But it seems that teens --  the ones embracing texting and Facebook -- are not interested in being public. The online tools they do use let them stay connected but primarily within their own personal circles. This is consistent with a study last year that showed 85% of college freshmen had never used Twitter.

In related news, Facebook’s meteoric rise doesn’t seem to be slowing any time soon. It has just surpassed AOL as the 4th largest Web property in the world. With 469 million unique visitors in December, Facebook is on pace to surpass the #3 spot, Yahoo, within a year. And this from a company that has yet to offer an IPO.

Overall, I like it. It's sleek, simple, and ... Apple. While some of the negative post-event buzz has been that it's an "oversized iPod Touch," I say, is that a bad thing? The iPod Touch (and iPhone) is awesome. Why not have a larger version of these mega-hit devices for bigger browsing, bigger e-mail-checking, and bigger content-consuming? The iPad seems like the perfect "schlep-around-with-you-everywhere" device.

PROS:

• Super thin and super light
• Touch keyboard that's like the iPhone/iPod Touch, only full-sized
• Expect some pretty cool iPad-sized apps coming down the pike
• Really good battery life
• Great new iTunes experience
• Cool print content experience, like the NY Times they showed
• Fingerprint-less screen

CONS:

• No SD card slot built-in
• No USB (not even USB micro)
• No built-in GPS
• No camera
• No drag-and-drop file management
• No file creation -- only viewing (I'd love to be able to edit documents and presentations with it.)
• No OLED screen (seemed an obvious choice at this stage of the game)
• No 16:9 aspect ratio for viewing wide-screen movies
• Touch keyboard (for those of you who won't give up your Blackberry-style keyboards)

Let's face it, at this point, Steve Jobs could have taken a dump on stage, and people would be ooh'ing and aah'ing, their stock would have gone up 5%, and David Pogue would be fawning all over it. In the end, Apple does do these product innovations pretty well. They haven't stumbled in a long time. Bottom line ... I want one, and so do you.

While this would be a marketer's dream, I can't imagine a majority of people willing to reveal their purchases. It runs a few risks.

1. It could send the wrong message, either "I'm too extravagant in my purchases," or "I'm too cheap in my purchases."
2. It could accidentally ruin a surprise gift for someone else. "Mary Jones just bought a new Amazon Kindle," presumably for her husband, Tim, who wanted one for his birthday.
3. It could help ruin a marriage. "Tim Jones just bought a diamond necklace," which will raise questions with Mary when she doesn't receive said diamond necklace.
4. It could be dangerous. "Tim Jones just bought an HP laptop," which someone could then steal by profiling Tim Jones on Pipl for his home address and checking Tim's FourSquare updates to see when Tim is at a restaurant 20 miles from his house.
5. It could be costly. "Tim Jones just bought a yacht," which the IRS will be sure to audit, since Tim only makes $23,000 a year.

I think this sort of thing just has a lot more downside than upside.

Business Week ran a great article last week on this, and it's evident that something's gotta give. Let's face it, as the years progress, each is encroaching on the other's sandbox.

• Apple comes out with a phone OS, Google comes out with Android.
• Apple releases the iPhone, Google releases the Nexus One.
• Apple develops their Safari Web browser, Google comes out with Chrome.
• Google acquires mobile advertising company AdMob, Apple goes after Quattro Wireless.
• Apple works with TomTom on a for-pay GPS app, Google offers their turn-by-turn directions for free.
• Google CEO Eric Schmidt stepped down as Apple board member last year.

Expect more tough back and forth between these two as the phone carrier wars heat up later this year when Apple's exclusive contract with AT&T expires.

However, the implementation is still generating confusion. Who should be handling social media? HR? Corporate comms? Marketing? The CEO? The answer is, all of the above (to some degree). What many companies' individual departments are failing to realize is that social media is a communications channel available to and for the entire company.

If you think of a company as the hub of a wheel, the different social media (and traditional media) communications channels spoke out from there to the audiences (customers, employees, investors, suppliers, government, etc.). While the departments within a company, say the size of GM, may be so huge and disparate that they seem like companies unto themselves, the audiences only look back to the hub as one company. Therefore, that company needs to behave and speak accordingly. One department can't be saying that the priority is streamlining the factory while another says the priority is their carbon footprint. Everyone needs to be on the same page, which is why good external communications starts with good internal communications.

And remember the above list of who should be handling social media? Quite often, the one that's overlooked is the IT department. After all, social media happens thanks to IT. If you're looking to roll out a plan for Twitter and Facebook, be sure to loop in your IT department to work out the technical implications and processes. It was found that only 1 in 10 companies are involving their IT departments in this process.

I've found that the best course of action is to form an internal committee with representation from a variety of departments and regions. Get all of the issues, questions, concerns, and roadblocks out on the table. It's the only way to know how this will potentially impact -- and ultimately benefit -- everyone.

Early signs are that the technology works and is quite impressive visually. Pricing is actually in line with non-3D TVs. On the flip side, many people are now coming to the realization that no one wants to plop down on the couch to watch 30 Rock with clunky glasses on. I can't imagine a stranger scene than watching an NFL playoff game with the guys, only to look over to see them all wearing stupid glasses.

I think the real opportunity lies elsewhere. 3D TV will be a really cool and immersive experience for special events. Imagine a media briefing event or theme park instructional video, showcasing the highlighted video in 3D. This will create a truly memorable experience for those who are in situations where they're mentally prepared to wear 3D glasses. In the comfort of your home, I can see the kids losing them, the dog chewing on them, the batteries running out, them being just beyond arm's reach, and the list goes on. It'll be a novelty for the home but a real enhancement out of the home.

Nearly every other big (and medium and small) technology company feels that it's a business imperative to take a booth in Vegas each January ... but not Apple. Are they bold? Brazen? Stupid? Brilliant? What do you think?

But again I ask, what are you buying? You're not really paying for the physical disc or packaging -- that's a marginal cost for the studios. The disc is not the movie -- the movie is the movie. So what does that mean? For consumers, it should mean that you now have the right to own and view the movie in any way you see fit that's also covered by the "private use" terms of the license. You should be able to copy it, back it up, play it in your minivan, iPod, computer, TV, refrigerator, wristwatch ... whatever! For the studios, it traditionally meant that they only wanted you to "own" and have rights to watch the physical copy you purchased. That's simply absurd. They can't have it both ways -- rent you a license to the content and then not sell you another cheaper physical copy when yours breaks, or complain (or sue) when you make a copy of the content for your "private use."

That's why I was glad to see this holiday season so many studios packaging digital copies of movies with the Blu-Ray version. Better yet, the version of Disney's "Up" that our kids got, has not only a digital copy with the Blu-Ray but also a DVD version. Brilliant. Now my kids can watch the Blu-Ray version on our HDTV, the digital copy on their iPod Nano, and the DVD in the car. This is how the ecosystem should work. Studios have to stop swimming against the tide by thinking that they're in the disc-selling business.

I applaud Disney for simplifying the process, rather than fight people who would otherwise be ripping the Blu-Ray to make those other versions anyway (which in my opinion is a legal private use). They could take this one step further and increase the number of digital copies you can transfer to a device or remove that restriction altogether. In most households nowadays, you'll find numerous iPods.

That's an amazing amount of content that's generated every day ... every minute. After these past few picture-worthy days, I can see how I'm contributing to that number. It's an incredible amount of content that's being created, stored, and hopefully indexed. This will only help us form a tighter bond of world context, communication, and understanding.

With the content you're creating, are you sharing, contributing? And more importantly, are you backing up all of this digital content?

Merry Christmas!

Last night, I saw Avatar. This Sci-Fi action movie has been hyped as much about its exorbitant cost as its amazing production value. Knowing that a lot of Hollywood types don't have high hopes for its financial success, I went in with low expectations. I love when I do that, because most of the time, the movie seems better (Star Trek, anyone?). Last night was no different.

Avatar is an amazing visual spectacle with CG effects that have once again raised the bar for the industry. The CG aliens -- the Na'vi -- almost make Gollum seem like Yoda. (Most of you will get that reference.) The world that director James Cameron envisioned is truly impressive. It's a wondrous world that's a work of art at every turn.

However, the story left something to be desired. The story (SPOILER ALERT) of "man goes to foreign land, befriends the natives, and fights his original people" is derivative of numerous stories told countless times before ... Dances With Wolves, The Last Samurai, and every fourth episode of Star Trek. Unfortunately, I couldn't get past this. At every plot turn, you know what's coming, because you've seen it before in different wrapping.

Avatar is one of those movies you do really need to see on the big screen to appreciate. And while I'm not a fan of 3D, the 3D version of this movie wasn't distracting or gratuitous (save one scene). I predict that it won't make its money back, because at the end of the day, it's a Sci-Fi love story. It won't play to a large enough audience. I rate it a B+.