Jobs's liver transplant

Finding any reason to report about Steve Jobs's imminent return, The Wall Street Journal revealed last Saturday that the Apple CEO had received a liver transplant in Tennessee about two months ago. WSJ did not name the source, but adds that Jobs is expected to return toan active role in Apple by end-June on a “part-time basis”.

In typical tight-lipped fashion, Apple refuses to comment on Jobs's situation. "Steve continues to look forward to returning at the end of June, and there's nothing further to say," says Apple spokeswoman Katie Cotton.

Though the reason for the transplant was not confirmed, the article speculates that the transplant could be related to the pancreatic cancer Jobs overcame in 2004. The story quotes Dr William Hawkins, a doctor specialising in pancreatic and gastrointestinal surgery, who says that it is not uncommon to see the type of pancreatic tumour Jobs had metastasise in another organ, usually the liver. “Some 75% of patients of pancreatic cancer are going to have the disease spread over the course of their life,” he says.

So, if Jobs' return is soon, what does it mean for Apple? Ben Parr of TechCrunch believes that Jobs' return won't be much more than moral-boosting news for a company that has done well in his six-month absence. “We’re witnessing the end of another chapter at Apple and the beginning of a new one,” Parr writes. “This is a chapter that will focus on products over personalities, one that keeps with Jobs’ innovative philosophies but isn’t bound to Steve himself. If you were hoping for fireworks from a reinvigorated Steve Jobs, then be prepared to be disappointed.”

To be frank, the feeling would be more of relief than anything else, as we can then put to rest all the endlessly speculative stories like these that only Apple watchers are fond of.

Facebook's mess

After last week's feel-good publicity blitz generated by the global rush for vanity URLs, Facebook – along with other social networking sites – now faces the looming threat of European regulators aiming to curb its powers. The Register reports that regulators are considering implementing data regulations to prevent social networks from over-exploiting the private data of their users.

The proposals were found in a report obtained by the Financial Times from the Article 29 Data Protection working party, which is made up of European data-protection regulators and other experts said to be concerned about how corporate marketeers are using social networking sites to sell their wares.

The news marks a double whammy for Facebook, which also came under fire last week for being involved in a case of massive click fraud. According to some of the complaints found on WickedFire, Facebook recorded more than 10 times the number of clicks on ads when compared to other tracking software – in other words, Facebook is recording and charging for a large number of clicks that don't exist.

The social networking giant has admitted and responded to the week-long problem, saying that a fix would be implemented. “We have identified a solution which we have already begun to implement and expect will be completely rolled out by the end of today [June 21],” wrote Brandon McCormick from the Facebook Communications team.

Jammie sings the Blues

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) became the subject of more scorn from the Internet community when a Minneapolis judge last Thursday ordered 32-year-old Jammie Thomas-Rasset to pay a whopping $1.92 million (RM6.8 million) to six record companies for illegally downloading 24 songs through Kazaa.

This is the second suit against Thomas-Rasset filed by the RIAA; the first suit was filed in 2007 when the RIAA claimed she had illegally shared 1,700 songs. That earlier case was later declared a mistrial after she appealed against the guilty verdict and its order to pay US$220,000 in damages.

The decision of the second trial left Thomas-Rasset stunned, but the single mother of four remained adamant that the recording companies won't get anything from her. "There’s no way they’re ever going to get that. You can't get blood out of a turnip. I’m a mom, limited means, so I’m not going to worry about it now," she said after the trial.

The little-known City of Bozeman, Montana became the subject of scrutiny from privacy advocates and world web-watchers when it requested that all potential employees hand over the login credentials for any social networking sites they are a part of.

"Please list any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc," reads a waiver form issued by local authorities. By doing so, local authorities can now check on background, references, character, past employment, education, credit history, criminal or police records of potential employees.

Unsurprisingly, this move has come under much criticism from privacy advocates and pundits, not least because access to such personal information could lead to employers breaking the law. “Employers are typically prohibited from digging into an applicant's ethnic or religious background,” writes John Timmer of ArsTechnica. “An Internet search already runs the risk of picking up photos or text that can reveal these sorts of details; opening a person's social networking accounts would seem to make the discovery of these details almost inevitable.”

In its reply to The Register, Facebook responds strongly against this move: “This is a violation of Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,” the company says. "Our policies prohibit those who use the service from soliciting login information or accessing an account that belongs to someone else. In addition to violating Facebook’s policies, we think this practice violates personal privacy, and we plan to reach out to the City of Bozeman to discuss it with them.”

(Update: On Monday night, the city's human resources director Patty Berg apologized for its screening policy, which has since been reversed. Read the story here)

Bing: Microsoft's money sink?

Though buoyed by the initial success of Microsoft's newly launched search engine, Bing, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer downplays its progress, and calls for patience. “I don't want to over-set expectations. We are going to have to be tenacious and keep up the pace of innovation over a long period of time," Ballmer said at a conference in Detroit.

And rightly so: though Bing had knocked number-two player Yahoo! into third place less than a week after its launch on May 28, Bing had fallen back to third place on June 11.

Later, in another event in Chicago, Ballmer said that he was willing to invest 5% to 10% – or US$5.5 billion (RM19.5 billion)  to $11 billion – of Microsoft's operating income over the next five years on search. This represents a hefty and bad bet for the software company, according to Henry Blodget of Business Insider. “We think Steve Ballmer will lose his search bet, no matter how much he spends. Given the relatively unimpressive returns we think we'll get if he wins, moreover, plus all the other things he has to worry about, we'd rather he just didn't make it.”

In other words: why bother, Steve?

The links for today's TechWatch column can also be found on Start.io/johnlim