An enterprising company in the USA (no surprises there), will take one or more feeds from your Twitter account and print those tweets on toilet paper so you can then display and use proudly in your favorite restroom. Better still, you can have somebody else’s feeds printed on a roll that, when sent to them, will indicate exactly how much you value their tweets.

As Mashable points out, this premium paper is priced for use in high-end powder rooms, rolls cost $35 for a pack of four. If these rolls of toilet paper have the standard 75 sheets you’d be shelling out about 8.5 cents a sheet to send your latest tweets off to the seaside. That, you may reasonably surmise, is money down the drain.

The company producing these gems is aptly and unimaginatively named, Shitter (presumably to rhyme with Twitter). Although the idea of printed toilet paper is not new, it’s probably the first time someone has taken Twitter to the toilet. Previous options were to print logos, pictures phrases, etc. or the faces (no pun intended) of people you didn’t like. Some companies have been known to print their competitors brands or products on extra special batches to motivate staff.

On the positive side, this could be the ideal gift for someone you know that has everything.

The film cost around $500,000 to make, part funded by Silicon Valley attorney and former Facebook executive, Chris Kelly who said films like Olive, shot on smart-phones give anyone the tools to create high quality content, meaning the economics of the film industry could change in years to come. “It will no longer be about a few big studios controlling the industry, now anyone can create Hollywood-quality content for a fraction of the price’. Read more….

“Dear Google user,

We’re getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that’s a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.”

Maybe what it should have said was:

Dear Google user,

Forget everything we told you in the past about respecting your privacy. Whatever you do via any of our portals from now in will be ours to use any way we like. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. Oh, by the way, there’s nowhere else to go because we have either put most of our competitors out of business or acquired them. Remember how we used to say “don’t be evil” – forget all that, we are so big now we can do whatever we like.

The original Google email came with a link to the new policy that will taking effect from March 1, and I quote, “Our new Privacy Policy makes clear that, if you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience.”

“Our new policy reflects a single product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether you’re reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease.”

What if you don’t want all these things linked up. Whatever happened to spontaneity, anonymity and good old privacy? “If you’re signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you’ve expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube. We’ll better understand which version of Pink or Jaguar you’re searching for and get you those results faster.” But I don’t want that to happen. What if I have a Google+ persona that is different to my YouTube and Gmail personas. I don’t even want Gmail but I am forced to have a ‘Gmail identity’ so that everything else can be linked to it.

Translated to Plain English, that means that I am no longer anonymous. Everything I do via Google will be tracked back to me via my name, email, phone number, even my face. Apparently, Google needs to do this because, as it states: “People have different privacy concerns and needs. To best serve the full range of our users, Google strives to offer them meaningful and fine-grained choices over the use of their personal information. We believe personal information should not be held hostage and we are committed to building products that let users export their personal information to other services. We don‘t sell users’ personal information.”

Google explains in its comprehensive Q&A that you don’t need to sign in to use many of its services, including Search, Maps and YouTube. If you are signed in, you can still edit or turn off your Search history, switch Gmail chat to “off the record,” control the way Google tailors ads to your interests, use Incognito mode on Chrome, or use any of the other privacy tools Google offers. However, the onus is on you to do this, each and every time you use one of the services. If, like me, your browser ‘remembers’ you to Google each time you use it, then what chance do you have?

Call me skeptical, but every time I hear about changes in privacy policies these days I start to worry. Especially when I read statements like: “Our goal is to provide you with as much transparency and choice as possible….. our privacy principles remain unchanged. And we’ll never sell your personal information or share it without your permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests).” Pull the other leg, please!

Until I can get a handle on all of this I’m going to Bing for my searches (yes Microsoft, all is forgiven), closing my Google+ account (no idea why I have one – I’ve never used it) and Gmail will be ignored completely. Google Earth is out, location-based services on my phone switched off and Google maps, which I have never trusted to give me directions, will be avoided.

Can I survive without Google? There’s only one way to find out.

There is a business-school case study waiting to be written about this era of RIM, from 2007 through the next few years. It’s a solidly profitable company with a growing user base outside the U.S. that has no grasp of the future, a resistance to outside ideas, and a management team completely tone deaf to the modern consumer. Heins, a RIM executive who came on board during that pivotal year in which Apple introduced the iPhone, may be part of the solution but he has also been part of the problem.

Everyone knew Lazaridis and Balsillie had to go, not only because of investor pressure but because companies need to send signals to the market and to its employees that failure on such a grand scale cannot be tolerated.

“RIM is in deep trouble and needs to do something different to survive. When will it realize that?

Read more….

For a start, how many companies do you know have two CEOs? The title itself, Chief Executive Officer, does not even accommodate anything plural. It has also come to light that there have been two COOs working concurrently in RIM as well. One of them, Thorsten Heins, will now step into the singular CEO role vacated by the ‘bobsy’ twins, Mike Laziridis and Jim Balsillie.

There is probably no need to highlight the plight of RIM that rose to stardom on the back of its BlackBerry mobile email platform. Its efforts to come out with new and exciting handsets in the face of mounting competition from all quarters failed dismally because the main selling point, in the eyes of consumers, was email access – something they could get (admittedly less securely) via any other smartphone. It has never ceased to amaze me that anyone would need to answer emails 24×7, yet BlackBerry addicts made the case for bosses to fork out for handsets knowing they would be getting ‘blood’ in return. If recent legislation passed in Brazil that companies will be forced to pay overtime to staff that answer emails in personal their time, is any indication, it could be the last mail in the RIM coffin.

As it turns out, RIM didn’t need any help to dig its own grave. Persevering with two increasingly inept and clueless CEOs that failed to strategize early and insisted on following a ‘me too’ path in the tablet market well after the race had started, was the first bungle. This was followed by failure to address the limitations of its existing operating system and the late delivery of the new, now end 2012, which is an eternity in an industry that make or break heroes in days. Research In Motion could have been renamed RISM – ‘Research in Slow Motion.’

So what can be seen as humorous in this saddest of corporate tales? Well, apart from the distinction of having twin CEOs and twin COOs, the reins, and hopes for the future, are being handed over to a veteran of Siemens, another company that failed to survive the rapid transformation of telecoms technology. First signs are not promising that Heins will be bringing any great foresight or hope to the market. He has already stated he would be staking the company’s revival on the very same new line of phones and a new operating system that his predecessors had embarked, and the very same one that has already run into a series of continuous delays.

To add a twist of sarcasm, Lazaridis will become vice chair of RIM’s board and chair of the board’s new Innovation Committee.

The New York Times also reports that Barbara Stymiest, a former chief operating officer of the Royal Bank of Canada, will become chairwoman of the company. Ms. Stymiest, has no background in electronics or consumer products. Let’s hope for Heins’ sake that she does not operate as her name suggests and ‘stymies’ his attempts at digging RIM out of the deep hole it has found itself in.

Reports of any takeover or acquisition of RIM by third parties was denied vehemently by the departing twins and there is no reason to doubt that. Anyway, who would want to buy RIM in this market? Sure, it has relationships with almost every mobile operator in the world and has over 70 million users worldwide, but acquiring the company does not guarantee that they remain loyal or be willing to buy what is offered to them in future.

Perhaps Heins should give Steve Elop at Nokia a call? After all, they seem to have a lot in common. On the other hand, maybe not, Elop has had most of his experience with burning platforms whilst Heins is having to dig his way out. If something doesn’t happen soon he may need to change the company’s name from RIM to RIP.