I got an email today from some friends who run a Bay Area IT consultancy. They deal almost exclusively in the PC trade but are Mac savvy themselves, so I was startled a bit by the subject line for their monthly Good News / Bad News newsletter: Two Very Bad Mac OSX Viruses.

Of course, I knew from chatter over the summer and from more recent conversation that the days of Macs being impervious to viruses and malware are probably numbered and sure enough, even Apple Support now officially recommends users install antivirus protection on Mac systems:

Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult.

The Apple knowledge base article goes on to recommend programs from Intego, Symantec/Norton and McAfee, all of which are commercially licensed products.

My consulting friends recommended iAntivirus, which is a free program, and said, “We have never used it but reviewers say it is good for being a free program. Download and use all free software with caution!”

Another free Mac virus checker (though the developer gratefully accepts all donations) is ClamXav, an updated version of which was released on Monday; the program gets 4.25 stars at Mac Update.

So, is that it? Are we all going to opt for the flu shot from now on? If you’ve installed antivirus software on your Mac, tell us how it’s going and what you like. If you haven’t, or don’t plan to, tell us why in comments.

It's exactly the same question I asked three years ago when I started nextNY. At the time, Meetup.com didn't have listservs, so it was much more of an event than it was any kind of community. Twitter wasn't around, so even during the event itself, people seemed kind of disconnected from each other. There were no after parties either. I actually wanted to meet the people at the event, particularly the up and comers who were in my peer group, so I asked Scott if it was ok to form another group and he was fully supportive. Now, we're at 2,000 people and growing, and our @shakeshack event was the hot community event over the summer.

But nextNY didn't solve everyone's needs. Some people wanted more of a direct connection to financing, and so David and Yao created a unique business opportunity for themselves by founding the Hatchery around that premise. They throw pitch meetings and investor matchups--and that obviously wouldn't be relevant for all the members of the NY Tech Meetup.

There have also been more focused groups, like the Video 2.0 Meetup group, which itself supports almost 2500 people, and industry meetups like the Fashion 2.0 Meetup, where over 200 entrepreneurs at the crossroads of fashion and technology are gathered.

And, of course, for even longer, we've had tech user groups, like NYPHP and the Linux User Group, etc. These organizations have been holding events and running online listservs for years, connecting the technologists of the Big Apple.

So, as the NY Tech Meetup scaled to 7,500 people, it inspired people whose needs it wasn't fulfilling to go off and create their own groups--creating lots of new community leaders. Seems to me that it's more than serving its purpose.

Scott, however, positioned the NY Tech Meetup as falling short--so when he asked for new leadership, those who answered the call came new ideas ablazin', writing manifestos, blog posts, etc... and the theme was the same... more, bigger, structure.

This is typical. No one ever wins this type of thing by promising more of the same. Change is sexy, as are big visions. However, as we should know from the Web, focus and reduction are more likely to improve the quality of a product than adding more features.

And now, we're going to be forced to choose between these new visions, when the community never actually asked for any of them. I mean, this whole time, any one of the people running for Meetup organizer could have proposed any of their suggested changes and ideas, and totally ran with them, and we could have seen whether or not they got any traction in the community. That's the way nextNY works. If someone wants to run an event, everyone is free to, and if only 10 people want to go, it's fine -- those 10 people meet. If 150 people want to go, it naturally gathers more momentum, focus, and effort. That minimizes the amount of community distraction and mis-allocation of resources.

No one, except Scott, was asking for more overhead, a board, or more structure, because whatever they weren't getting out of the NY Tech Meetup, they were getting out of one of these other community organizations... and now we're going to put the weight of 7,500 people and a board behind someone's agenda--an agenda that didn't earn that following in the first place. I actually think this could be dangerous--because it has the potential to distract other resources and the community itself on issues and efforts that aren't really being driven by the community.

For example, a lot of people have been saying that there needs to be more venture investment in NYC. Whether or not that's the case, something like 2% of all startups are ever really appropriate for venture investment anyway. Still, that's something that everyone will support, even though it really isn't relevant. Need we waste the NY Tech Meetup's time and energy on trying to work to get more investment in NYC when it doesn't really apply to most of its members?

Plus, a lot of what bothers me about this "election" is that the people running so far have either never tried to show leadership in the community before, or whose leadership efforts haven't garnered anything close to the kind of success the current NY Tech Meetup has. And now we're going to throw the weight of 7,500 people behind them? That's going to set off a legitimization of someone's ideas that never got traction otherwise. That person will undoubtedly be looked to as representative of the community when they really aren't. I might think differently if anyone gets a majority of the votes, but what are the chances of that happening? I'll bet you that "turnout" isn't even 50%, not to mention the fact that all the people in NY Tech aren't in the Meetup group, obviously, so this person isn't really going to be very representative of very many people at all. They'll likely be treated as such, though, because elections create that perception.

Instead, why not keep things a liquid market of smaller, focused groups--representative of what the community actually needs. This way, if there's a group that wants to get together around investments, like the Hatchery, they can, and they'll naturally rightsize themselves around that need. Let's not forget that the 7,500 people joined the meetup as designed--to meet once a month, check in with others in the community, and see some interesting new startups. It was simple, and not surprisingly, simple got traction. There was no groundswell of people saying "This sucks, we need to do more." In fact, it was quite the contrary. Tickets to the NY Tech Meetup sell out in minutes.

Have we not learned anything from AOL and Yahoo? Kludging disparate factions of a community together in an attempt to be its center never works. In fact, it goes against the very essence of Meetup itself--a loose collection of groups centered around focused interests, with lots of cross pollination but no central hub.

So, after giving this a lot of thought, I think I really only support two options here. Let's keep it exactly the same--because it works, and because anything different or with more structure isn't really what the community asked for or needs or can't be found in other groups.

Or, let's just disband the whole thing before it trips over its own structure and overhead and wastes a lot of effort and resources. Yeah... that's right. Let's stop the NY Tech Meetup and see how many new efforts pop up in its place and how many new leaders are created. I would hope that it would create at least a few--because there were a few people running I had never seen or heard from before.

Or how about just spinning out the monthly meetup and keeping that exactly the same--run by someone currently on the organizing staff--and have some side "ideas" group coming up with new things to try out and incubate within the community?

Do I actually think the NY Tech Meetup should be disbanded? No, I don't. But do I think we are in danger of forming the next NYNMA, which failed under its own overhead during a downturn? Yes, I do. (something that nextNY, for example, can't do, b/c it's just a group of people... no finances, no costs... as long as there are two nextNYers who want to meet and talk to each other, it will always be around). I'm also looking at the NYSIA model, with a paid director that, while more focused on the enterprise side, really hasn't galvanized the community either--despite the good efforts of very qualified people.

Meetup proved that the grassrootsy, low overhead model worked. The NY Tech Meetup inspired a generation of new community leaders who have packed the Gary's Guide calendar full of tech community events. I'd rather see it disappear than see a new vision haphazardly bolted on to a community that never asked for one.

Charlie O'Donnell (SA 100 #61) is co-founder and CEO of Path 101, a NYC-based startup, and founder of NextNY, a tech community group. He blogs at This Is Going To Be Big, where this post was originally published.

Because that’s what UK-based Lancashire Tea is looking to strike interest in. The tea packager has tapped The Rehab Agency, a marketing consultancy, to produce three designs, which, along with the original graphic, has been put up for a vote on Facebook, according to Packaging News.

Voting goes until December 1, and interestingly enough, once the results are tallied, if a new design wins top honor, Rehab gets paid in full. If the original gets gold, however, Rehab will, according to managing director Janie Ash, receive a “much reduced fee.”

A Small Tea-Drinking Constituency

Of course, Lancashire’s Official Tea Club group isn’t buzzing with activity in light of this month-long event. It’s member page touts under 300 people, and just two dozen individuals have bothered to speak their peace about the Rehab project.

But the social networking endeavor is curious nonetheless. Especially when sized up amid other marketing efforts on the social Web.

Not the First Social Marketing Experiment…

You may remember that mega toothpaster Crest partly crowdsourced an ad run on YouTube this summer.

And how about Microsoft’s I’m a PC venture, in which the public was urged to record video confessionals and contribute their efforts to a collage of Windows-themed spots? That turned out to be quite the attention-getter.

Let’s not forget the ever-infamous Facebook Beacon experiment, either, in which users were involved in a social advertising experiment that quickly drew majority ire for its seeming underhandedness.

…Certainly Not the Last

What’s next on the social marketing menu, then? I call for a new design of watermelon. Oval is so over. Square is…square. I pitch another parallelogram. What say you?

Imagery provided by iStockPhoto/Bryngelzon; Crown Melon

---
Related Articles at Mashable | All That's New on the Web:

Facebook Loses Vodafone Advertising Due to Racist Profile
MyPunchbowl Adds Halloween-Inspired Features, Launches Facebook App
Facebook Aims to Stop Mini-Feed Spam
Facebook: So Do We Post to the Mini-Feed or Not?
Facebook Beacon Collects Data on Non-Users Too
Zuckerberg Refutes Facebook IPO Rumors
YouTube Launches YouTube Colleges, Follows Facebook

First, the Times' report:

SOFTWARE giant Microsoft is in talks to acquire Yahoo's online search business for $20 billion ( 13 billion).

The proposal forms the centrepiece of a complex transaction that would see Microsoft support a new management team to take control of Yahoo. But there is no intention of Microsoft tabling another takeover bid for the web giant, after its aborted $47.5 billion offer this summer.

It is thought that Jonathan Miller, ex-chairman and chief executive of AOL, and Ross Levinsohn, a former president of Fox Interactive Media, have been lined up to lead the new management team. Senior directors at Microsoft and Yahoo are understood to have agreed the broad terms of a deal, but there is no guarantee that it will succeed...

Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Microsoft would provide a $5 billion facility to the Miller and Levinsohn management team. The duo would raise an additional $5 billion from external investors.

This cash would be used to buy convertible preference shares and warrants which would give it a holding in excess of 30% of Yahoo.

The external investors would also have the right to appoint three of Yahoo's 11 board directors. The talks with Yahoo involve Microsoft obtaining a 10-year operating agreement to manage the search business. It would also receive a two-year call option to buy the search business for $20 billion. That would leave Yahoo to run its own e-mail, messaging, and content services.

It is expected that the operating agreement would boost Yahoo's income by as much as $2 billion per annum.

And now Kara Swisher's debunking:

A report in the Times of London in which Microsoft would buy Yahoo's search business in a convoluted $20 billion deal that would include well-known Internet execs Jon Miller and Ross Levinsohn, is-in the words of one key player-'total fiction.'

Actually, that's Levinsohn speaking, on the record. But that's also the essential word from all key players regarding the Times' report.

BoomTown has spoken to top sources at Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT) too and all scoff at such a deal now taking place or that either side has been in any such discussions of late.

Who to believe? Let's assume the truth is somewhere in the middle. Even if there are no actual talks taking place right this minute, there should be.

The $20 billion number is almost certainly fiction, given that, last summer, Microsoft offered to buy Yahoo's search business for $1 billion. Microsoft also wants to own and run the search technology, so the idea of having a call option doesn't really make sense. Microsoft and Yahoo need to merge their search businesses, however, and both companies have said publicly they are happy to discuss a deal, so the idea that they're working on something is perfectly plausible. (And if they aren't now, soon.)

Ross Levinsohn and Jon Miller, meanwhile, would make fine additions to Yahoo's senior team, and they are almost certainly being considered for those roles.

Lastly, unlike everyone else in the economy, Microsoft has cash coming out of its ears. So the idea of Microsoft using some of that cash to facilitate a Yahoo deal (which it also tried to do last summer). also makes sense.

Bottom line: If Yahoo and Microsoft aren't discussing a search deal right now, they should be and soon will be. And Yahoo's short list of candidates for CEO probably includes Jon.

See Also: The Biggest Losers: 20 Moguls Creamed By The Crash

While nothing official has been released by Microsoft, The Times of London is reporting Microsoft Corp. has resumed its pursuit of Yahoo in a deal that could cost the Redmond-based company $20 billion, less than half of what it offered for the search site this summer.

Microsoft has put forward Jonathan Miller, ex-chairman and chief executive of AOL, and Ross Levinsohn, a former president of Fox Interactive Media, to lead a new management team at Yahoo under a 10-year agreement. Microsoft would have a two-year option to buy Yahoo outright for $20 billion. The report also says senior management at both companies “have agreed (to) the broad terms of a deal, but there is no guarantee that it will succeed.”

Now I am confused..Ballmer just got through saying about a week and half ago, “We are done with all acquisition discussions with Yahoo.” Again, no official response yet for Microsoft and there likely won’t be any until Monday.

News Source: The Microsoft Blog

Why should those of interested in search care about Google Health? Well, the obvious answer is that what Google does matters, as it is the Goliath of Search.

But another reason to be interested in Google Health is that there is an interesting philosophical tension between Google’s mission of making information accessible and the need for privacy when it comes to medical records. Here is a case when Internet users might want to actually read Frequently Asked Questions.

For instance, on the FAQs page, Google states clearly, “Our corporate mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible…” Now as long as users accept that and are comfortable with the idea that what they enter of their own free will about their medical conditions is to be overseen by an entity with that mission and philosophy, then Google Health is for them. It refers to its Privacy Policy and states, “Please note that this Privacy Policy may change from time to time.” Okay, just be aware of the wiggle room Google allows itself.

I was quite bothered by the evasiveness of some of the wording in the FAQS such as this, “If it’s free, how does Google make money off Google Health?

Much like other Google products we offer, Google Health is free to anyone who uses it. There are no ads in Google Health. Our primary focus is providing a good user experience and meeting our users’ needs.”

That does not answer the question and it is simply poor marketing to ask a question and then pretend to answer it. Such sophistry doesn’t inspire confidence and when you are talking medical information, trust is crucial.

What else is of interest on the FAQs page for those of interested in search? Well, there is this:

“Does the data I store in Google Health get used for other Google products, like Search?

Yes, we share information between Google products to enable cross-product functionality. For example, Google Health can help you save your doctors’ contact information in your Google Contact List. But no personal or medical information in your Google Health profile is used to customize your Google.com search results or for advertising. Also, other users cannot access your personal medical records through a search on Google.com.”

And this, “Is Google Health a new way to search for health information?

Not really. Google Health is mostly about helping you collect, store, manage, and share your medical records and health information. There is a search box at the top of every page in Google Health, and if you enter a search query there, you go to the Google.com search results page that you are used to. There is also useful health information built into Google Health, but Google Health is not a new health-specific search engine.”

I looked over the roster of those on the Google Health Advisory Council and it should reassure consumers that the chairman of the board of directors of the American Medical Informatics Association is on it, as is former FDA Commissioner, David Kessler, M.D. who is no slouch when it comes to protecting the interests of patients and consumers. There are representatives of such important players in most of the recent milestones for the betterment of patient care as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Genetic Alliance and top officials of American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians. These are all people who have seen firsthand the incredible inefficiency and cost in patient safety and good practice caused by paper-based medical records practices and the fact that they are on this council is a ringing endorsement of Google’s initiatives in the health arena.

But is important to keep in mind that sometimes privacy matters are taken out of Google’s hands. Recall that in the summer of 2008, a federal district court judge ordered Google’s YouTube to surrender to Viacom its records regarding user activity on YouTube, including YouTube login IDs, IP addresses and so on.

Thus, my answer to my editor’s question would be, “Possibly, as long as you have read carefully every single word of the wording about privacy and definitely if convenience and not absolute privacy of your medical matters is your paramount concern. If you simply want to be able to conveniently access Web-based basic medical information about yourself that you have yourself approved should you find yourself in an emergency room someday or want to be able to quickly print out such information in a medical office setting or some such circumstances, then Google Health is for you.”

Since its debut in 2007, iPhone owners have been capable of consuming video in two ways: via iPod software as well as a YouTube application. And these options presumably remain the exclusive utilities employed for viewing clips.

But they are other methods available now. The launch of the App Store this summer enticed a number of third-party developers to make use of the iPhone’s video playback capabilities. The Web-based television outfit Joost [iTunes] is the latest to joint the fray. Naturally, we thought it’d be fitting to see what’s what in that part of the iPhone market as a whole. Here are ten free highlights. We invite you to share your favorites, too!

Truveo Video Search

For roughly a year’s time, the iPhone’s native YouTube application was pretty sole purveyor of video search on the mobile platform. Given the immensity of the YouTube archive, it works to great effect. But perhaps you’d like to search elsewhere for content. Truveo Video Search [iTunes URL], issued by AOL, gives you another option. The company claims a high six-figure view count via the application to date.

AppVee

Maybe you like the idea of download applications to your iPhone directly over the air. But a part of your might like to get a quick preview of what those applications might be like. AppVee [iTunes], a service we ourselves reviewed not long ago, presents its app reviews and video walkthroughs both for desktop browsers and iPhone owners.

Howcast

Remember when the world of how-to videos took the Web by storm? The fact is, the depth of material has only grown with time. And Howcast [iTunes], one of the premier outlets serving the instructional, educational, and DIY market just so happens to provide iPhone and iPod touch users with videos they can really do stuff with. User reviews for the application are nothing short of stellar. This freebie is a definite winner.

The Weather Channel

Yes, you can use the free Weather Channel iPhone application [iTunes] for quick local map forecasts and text weather reports and things. But if you have a particular love for the Weather Channel’s ever-popular video readings, you can playback the latest news at your leisure.

WorldView

We’ve all done it. At one time or another, we’ve all searched the Intertubes for footage captured in near-real-time by webcams all across the world. Well, there’s no need to fire up Firefox or IE or whathaveyou to get your fix on Berlin, Germany’s street scene from your home perch in West Coast USA. WorldView [iTunes] makes it happen right on your iPhone. A purported 6,000 webcams are searchable. Want a random view of some place on the map? Just shake. Literally.

FOX Sports

Delivered by Fox Sports Interactive Media, the Fox Sports iPhone application [iTunes] puts video  on the backburner, but for coverage of athletic events, that’s somewhat understandable, especially when dealing with the dimensions of a handheld. But video is promised, with a running Top 5 FOX sports clips provided for many a replay.

MLB

The baseball season in America is over for now, but the media managers at MLB promise great things in 2009 to carry the torch left idle in 2008. Suffice it to say that video highlights will be included in MLB at Bat 2009 [iTunes]. That goes for gameplay and offseason items like award announcements, free agent signings, etc.

IGN Game Reviews

Speaking of gaming, IGN [iTunes], another FIM property, offers a rundown of videogame reviews reaching beyond the iPhone playground. You can set preferences to your favorite gaming platforms and get easy access to new titles and big hits. Hey, it’s a free download. What’s there to lose?

Style.com

The iPhone itself is a marvel in design, so it seems fitting that Style.com [iTunes] presents its readers with a collection of news, blogs, and videos to follow while on the go. You could go so far as to watch clips while stationed alongside a fashion show runway. Nothing live, however. Though, how weird cool would that be?

vSNAX Videos

Taking the world of fashion and high culture to a more broad perspective, an application by Rhythm NewMedia called vSNAX Videos [iTunes] gives users access to clips from the likes of Ford Models, the Style Network, VH1, Young Hollywood and more. Many customers report having superb video quality on hand.

Honorary Mention: Joost

It’s the most recent one to land in the App Store’s database, but it receives bonus status here as the final pick in this iPhone video app mix. Because, well, why not? It’s Joost [iTunes]. The company recently debuted its browser-based video archive. And now it’s taking things mobile.

A word of warning: the iPhone app currently available for download has shown some playback and search errors in the 24 hours or so that it’s been live. The company acknowledges the problems and is working to better users’ experiences, according to MG Zeigler of VentureBeat.

Image source: iPhonelife

---
Related Articles at Mashable | All That's New on the Web:

Free iPhone Apps!
World’s Simplest iPhone App
Apple’s iPhone Directory is Really Real!
Apple Making a Directory for iPhone Apps?
iPhone. Europe. September.
Google Reader + iPhone = Awesome
8 Coolest iPhone Apps at iPhoneDevCamp

In September there were reports that Verizon in the U.S. were going to triple rates for SMS which would also put the hurt on services like Twitter.

B5Media CEO Jeremy Wright is visably upset by this change as per his messages post announcement:

“WTF?!!! TWITTER LET ME PAY FOR PRO SERVICE SO I CAN GET MY F*CKING SMS'S IN CANADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“@supernovacom - bite me. This SUCKS. I've been asking to pay for over a year! LET ME PAY. You can take my SMS but you can't take my freedom!”

Not really sure why anyone would need to use the SMS service anyway - it's ok, you can check your messages when you get back to the office. Knowing who ate what or whether their dog took a piss on the carpet can certainly wait. And you can always open a Web browser on your mobile and visit the service that way if you need to know whats "going on".

In September there were reports that Verizon in the U.S. were going to triple rates for SMS which would also put the hurt on services like Twitter.

B5Media CEO Jeremy Wright is visably upset by this change as per his messages post announcement:

“WTF?!!! TWITTER LET ME PAY FOR PRO SERVICE SO I CAN GET MY F*CKING SMS'S IN CANADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“@supernovacom - bite me. This SUCKS. I've been asking to pay for over a year! LET ME PAY. You can take my SMS but you can't take my freedom!”

Not really sure why anyone would need to use the SMS service anyway - it's ok, you can check your messages when you get back to the office. Knowing who ate what or whether their dog took a piss on the carpet can certainly wait. And you can always open a Web browser on your mobile and visit the service that way if you need to know whats "going on".

TUAWApple's small business share continues to grow originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.