Category: Tech news

The 2012 Porsche Cayman R is a proven attention-getter. Photo by Basem Wasef/Wired

In this unprecedented age of obscene horsepower and affordable performance, the Porsche Cayman R is the Jenyne Butterfly of the sports car world.

Who is Jenyne Butterfly? Look her up, preferably not at work.

Ms. Butterfly’s sinewy muscles are cut on gracile bone, and articulate her long limbs with purposeful flexibility. She’s graced with the sort of physique you’d associate with an Olympic swimmer or an extreme yogi. She also possesses a preternatural ability to fling herself across a pole with fluid undulations that appear to disobey the laws of physics.

Extracting 330 horses from a mid-mounted 3.4-liter flat-six, Porsche’s compact two-seater is outpowered by $24,000 Hyundais. It’s also in no danger of winning any luxury accolades, and its superstar big brother, the 911, is undeniably more glamorous. And yet, this low-slung pipsqueak is also a punchy performer, an aggro animal that’s been pruned like a bonsai, resembling a sort of scaled-down supercar.

At 2,855 pounds (or 2,910 pounds with a 7-speed dual-clutch transmission), the Cayman R is the lightest road car built by Porsche. Luxuries like door grabs and sound insulation are swapped for nylon straps and road noise, and aluminum door panels save 33 pounds of mass. Stiffer bucket seats lighten the load by 26 pounds, while 19-inch wheels do their part by ditching 11 pounds of unsprung mass.

So serious is this car’s commitment to the art of asphalt acrobatics that air conditioning is a no-cost option, even though A/C comes standard on lesser Caymans. The same mass-o-phobes who probably don’t mind their musky stench polluting the non-air-conditioned cabin are likely to order the optional lightweight lithium battery for a $1,700 premium — it sheds 22 pounds, and, with its shorter profile, ever-so-slightly lowers the vehicle’s center of gravity.

Photo by Basem Wasef/Wired

Those who are not fanatical about purebred sports cars won’t “get” the Cayman R. More than a few car geeks won’t, either. Many will likely cite that oft-recalled American metric, the Chevy Corvette, a potent but sometimes cloying jack-of-all-trades with a bigger, burlier personality. The Cayman R is, on the other hand, a heavy dose of mechanical minimalism wrapped in the deceptively familiar skin of status-symbol sheet metal — for better, or for worse.

If you climb in expecting the stark, carbon and Alcantara-slathered racecar aesthetic of, say, a Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera, the Cayman R’s elephant hide surfaces disappoint. Its glossy plastic trim color-matched to the car’s exterior won’t do it any favors, either (though it does enliven the otherwise stark cabin.) Even twisting the ignition key with your left hand in that age-old Le Mans tradition won’t betray this car’s brilliant but obfuscated soul. Its exhaust note lacks the gut-punching immediacy of a solid American V8 or a silky smooth German inline-6, but throw the shifter into first and let out the heavyish clutch, and instant comprehension of this car’s pugilistic personality shoots directly to the seat of your pants. In a good way.

Resting .78 inches lower than more pedestrian Caymans, the R bucks with every surface irregularity, conveying the nooks and crannies of the road like your tongue on a toasted English muffin. The steering wheel pulls right or left like it’s directly linked to the tie-rod mounts by cables, and thanks to the aforementioned weight savings and mid-mounted engine, the car’s low polar moment of inertia facilitates slalom course slithers like an anxious eel.

Transitional handling (i.e., what happens when steering input initiates weight transfer, triggering the kinetic chain of events that result in direction shifts) is so direct, the Cayman begs for swervy lane changes if only for the sheer adolescent thrill of it. Credit a taut chassis, stiffer bushings, and more aggressive suspension geometry for the dynamic gains. And if you complain about the washboard ride or vaguely unrefined engine intake sounds emanating from behind the firewall, you’re missing the point. Yep, this car is just like rock ‘n roll: if it’s too loud, you’re too old.

Photo by Basem Wasef/Wired

The Gillmor Gang — John Borthwick, Robert Scoble, John Taschek, Kevin Marks, and Steve Gillmor — turned off their minds, relaxed, and floated downstream on the push notification inbox of tomorrow. Borrowing a page from the Tibetan Book of Windows, the Gang debated the impossibility of multitasking, the existence of a new uber operating system, and the overall impact of surrendering to the void.

Revolver marked the exact center of the Beatles arc; everything before was prologue, everything after continues to expand as the media is transformed. A quarter of a million may seem like a lot of dollars for playing one song once on a TV show, just as we await the size of the Facebook IPO. Recorded first and sequenced last, Tomorrow Never Knows is the end of the beginning.

@stevegillmor, @borthwick, @scobleizer, @kevinmarks, @jtaschek

Produced and directed by Tina Chase Gillmor @tinagillmor

If your response to virtual infrastructure installations is a derisive “Boring, Sidney, booring” then maybe AngelPad startup ElasticBox isn’t for you. However, if you love cloud computing like Nancy loved heroin, I think you may be in luck.

ElasticBox, founded by former Microsofies Ravi Srivatsav, Alberto Arias Maestro, and Amadeo Casas Cuadrado, is a service that makes setting up and running a cloud-based service quick and easy. With the service you don’t have to set up the environment in order to run an app. Instead, you can focus on the actual functionality and far less on server maintenance.

Ravi wrote us saying:

The company is currently bringing in a few hundred in revenue from actual paying customers, a surprising feat considering they launched on May 8. The service requires some onboarding right now but that will soon change. “We plan to open up for a self serve model in the coming weeks,” said Ravi.

“With the increased adoption of infrastructure as a service, enterprises are demanding software solutions that allows them to manage the execution of their applications in the cloud without having to deal with the challenges associated with server configuration and management. The ElasticBox team has seen this problems from the front line, at Microsoft, DynamicOps and MySpace,” he said.

The service supports multiple infrastructures including AWS and Microsoft servers. The goal, in short, is to allow folks to deploy their applications onto a clean, ready-to-run (dare I say “elastic”) box and let the company do all the IT maintenance and performance tweaks.

The service is open to customers right now although there is a waiting list of about 50 customers in the queue right now, making it a hot commodity. However, if you’d rather live at the quick and easy Chelsea Hotel of cloud computing environments rather than the staid estates of Lewisham, South East London, ElasticBox may be an interesting choice.

Last year, nearly half a million completed Dropbox‘s very first “Dropquest.” This time, designer Jon Ying and engineer Rajeev Nayak say they “honestly don’t know” how many people will participate, but with the company’s rapid growth, it’s a safe bet that the number will be bigger.

Nayak describes Dropquest as “a gift to our users.” It’s an online scavenger hunt where you solve logic puzzles while also learning about Dropbox’s key features. Everyone who finishes gets 1 extra gigabyte of free storage, and there are other prizes for the players who finish first — the grand prize winner will get a Dropbox employee hoodie, a Dropbox Hack Week T-shirt, a drawing signed by the entire Dropbox team, an invitation to write the next Dropquest, and a 100 gigabytes of free storage for life.

It sounds like you’re going to have to work for that free storage, however — the game is designed to take 12 hours to complete. That’s about how long it was supposed to take last year, too, but someone finished in three hours. This year, it’s longer and more challenging, thanks to additional, harder puzzles, but Ying and Nayak admit there’s still some debate about exactly how long it will take. Puzzles aren’t the only new feature: There’s also a post-apocalyptic science fictional storyline.

Dropquest is a product of the company’s Hack Week in March, where employees can work on whatever they want. This year, one week wasn’t enough to complete the game, so Ying and Nayak say they’ve continued working on-and-off on the game in the two months since.

The contest starts at 10am Pacific time and will be online for three weeks — but don’t be late if you want one of the big prizes. You can read more about Dropquest here and play the game here (the second link goes live at 10).

As we approach the E3, the electronic gaming show in early June, I suspect that the value of “retina” high-resolution displays will soon become apparent. While the prospect of retina Macbooks is all but inevitable, we have reached a plateau when it comes to general computing and, more important, living room media.

The first question is, in short, why do we need a retina Macbook? Presumably it would be a superior experience for video and photo editing and offer designers far more real estate on a large screen, especially when viewing photos at lower resolutions. As evidenced by the iPhone’s retina display, gaming will become considerably more compelling. This presupposes a rich and vibrant OS X gaming ecosystem.

The second question is also quite interesting: If console manufacturers begin to promise 4K (4096 × 3072) video output, what does that mean for TV manufacturers? As we well know, the 3D craze was, just that, a craze. 3D hype was far overblown but 4K hype will be even crazier. Selling a few 3D screens would have been nice. Selling millions of 4K screens is a necessity. After all, 4K displays will be considerably more expensive and far less initially popular than even 3D. 3D was an iterative update, but 4K is a massive investment.

The market expansion of higher resolution displays is contingent on a few things. First, manufacturers need to be able to retool previous manufacturing facilities to produce 4K screens. This isn’t difficult, just a concern in a situation where 1080p and other resolutions are still widely popular.

Second, the global economy will need to be able to support a full upgrade from 1080p to 4K. Hard-core gamers will most definitely flock to the new resolutions, but will general users? Although the retina Macbooks will be sort of a gateway drug to higher resolution, convincing a cohort of television owners to upgrade will be tough, especially if they’ve just been burned by Blu-Ray (a dying, if not dead, format) and 3D.

It will also be delightful to hear all of the marketing-speak behind newer displays. While “retina” is out, expect HP, Samsung, and Dell to offer “High-Rez” laptops and maybe even “SuperPlasmaWonderDisplay” phones. Display marketing will depend less on pixels and more on arbitrary words stuck together.

We still have a while to go before 4K is even a “thing,” higher resolution screens are coming and console makers and gaming PC manufacturers will probably be the first to push it through into the mainstream. Whither go gamers, the public follows and, although this is just a guess, I suspect the first “cheap” 4K screens will arrive around CES 2015 and really hit stores by 2016 – plenty of time to get the last few years of use out of your PS3 and Xbox 360, not to mention your heavy-duty gaming PC.

In the watch world the Meccanico dG watch is a bit of a legend. Originally debuted back in 2008, it helped bridge the gap between modern tech toys and high-end mechanical watches. The all-mechanical design features dual time displays. One, a standard analog dial. Second, a digital display that uses countless small parts to indicate a second time zone like the piece’s electronic cousins. Incredibly complicated, the Meccanico dG brought new people into the world of high-horology that previously would not pay attention to what they might have considered stuffy mechanical toys for traditionalists.

You can see more hands on photos here but as you see it’s quite a looker.

The Mecanico dG comes in a large case built of titanium or other materials. There are a few versions of the pieces at this point in 2012. Much of the dial is skeletonized to allow you to see the mechanism in detail. It is produced by Swiss watch brand de Grisogono – known for its edgy, avant-garde designs. The Meccanico dG is likely their most ambitious watch to date, and is a fantastic watch to wear and operate. It’s manually wound movement works rather flawlessly, and the entire package is certainly in line with its more than $300,000 price tag.

One year ago I wrote an article called “Why The New Guy Can’t Code,” about how the industry-standard process for hiring software engineers is broken, shortsighted, and counterproductive. It remains my most-read TC post. Of course, I was far from the first to say so, and even farther from the last; every few weeks a similar rant bubbles onto the home page of Hacker News.

And yet recruiting remains broken. When I wrote that post I imagined that in the subsequent year some sharp startup would come along and turn the game on its ear — but no. A few have tried: Gitalytics, which tries to use Github data to identify good engineers; Gild, which acquired Coderloop last year and is still going strong; and especially StackOverflow Careers, which leverages the software world’s most indispensable site to match employers and employees. But I think it’s fair to say that all the contenders so far serve as adjuncts to the traditional recruiting process, rather than replacing it with something disruptively new.

All of which adds up to today’s very weird situation: there’s a desperate talent shortage across the industry, but at the same time, employers are so terrified by the prospect of ever hiring a subpar engineer that the recruiting process has become increasingly gruelling and time-consuming, even though there’s little evidence that the standard interview gauntlet identifies good engineers.

Of late I’m getting more involved with recruiting myself. (My day job is at the software development shop HappyFunCorp; we’re hiring.) And, pending the arrival of that hypothetical revolutionary recruiting startup, I have a modest proposal: stop worrying so much about hiring, and start putting your HR energies into firing.

There’s lots of good advice out there about how to hire people. Chris Dixon’s is particularly excellent, and I liked Brad Feld’s followup, and Mike Lee’s take too. Pithiest of all is Pat Maddox’s:

1. Filter out candidates who don’t have a github / blog / portfolio
2. Pair with remaining candidates

This is indeed an excellent reason to pair program. But even that only teaches you so much. My preferred solution to most of the angst of hiring is actually quite simple; once you’ve identified a candidate with potential, find some relatively bite-size, self-contained subproject–some nice-to-have feature, some technical debt that needs paying back–and hire them on a moderately-paid contract basis for the few weeks required to complete that task.

Then keep a close eye on their code and progress in that time. Now you have a good sense of how they work, and how well they work: and if you’re not happy with what you’ve seen, just swing the axe and (effectively) fire them, by not offering them a longer-term position. Good candidates won’t mind this extra step, because they know they’ll cruise through it…and because they’d rather do actual work than spend days being interviewed.

When you change the mindset from “be paranoid about who you hire” to “try out anyone with potential, and dump them like a hot potato if they don’t pan out,” the recruitment process becomes vastly simpler and less stressful for all parties. Just remember to check their references. And while you’re at it, verify the rest of their resume, too.

Editor’s note: James Altucher is an investor, programmer, author, and entrepreneur. He is Managing Director of Formula Capital and has written ten books. His latest books are I Was Blind But Now I See and 40 Alternatives to College. You can follow him on Twitter @jaltucher.

Warren Buffett is like my ten year old. When she gives me some BS story about something she needs or something she is suggesting there’s always a good reason for it. But whenever there’s a good reason, there’s always a real reason. And the two are starkly different. My job is to figure out the real reason while horse vomit is still spitting out of her ten year old mouth.

With Buffett it’s the same. He’s like this saintly investor who can do no wrong in the public perception.  He’s America’s grandpa investor, filled with sexual innuendos made honest and funny in that way that elderly people can transform ancient history into metaphor. And while he’s talking and you’re smiling, he very quietly tries to put his hand in your pants, on your wallet. It’s all innocent. Until you realize he just got more rich and you got more broke. And then you’re in handcuffs. And then you’re dead.

Let’s look at his hidden agendas. Just like we should always look at the hidden agenda of anyone who has power over us (even my ten year old, who has infinite power over me). There’s nothing wrong with having hidden agendas. It’s just better to be aware of them than to be fooled by them. As background, I’ve attended his annual meetings, I’ve written a book about him, and probably hundreds of articles about him.

A) He declared nuclear war on the US. This is a slight exaggeration but in 2001, almost immediately after the 9/11 events, he said on national TV that there was almost a 100% certainty that there would be a “nuclear event” on US soil within the next 50 years. He had no evidence to back this up. He said this when the US was at its most fearful. Living only 4 blocks from Ground Zero I took his words as gospel and I was very afraid and would have nightmares at night. After all, Warren Buffett has the trust of the nation and he’s saying we are going to be attacked by a nuclear event. I could only imagine it would be right near my home, where I had 1 kid, and another on the way. In part, I ended moving far away because of this.

So what’s the reality of why he said this? Well, he has the largest insurance company in the world. Guess what? Suddenly he created a new market for himself. He’s the best businessman and salesman alive. He started insuring major events for nuclear catastrophes. After all, “there’s a near certainty” that one will happen. He made probably hundreds of millions of dollars over that one statement that instilled such fear in the nation.

B) He has his hand in my wallet. The guy has made billions of dollars by exploiting every possible situation he could. That’s fine. That’s what capitalism is. I’m a capitalist. But take your stinking hand out of my wallet, you dirty ape. Why do you care how much someone is taxed? You say there is going to be societal unrest unless the people who provide funding for companies, create jobs, invest in innovation, are taxed? Societal unrest? Why not encourage that innovation instead of trying to steal everyone’s money straight out of their wallets. Why not shut down our various wars and 150 military bases if you want to pay down the deficit. There’s a million other ways to do it than putting your hand in everyone’s wallet.

C) He pretends to give to charity. I have nothing against giving to charity. In fact, I often think people give to charity for the wrong reasons and don’t really understand much about the charities they are giving to. Buffett has said repeatedly he won’t give charity because he thinks its better for him to compound his money and then give upon his death, which is what he is doing with the Gates Foundation (and which he has already started to do). So suddenly he is labeled as the greatest philanthropist ever, when, in fact, he has barely given a dime to charity. Except in one case:

D) He lies about his kids. He often says his kids will get basically nothing from him. He says, nobody should win the “genetic lottery”. In fact, there’s a notorious story where one of his daughters had to buy a necklace from Zales Jewelry (which Buffett owns) on a layaway plan.

Meanwhile, Buffett has given each of his kids a charitable foundation with billions each to manage. If a foundation has $3bb in it, then something like $90mm can go to salaries. I think his kids will do fine with that kind of money. Buffett barely spent time with his kids when they were growing up (this is well-documented in every biography about him), he lies about how he gives them almost nothing, but meanwhile, they can make $90mm a year salary. I don’t care about any of this. Just stop lying to us all about parental values and lecturing people on how much they should leave their kids. It’s all BS and once again, take your hands out of my wallet.

E) Taxes, part II. Despite his ongoing demands that people pay more taxes, Berkshire Hathaway has been in an ongoing tax dispute with the IRS since 2002. In other words, he doesn’t want to pay taxes (note how he conveniently avoids the estate tax by giving it all to charity upon his death) and his company doesn’t want to pay taxes. Why is this? Because he correctly believes that he is a better allocator of money than the US government. Well, I think I am also and most people are (I wouldn’t send little kids to fight 5 wars for instance). So why is Buffett so insistent that everyone pay more taxes than him? Think, people, what his real agendas are.

F) He’s not your Grandpa. Everyone loves Buffett. He has fun sexual metaphors to describe complicated business situations (in the 70s when he found lots of cheap stocks, for instance, he felt like a kid in “a whorehouse”). Every annual meeting is usually filled with fun sexual innuendos and everyone laughs. “Oh, that Warren”. He has a small house on a suburban block. When I was in Omaha a cabdriver even offered to drive me past there. It really was a small house on a suburban block! That’s amazing! He’s so humble! I don’t know what homes he owns now but at least in the past ten years he owned this nice Laguna Beach $4mm home:

Again, nothing against him. It’s just that my grandpa doesn’t own a home like that.

G) Stocks forever. But it’s because of this “Grandpa” image that he’s able to say things to people like they should “buy and hold stocks forever” and people listen to him. Of course he wants you to hold a stock forever. Let’s say he owns the same stock as you. You own 10,000 shares and he owns 20 million shares. If things start to go down with that company you have an enormous advantage over Buffett. You can sell in one day, in one trade even. It might take him months to sell. Buffett does not buy and hold stocks forever. Just in the past six months alone he’s sold hundreds of millions worth of Kraft Foods and Johnson & Johnson.

[See also, “10 Reasons To Never Own Stocks Again” or “Who Really Makes Money on Wall Street“]

H) Healthcare. Despite Buffett’s support of Obama (he can support whoever he wants, I could care less) it’s interesting how he has common sense when it comes to Obamacare, saying that it is insufficient. However, even though I believe this also, I still think its worthwhile looking carefully at his agenda. Of course he is going to criticize any system that puts stress on the insurance industry. He’s the largest insurance company! One of his criticisms stated that the “medical industry is very focused on maintaining it’s income”. Duh! Again, Warren, keep your hands out of other people’s pockets. By the way, my own personal feeling, which I believe Warren supports, is that companies like CVS (which he just bought shares of ) and Wal-mart should continue to open cheap healthcare facilities to provide lower cost medical care. This is the real direction of healthcare right now. Not over regulation.

Meanwhile, even more revealing about Buffett’s opinion on healthcare is his statement to John Gutfreund during the 1987 RJR Nabisco battle documented in “Barbarians at the Gates”: “I’ll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It’s addictive. And there’s fantastic brand loyalty.”

Great stuff, Warren. According to cancer.gov, of the “250 chemicals in nicotine, over 50 are known to cause cancer.”

I) Is he a straight shooter? Buffett has long been known for his honesty and forthrightness. Little is brought up of his penny stock manipulation in the 70s (the SEC slapped him on the wrist ). Far worse were the financial transactions Gen Re arranged for AIG so AIG could produce fraudulent results that lifted its stock price. It’s these manipulations that, in part, caused the AIG collapse and part of the collapse of the entire economic system. Buffett’s firm paid a $90mm fine (give or take). A slap on the wrist. Did Buffett know what was going on? “I saw the contract” was all he admitted to.

J) For more, see my post: “8 Unusual Things I Learned From Warren Buffett” including his worst investment ever (not what you would guess) and his being a victim of reverse antisemitism (cruel irony considering his father was a John Birch republican)

I don’t think Buffett is a bad guy. I don’t know him. I have no personal opinion of him. But he’s not your grandfather. Like any hard-core investor, he’d slit your throat in a dark alley before letting you make a dime of profit off of him.

My main point is: always look at agendas. Try to understand the real reasons behind someone’s “good reasons”. And yes, I know there will be comments like “blah blah Buffett is 1000x the investor and man you are.” He probably is. I’m probably a worse punk thank he is. But I admit it. Also, before anyone brings it up: why is this on TechCrunch? Buffett has long commented that “tech is too complicated for me to invest in” and yet now he is one of the largest tech investors on the planet with his investments in IBM, INTC, and DTV. When someone who is so good at crafting agendas turns his eye towards you, you better keep your hands on your wallet.

All those minutes reading your news feed in bed, messaging friends over lunch, and browsing photos on the bus really add up. Time spent on Facebook’s mobile site and apps per month (441 minutes) has finally surpassed usage of its classic website (391 minutes) — for Americans who use both Facebook interfaces according to the latest report from comScore. And that’s actually a big problem for the social network.

Facebook usually shows four to seven ads per page on its website, but only a few ads per day in its mobile news feed. That means it makes a lot less money when you visit from your little devices. In fact, this week Facebook had to warn potential investors in its IPO that the more people who access it from mobile instead of the web, the worse its business is doing.

Can Facebook get away with showing more ads on mobile without turning us off?

Way back when Facebook launched in 2004 it was just a website, and it hardly showed ads at all. Over the years it launched a special mobile website called m.facebook.com, and apps for iPhone, Android, BlackBerry, and just about any device you can think of.

At first these smaller interfaces were just a way to glimpse Facebook while away from home. But as our phones grew more powerful and Facebook’s apps got better, we could help but friend, chat, and Like no matter where we were. Now there’s 78 million Americans age eighteen and older who use Facebook mobile, and they spend 7.3 hours per month there on average, compared to the total 160 million Americans who use Facebook and spend an average of 6.5 hours on its website per month. That’s a big shift from when the web was king.

Facebook realized it had to start making money on mobile, but people hate traditional mobile ads. CEO Mark Zuckerberg didn’t want annoying banners that took up most of your Facebook screen. so Facebook’s solution was mobile Sponsored Stories –stories in your news feed that could appear there anyway, but that companies pay to have appear more prominently and frequently.

First showing up in March, these ads are marked “Sponsored, and could be about a friend Liking a company’s Page, a game your friend started playing, or a post by a Page you already Like. Seeing them occasionally isn’t bad, but if Facebook shows too many it could make people angry and less likely to visit.

Now Facebook must walk the tightrope. Inject too many ads in the mobile news feed and people will stop visiting, inject too few and it will lose money. No pressure, there’s just a half a billion mobile users watching.

If social media mattered in elections, Ron Paul would have a realistic shot at being the Republican nominee and Barack Obama would be on track to crush Mitt Romney in the biggest landslide in American history.

Despite the hype over follower counts, a new study shows that there’s no credible evidence that Twitter can be used to predict how elections will turn out. “It can be concluded that the predictive power of Twitter regarding elections has been greatly exaggerated,” writes computer science professor, Daniel Gayo-Avello, in an unusually strident rant (for an academic). Gayo’s conclusions are intuitive: social media users are an unrepresentative slice of voters, and tweets may not accurately reflect how voters behave.

And, his principles apply not to just Twitter, but to all social media. In reality, much of a candidate’s social media “fans” are a composition of individuals who are not swayed by campaigns: reliable supporters, opposition spectators, and the growing army of non-voting 20-somethings.

Let’s look at the numbers: Paul has five times more Facebook fans than Rick Santorum (950K vs. 189K) and about 50% of the current front runner, Mitt Romney (1.67M). Yet, Santorum narrowly lost to Romney, and Paul lost by a landslide to both. In other words, the number of social media followers has little correlation with electoral wins.

Aware that raw follower count is an empty campaign asset, social scientists have attempted to analyze whether social media “sentiment,” or tone of the discussion, can reveal how much a candidate is liked, and therefore which candidate would win an election. According to arguably the top social media analytics firm in the industry, Crimson Hexagon, Paul outperformed all of his conservative counterparts as measured by total volume of Twitter mentions. Twitter chatter around Paul was of 26% of the total political conversation in the run up to the New Hampshire primary, while, Mitt Romney, the actual winner, had 22%. Paul, too, had a slight popularity advantage, with relatively more positive comments about him then his duller opponent (12% positive and 14% negative for Paul vs. 9% positive vs. 13% negative for Romney)

Why is social media such a false temptress for campaigns? First, Twitter is largely a shouting match among a small percentage of of hyper-vocal users: 50% of the most influential tweets are produced by the top 0.05% of users and most users are inactive [PDF].

And, the lopsided political demographic of Internet users doesn’t end with Twitter. For instance, the legalization of marijuana continues to haunt President Obama whenever he’s asked questions from an Internet audience (whether on YouTube or through the giggly Twitter representative of Jimmy Fallon). And, while, yes, the war on drugs is an important issue to discuss (read: please don’t send me hate mail), we get the false sense from the Internet community that legalizing marijuana is more pressing than the combined threat of a recession, terrorism, a broken education system, and a nuclear-armed Iran. In other words, the “vocal minority” drowns out the voices of the “silent majority.”

Second, while young people dominate social media, they vote in negligible numbers. “If no one under the age of 30 had voted, Obama would have won every state he carried with the exception of two: Indiana and North Carolina,” write Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser in How Barack Obama Won. More than any other generation in the past century, Gen Y is inundated with a peculiar brand of politically engaged, non-voting citizen, who would rather pitch a tent in Zuccotti park than schlep to a polling booth on election day (side note: are you listening Occupy Wall Street?! This is why the Tea Party is kicking your political butt).

So, when election day comes around, arm yourself with some healthy skepticism against amateur statisticians stoking the social media hype. For example, In 2010, the Facebook politics page put out a misleading post, “Facebook Fans Help Predict More Than 70% of Key Races.” The statistic is technically true, but correlation does not equal causation. Politicians with more Facebook fans are likely more popular with voters anyways, not because they had a crack social media team who could boost their fan count.

Additionally, while 81% of Senate candidates with more Facebook fans did win their race, 83% of incumbents also won re-election. Incumbents are simply more popular, both because they have the advantage of political office and because opponents want to follow their social media feeds by “fanning” their page. In this case, Facebook fans are paraded around as a key variable, when, in fact, Facebook fans are likely a symptom of popularity, not the cause.

This isn’t to say that social media is an inconsequential player in the political landscape. Candidate Barack Obama did more than broadcast press releases in 140 character chunks; he engaged fans, pioneered tools for organizing, and inspired a culture of viral artistry. However, since 2008, the world hasn’t seen much in the way of election innovation. Ultimately, it isn’t who’s listening, but who’s acting.

[Top image via researchgirl/Flickr.]

The names, at least, sound like a match made in heaven — BetaBait says it has acquired BetaNoodle.

And actually, the products sound like a good fit, too. BetaBait connects startups with early users through its website and email newsletter. BetaNoodle hasn’t launched yet, but it’s supposed to be an app doing something similar, but for Android developers and users.

The financial terms were not disclosed, but it sounds like BetaNoodle was a one-man shop — the man in question being founder Austin Westfall. BetaBait co-founder Cody Barbierri (who I used to work with at VentureBeat) says Westfall will be joining his team, and that his company will be launching the BetaNoodle app in the next few months as a natural way to expand into mobile. It will include both pre-launch apps that need testing and other, already available Android apps in the BetaBait system, he says — “the best of both worlds.”

Barbierri also plans to do something similar for iOS, but he says it made sense to start with Android, where there are fewer mobile testing apps, compared to the big iOS names like TestFlight.

Thumbtack.com, a site that helps people find local service providers (from house cleaners to DJs to math tutors, to use the three examples on the company homepage), unveiled a big redesign earlier this week.

Co-founder Sander Daniels says the original version of Thumbtack tried to make finding a service provider easier by avoiding the standard search interface — people posted what job they were looking for, then Thumbtack connected those posters with a professionals who were qualified to do the work. That’s still the basic idea, but the new site is “significantly easier and more sophisticated,” Daniels says. Now, when you type in the general category that you’re looking for, Thumbtack helps you with the listing by asking questions about the basic information that you’ll need to enter.

For example, when I told Thumbtack that I was looking for a housecleaner, the site promised that it has more than 100 cleaners near San Francisco, and it asked me about how often the cleaning needs to happen, how many bedrooms and bathrooms I have, and the best times for the cleaners to come. There are more esoteric services too — as you can see in the screenshot above, where someone’s looking for a paranormal investigator.

As part of the revamp, Thumbtack has created a slick-looking video walking viewers through a couple of use cases, which you can watch here.

And in an effort “to support the 275,000 freelancers and small businesses who use our site to find work” (as Daniels puts it), Thumbtack also partnered with the Kauffman Foundation to measure the small business friendliness of cities and states, based on things on hiring costs, regulations, and economic health. You can see the results here, where I learned that California gets an “F” in overall friendliness — but at least I was slightly molliffed to see that within the state, San Francisco’s Bay Area is tops.

Thumbtack announced raising a $4.5 million Series A led by Javelin Venture Partners in January.

They raised $11.45 million, acquired a company called Sensobi, and were themselves acquired by Skype for a price that was likely well north of $43 million.

There may not be a wilder tale of a Disrupt success (though plenty of startups would beg to differ), which is why we’ve chosen GroupMe to kick off a series I’m doing on “Disrupt Startups: Where They Are Now.”

We sat down earlier today to chat with co-founders Jared Hecht and Steve Martocci to find out their perspective on Disrupt as a launchpad. Try as I might to snip down the interview, the whole thing is basically gold.

GroupMe is one of many Disrupt alumni startups that we’ll be looking at over the next week and a half, so stay tuned for more “Where They Are Now” posts.

And if you’re interested in checking out Disrupt and/or the Hackathon yourself, tickets are still on sale here and info on the Hackathon can be found here. Companies itching to join the Battleground can apply for the last remaining spots in Startup Alley. You can find the full agenda here.

Here’s that interview I promised:

TechCrunch: Tell me how this all started.

GroupMe: We were at the first Disrupt Hackathon in New York. We had group SMS working on Twilio’s API. You could add people to the group using commands on SMS, or you can use an HTML5 webapp. The only problem was that you had to know numbers and type them in. I mean, it kind of sucked. But we added in an offers tab, and in the demo we were talking about the LOST series finale. In the top corner, when you clicked on the offers tab, it took you straight to an actual ad for half-price if you check out the LOST series finale event at Brooklyn Bowl. We basically demoed that we had a working group chat with a functional business model.

Back then it was called Groop.ly.

We had investors interested right on the floor of Disrupt, and we ended up talking about fundraising.

TC: So if you had to quantify it, how would you say that Disrupt affected your company?

GroupMe: 100 percent. We probably wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for Disrupt.

I had won a Hackathon that was an internal contest at Gilt Group, but what was really interesting and intriguing was the chance to build something and show it on a real stage. We had the idea a couple days before, and after we decided to go in we found it was a massive springboard for acceleration and growth.

TC: So, were you guys the first to do group messaging?

GroupMe: People had tried to do it for a long time, even 10 years before us. But we kind of nailed it at the right time and the right place. The service was ripe for adoption once we got the ability to interact with the address book. Mobile had really taking off and with access to the address book, the timing was right to go to the next level.

TC: What’s changed since then?

GroupMe: Honestly, there hasn’t been a ton of change when you’re looking from a very high vantage point. When we think about why we were doing Groop.ly back then, not much has changed from that night at the Hackathon. We were talking about how we can turn Groop.ly into a business and how we would quit our jobs the next week. A lot of those initial thoughts from that night were right on point.

We wanted people to be able to speak with groups that are important to them, buy better, and get together in the real life better. You can still see us executing things we talked about that very first night.

At the same time, a lot has changed from then. We built a company, built a big team, sold the company. But we’re still trying to accomplish the things we’ve dreamed of on day one. We had a whole discussion on how we can rapidly iterate, and we continue to build an awesome company culture with that great seed as our core. We stay true to why we were building our product and how we were getting it done.

TC: Do you think that being a part of Disrupt gave you a better platform with the media in general?

GroupMe: We think it’s a great story to tell. It was a fortunate sequence of events, fun and relatable. It’s actually a bit of a fairy tale. The fact that this happened at a Hackathon, the TechCrunch Hackathon no less, made it something very easy to talk about and compelling and fun to tell a story about. It’s an even more fun story to hear.

People were aware that we had built it at a Hackathon and they wanted to know how things were going. We kept up our relationship with TechCrunch and Disrupt and went back to later Disrupts and participated in the Hackathon again. That’s where we built our sponsored groups feature. We launched it the very next day on stage.

But it really was the perfect case of timing.

TC: What are your future plans?

GroupMe: We can’t talk too much about that, but we’ve been cooking up some fun features but if you stay tuned you’ll see what we mean.

TC: Would you recommend Disrupt for other startups?

GroupMe: We think Hackathons in general have become crowded places. What we saw is people going in having the same idea. But the Disrupt Hackathon is fun, whether you want to build something or learn it’s a great place to be. Disrupt in general is getting a lot of visibility for startups, and it has this huge impact on getting mind share, which we think is really important.

The Hackathon and Disrupt are great ways to network and meet people, whether you’re focused or having fun. We aren’t the only ones to come out of the Hackathon with a successful business, but what’s great about it is that you can just test out your ideas without much to lose. Once you’ve done that, Disrupt is for visibility.

TC: What have you been up to since the acquisition?

GroupMe: We love the culture we have here. Skype wants to foster that and let it grow. We’re working with them on some pretty awesome stuff. It’s been a great process so far. We’re happy and they’re happy and it’s a great thing.

TC: What advice would you give to Hackers and young entrepreneurs in general?

GroupMe: Think about it, but don’t put a lot of pressure on building a company in 24 hours. You should just go and have fun meeting great people and really take advantage of the fact that it’s a big stage.

Don’t try to build too much. It’s hard to focus and get stuff done, but all we wanted was to get to a certain proof of concept. So try to get there and have fun doing it. Stay focused if you can, and think of a goal. Past that, all you have to do is meet the goal you entered with.

But you’re also trying to learn new tools and test things out. If we hadn’t finished Groop.ly we wouldn’t have been upset. We were there to push ourselves.

TC: OK guys, last question. I see a lot of beer at the Hackathon, and I see a lot of Red Bull. What would you recommend as the perfect sustenance.

GroupMe: There are two options. A mix of 2/3 Red Bull and 1/3 beer, or a lot of coffee and water.

For Google Maps, winter is coming. Potentially.

As you’ve undoubtedly seen by now, with the upcoming iOS 6 software, Apple intends to replace the Google Maps aspect of their default Maps application with their own, in-house version. Mark Gurman of 9to5 Mac was the first to report this news, and dives into more of the detail behind it, including the 3D aspect. John Paczkowski of AllThingsD confirmed the change. And after talking to my own source, I can beat the dead horse in confirming the switch.

I’ve also heard a little bit more. First of all, iOS 6, which is expected to be shown off in developer preview form at WWDC in June, is internally codenamed “Sundance”. Second, while Paczkowski’s source said the new maps functionality will “blow your head off”, I’ve been told that’s a bit of hyperbole (you think?). Specifically, while the 3D functionality is cool, it’s also not something people are going to use regularly. Think of it like Google Street View — cool, but how often do you actually use it when compared to the regular Google Maps product? (Having said that, I still expect Apple’s 3D maps to be cooler than Google Street View.)

More interesting to me is the implication of this switch. Let’s assume that alongside this change, Apple will also be replacing the default hooks in the iOS SDK that currently use Google Maps. This is a big deal for third party developers. While some choose to use other maps APIs (like Bing Maps, for example), the vast majority go with Google Maps because it’s baked right in and easy to hook up.

If that changes…

Consider Foursquare. They recently made headlines when they switched away from Google Maps on their website. At the same time, they made a point of saying they weren’t switching away from Google Maps on their mobile applications (where maps are obviously the most important). Why not? Again, because Google Maps are standard in both the iOS and Android SDKs. More importantly, unlike with the web, developers aren’t charged to use these maps on mobile. At least not yet.

Google recently made the change to start charging high volume customers of the Google Maps API on the web. Hence, the Foursquare switch, and several others larger customers are now either switching or considering switching. My guess would be that because of iOS, Apple may be the largest user of the Google Maps API right now. It’s not clear if Google charges Apple for this or not. Or if they’re about to start, as they have with other third-parties.

But it doesn’t matter. Apple can afford any charge Google throws their way, and would undoubtedly pay it if they thought it was worth it to ensure iOS remains the best mobile platform out there. This move away from Google Maps is more about controlling essential technology, as John Gruber points out today.

But the side effect of such a switch could seriously harm Google Maps as the de-facto mapping service. Again, because of their very nature, maps are most vital for mobile usage. And if Apple not only pulls iOS out, but takes millions of developers with them, Google Maps could suddenly go from behemoth to vulnerable. (Which makes their decision to start charging large customers all the more dumbfounding — this cannot be a huge source of revenue for Google, no matter the scale.)

Of course, Apple will have to ensure that their mapping product is flawless, or developers will choose to go with Google Maps anyway (assuming that’s still an option — even if it’s slightly more complicated). But given what’s now leaking out about the product, it would seem that after years of work, Apple is finally ready to take on the mapping challenge. And this may be even more problematic for Google than it seems on the surface.

As a quick aside, while there’s not much other iOS 6 information floating around out there right now, there have been whispers backing up Gruber’s assertion that Siri APIs are another possibility. There have also been whispers about Siri for iPad finally coming. Specifically, I’ve been led to believe it’s more of a UI issue than anything else. After all, Apple is using the technology for the Dictation functionality found on the new iPad. They’ve just been working on what Siri for iPad will look like, I’ve been led to believe.

As we’ve seen the past few days, new iCloud functionality should be a key part of iOS 6 as well. And more deep ties into the forthcoming OS X Mountain Lion should be revealed.

There is also some chatter about iTunes 11. It has been a not-so-well-kept secret that Apple has been trying to completely re-write the software for a long time. There have been several false starts and scrapping of projects. It’s believed (but far from confirmed) that Apple may be zeroing in on the major revamp they’re after. And a part of that may be both Apple and the labels warming to a full-on Spotify competitor…

Pure speculation at this point, but fun speculation.

Update: To back-up the “Sundance” information, Nima Moayedi reminds us that Apple has a history of codenaming iOS builds after ski resorts. Sure enough…

[image: 20th Century Fox]

Editor’s note: Tim Chang is a managing director at Mayfield Fund. Follow Tim on Twitter @timechange. He’s hosting a workshop on gamification at the Mayfield Fund offices on June 6 and has reserved 10 spots for TechCrunch readers — more details at the end of this post.

I have been active in the field of gamification for the past couple of years, working with companies like Badgeville, HealthTap, Gigya, Basis and others on leveraging game mechanics for end user behavior measurement, scoring and shaping. Last week, I participated on an investor panel of at VatorSplash’s Gamification Summit and the group shared several noteworthy points:

Gamification is expanding beyond the initial verticals of media and fitness: The next target verticals are education, eCommerce, local retail (example: Belly), and financial services.

Gamification is not just for consumer end users, but also corporate employees: Corporations can not only gamify their products and services for consumers and end users, but also leverage game mechanics to make work more fun, measurable, productive, and rewarding for internal employees. In fact, the internal enterprise-facing gamification market may turn out to be just as large (if not larger) than the consumer-facing opportunity, given the budgets and SW/SaaS spending involved with worker productivity.

Companies that let customers embrace gamification in baby steps will win: Rather than slamming existing and new users into a fully gamified experience out of the gate, companies may want to allow users to opt in to the game mechanics that they find most compelling and appealing. After all, different personalities “play” in different ways, and a common mistake for businesses is to assume that a single gamification element will appeal universally to all users. That said, simply bolting on gamification-lite to an existing business is likely to flop (remember when many companies attempted to add in avatars or virtual currencies because it was the trend at the time?) Companies should first think about their key business goals and target outcomes, match appropriate game mechanics to these goals, and then weave them into the user experience as seamlessly as possible — even if this means allowing users to initially opt-out or not engage in gamification elements.

Gamification needs to address all four phases of the user life-cycle: Think about leveraging game mechanics to facilitate and graduate users along each specific phase of the user experience: 1) new user onboarding (gamification is an excellent way to implement interactive tutorials); 2) user engagement; 3) conversion of free users to paid (or opt-in data sharing); 4) retention of power users. Remember that different mechanics are best suited for certain personality types and phases.

Gamification and Social often go hand in hand: Just as games come in single-player and multi-player flavors, gamification can be oriented towards solo or social play. For many companies, implementing gamification may first require installing social plumbing. As an example, Mayfield portfolio company Gigya (www.gigya.com) is a SaaS social infrastructure company that provides a suite of tools (like Social Login) that enables any business to add a social layer to their Web presence. Interestingly, they have found that users who are logged-in with Social Login spent 30% more time on-site than users who sign in with native site login. Customers like Pepsi use Gigya to build custom co-viewing experience sites for Pepsi-sponsored TV shows like The X-Factor, The Grammies and the SuperBowl, allowing users to collect “caps” (badges) and gain social ranking by commenting, sharing, and liking other users’ comments. Verizon Wireless created a community site of local events called VerizonInsider, where users are rewarded with points and badges for interacting with content.

Gamification design is about to emerge as a specific skill set: There’s likely to be a whole new talent pool trained at places like Playdom and Zynga that will be branded as “gamification designers” – many of our portfolio companies are already actively hunting for such people!

The possibilities for gamification are universal and endless: Every aspect of the human experience is a journey of sorts, meaning that there is a learning and leveling curve, a start, mid-point, and end goal…and multiple ways and strategies to reach the destination. Gamification should be thought of as helpful signposts, markers, scorecards, feedback loops and treats to guide the user along the way, show him or her different ways to “play” and provide hints as to what may be behind choice A, B, or C that they’re about to make.

Note to Entrepreneurs: Please avoid the “gamification as panacea” trap, tacking gamification as a “badge” onto every pitch, as VCs can see through this, just as consumers will shun bolted-on game mechanics.

We will be hosting an interactive evening workshop on gamification and game mechanics on June 6 at the Mayfield Fund offices on Sandhill Road, which will cover a broad range of topics including consumer motivation, leveling curve designs, pros and cons of various gamification tools; freemium conversion tuning for microtransaction and subscriptions; and using the seven deadly sins as a design framework.

We have reserved 10 spots for TechCrunch readers/entrepreneurs.  To be considered, please comment and share this post to Facebook and we will pick the folks who we think will benefit the most from the discussion.

[image via flickr/Fiona Shields]