, Google officially launched Chrome to Phone to the public, it’s a useful extension that allows you to push information, like web pages, phone numbers and maps directly from your Chrome browser to your Android phone. Burke says this is just the beginning, he has a laundry list of functions he plans to build. Next up? An update that will reverse the path, to Phone To Chrome. And yes, he’s already working on it.

“We get quite a few suggestions for enhancements so the first one that came out was: “Chrome to Phone is great when can i have Phone To Chrome. So this is the reverse case, you’re on your phone, you see an interesting article, and you want to take it to your desktop,” Burke says. High on his to-do list is also a feature that will let you access the history of your actions, so you can quickly pull up an old link or map on your phone.

There has also been chatter on the web, as to whether Chrome To Phone could evolve into a TV remote type of device— especially given the impending launch of Google TV. For example, with a “Chrome to TV” extension, you could pull up a video on your laptop’s/iPad’s browser and then push it to your Google TV, essentially turning your computing device into a very large remote. After our video interview, I asked Burke about the concept, he said Google isn’t working on it yet but it does make a lot of sense.

See above for our full interview with Burke above. Below is a 2-minute demo video.

If newspapers came with warning labels, they might look something like the ones Tom Scott came up with. The British “geek comedian” created warning stickers you can print out and put on newspapers (PDF below). They include:

Warning: This article is basically just a press release, copied and pasted.

Warning: This article contains unsourced, unverified information from Wikipedia

Warning: To ensure future interviews with subject, important questions were not asked.

Warning: To meet a deadline, this article was plagiarised from another news source.

Too bad you can’t stick these on blogs (present one excluded, of course).

(Hat tip to Nick Bilton)

As soon as the rumor broke that Apple would be renaming its struggling Apple TV to iTV, to better fit with the company's i[Device] naming system, I thought to myself, "Isn't ITV the name of a television network in England that always misses key goals in soccer games?" Yes, yes it is. In fact, the network isn't too keen on Apple using the name iTV, and has promised to "vigorously defend" its IP.

The Tea Party, the "American socio-political movement that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests," and known for its colorful protest signs (as seen here), hates Net Neutrality. Why does the Tea Party hate Net Neutrality? "I think the clearest thing is it's an affront to free speech and free markets." Thus spoke Jaime Radtke, chairwoman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation. Net Neutrality is an affront to free speech? Did I wake up in Bizarro World?