In case you missed it, last week a battle started brewing between Eye-Fi, maker of wireless memory cards, and the SD Association, which represents more than a thousand companies that set industry standards and promote SD (Secure Digital) standards acceptance.

The argument stemmed from this: At the Consumer Electronics Show earlier this month, the SD Association announced plans for a new Wireless LAN SD standard, formally named the iSDIO specification, for full-sized and micro SD/SDHC/SDXC cards. The SD Association said this will enable consumers to send pictures, videos and other content more easily from existing digital cameras to online cloud services and other SD devices in home networks.

Eye-Fi, which has been baking wireless technology into SD memory cards for several years — many consumers are familiar with the Eye-Fi cards, which bring Wi-Fi capabilities to cameras — says that this new set of standards violates the company’s intellectual property.

While both parties have declined to provide details as to which technical specifications are in question, Eye-Fi CEO Yuval Koren has put up a blog post staking Eye-Fi’s claim in the matter.

Eye-Fi is also miffed that the SD Association went ahead and put out a public statement on the new set of specifications. Eye-Fi says the statement suggests the new standards have already been adopted, when, in fact, they were submitted for approval on Nov. 28, 2011, and the 60-day IP review process is still underway. Eye-Fi told AllThingsD that normally there’s no public disclosure during this stage, because it’s not yet a ratified standard.

The SD Association, meanwhile, told AllThingsD that it routinely announces new standards during IP review, and didn’t change its practices for this announcement.

The SD Association IP review period is set to close in two days.

So, with that out of the way: How might all of this impact consumers?

To start: It’s generally agreed upon that more options for consumers are a good thing. The SD Association is presenting more options, and it says it’s doing so to respond to market demand, as wireless accessibility becomes more important.

But Eye-Fi argues that, in this case, more options will create more fragmentation.

While the actual documents that detail the new iSDIO standard haven’t been made public yet, the SD Association has confirmed that the proposed specifications would set standards for cards that fall under two types of devices: Type W and Type D. “W” stands for Web, and that kind of SD card would support peer-to-peer wireless functions. The home network interface would be designated by a “D” symbol, and would support home network communication functions. A wireless LAN SD memory card could provide both of the wireless types, and would carry both symbols.

Eye-Fi’s Koren told us that in Eye-Fi’s view, the SD Association has the potential to confuse and set back the camera industry just as the industry moves forward with sharing. “In the name of standardization, what seems to be happening is more in the way of fragmentation more than anything else,” Koren said. He also questioned whether compatibility issues could arise as a result of the two different device types.

Kevin Schader, the SD Association’s director of communications, issued a statement, saying, “Products made using SD standards will work together, as they have for the past 12 years.”

It’s important to keep in mind that this flap is coming at a time when consumer adoption of smartphones is surging, and many consumers are using their smartphones for photo-taking — and for immediate sharing. Meanwhile, more consumer electronics makers are introducing cameras that have a variety of Wi-Fi capabilities, cloud services and apps for sharing built directly into the cameras — eliminating the need for additional, external Wi-Fi cards.

Eye-Fi already works with 10 top camera manufacturers and dozens of photo sites; it also licenses its technology to SanDisk, the world’s largest provider of flash memory. Koren points to Kodak’s new wireless camera, announced at CES, as an example of a camera maker that’s introducing more wireless sharing capabilities while still relying on Eye-Fi cards.

In some ways, Koren said, Eye-Fi’s platform has been similar to smartphones in that it is driven by operating systems, and that makes Eye-Fi technology more adaptable to changes than Wi-Fi technology that is built into cameras. As Wi-Fi standards advance and change, Koren argued, it’s easier for consumers to put in a new card — the way they might update a phone’s operating system — than it is to invest in entirely new hardware, or in this case, a new camera.

So what’s the next step? The SD Association’s IP review process is set to wrap up on Jan. 27 — this Friday. Either the SD Association will vote to adopt the new iSDIO standards, or it will narrow the scope of the specifications or rewrite them in some way.

Eye-Fi, which is a member of the SD Association, says it hopes the association comes to the right decision. Which, in Eye-Fi’s eyes, would mean no new set of iSDIO standards — and less of a chance for competition that could possibly encroach on Eye-Fi’s intellectual property.

“I think for the SD Association to proceed with this, whether implicitly or explicitly, their members or anyone adopting the specifications would be made aware of the fact that there are some essential IP claims wrapped up in that standard,” Koren said. “And they’d be operating at their own risk.”

(Photo courtesy of bfishadow/Flickr)

Caryn Marooney (pictured here), the co-founder of one of Silicon Valley’s premier tech communications firms, OutCast Agency, is joining Facebook to lead its tech public relations strategy.

Facebook said Marooney is joining the social networking giant in a newly created position as director of technology communications.

That means she will be in charge of outreach to the technical community, Facebook said, including “our product, platform, infrastructure, and technical recruiting communications–to reach developers, engineers, technology influencers and bloggers who write about our products and technology strategy.”

“Caryn’s experience extends beyond technology communications and I’m delighted that we’ll all have the opportunity to draw on her wisdom and insight,” said Facebook global communications chieftain Elliot Schrage.

Marooney has actually led the Facebook account for OutCast, which she and Margit Wennmachers built and sold to Next Fifteen Communications Group in 2005 for over $10 million.

Marooney said in an interview today that she felt the firm was in good hands with its current team of top managers.

“The opportunity at Facebook was too good to pass up,” she said. “It’s an exciting new challenge.”

Indeed, the social networking giant is preparing to go public within the next year and will need an even stronger PR team for that task.

Marooney follows Wennmachers to a company they served as outside communications advisers. Wennmachers joined the high-profile Andreessen Horowitz venture firm last year to work on marketing strategies with companies in which it invested.

Because while those who live in the echo chamber of Silicon Valley are frequently wrong, but never in doubt, a gigantic amount of time is spent being more technical than realistic.

And by “technical,” I mean annoyingly detailed in making a point as to completely obfuscate the essence of anything.

Let me explain.

In the middle of yet another dullish release of features–this time mobile-related–at an event at Facebook HQ in Palo Alto, Calif., on Wednesday, Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder and CEO of the social networking giant, finally livened up the proceedings in the Q&A part at the end.

Ben Parr of Mashable asked a question everyone has been speculating about recently–whether and when there would be an iPad app for Facebook coming.

A fumbling “no comment” would have worked fine, but the real Zuckerberg seemed to have decided to channel the clever Aaron Sorkin-ish repartee of the fictional Zuckerberg in the movie “The Social Network.”

“It’s not mobile…it is a computer,” he said flatly.

“I think Apple would disagree with you,” noted Parr.

“Well, sorry,” Zuckerberg spat out, his voice dripping with the kind of sarcasm that only a super-nerdy Silicon Valley engineer can pull off properly.

And, while he quickly backtracked and declared a deep love of Apple products, it was clear Zuckerberg meant what he’d said and said what he’d meant.

That the iPad is just another version of the kind of computer he cut his geek teeth on and it is not at all like the mobile smartphones that are now moving squarely into power pole position in the digital universe.

Except, not so fast.

First, the creators of the iPad over at Apple do consider it mobile, and its own often-disdainful leader Steve Jobs has said so on many occasions.

While that does not make it so, of course, imagine if he got up and said Facebook was not actually a social network as much as, say, a glorified portal with more chitchat. Sort of an AOL-Plus!

You could make that argument, although it would not take into account a lot of key elements Zuckerberg did not take into account in his iPad-is-a-computer zinger.

But that’s not a good enough counter, of course, so let’s focus on real people using the iPad or tablets like it, such as the Amazon Kindle e-reader.

First, the iPad is a computer, because that is technically true, even though that makes a smartphone a computer too. (And, now that I think of it, my car is a computer.)

But actual civilians don’t make these kinds of distinctions and, if one spends any time watching consumers use tablets, mobile is entirely how they think of it.

If you want to get technical, I supposed “portable” is a better way to describe it, but not in the way a laptop is.

And here are the five simple reasons why:

No. 1: A tablet is typically carried around like a book or magazine, which are perhaps the most portable of all media.

While it has a hard shell, an iPad has the elements of those much more so than a computer laptop, which is much harder to manipulate, due to its clamshell design and keyboard.

No. 2: A tablet is largely used via a touchscreen, which allows the device to be intimate in a way a computer never is.

Watch people use a laptop and an iPad in a public setting and you will easily see the relationship is much different.

A laptop is treated more as a work device and an in-a-pinch entertainment player. Like a phone, the tablet is used close in and with no sense of boundaries.

No. 3: A tablet is largely used as a consumption device, with interactive and inputting elements, while a computer is an interactive and inputting device with consumption elements.

No. 4: The tablet, like my phone, is always on, with no boot up. It is persistent, while a computer is more periodic.

And a tablet is smaller and thinner than any computer and will only get thinner over time. Again, this kind of form factor makes it more and more a mobile device.

No. 5: And, even now, as large as the first iteration of the iPad is, it never sits on my desk.

A desktop computer, of course, does. My laptop sits on my desk, plugged into a big screen, and is often unplugged and taken with me when I travel.

But my iPad is never on my desk. Unless it is charging or synching, it is in my bag with my phone and always ready to go.

As in, mobile.

That’s the word from developers who are building apps for Google’s new store-to-be, which is supposed to work like iTunes, but for Web-based applications instead of ones designed for mobile handsets.

Then again, Chrome app developers I’ve talked to don’t feel confident about any date they’re hearing from Google at this point. That’s because the store, which Google previewed back in May, has missed several launch dates already.

But for now, at least, most developers expect to see a public beta launch on the week of December 6, though a few are holding out hope for a mid-November launch.

Google, for its part, will say only that it promised to have the app store up by the end of the year, and that it’s still on schedule.

Why should you care? If you’re an average consumer, you probably won’t: The app store will work on any Web browser, but it is optimized for Google’s Chrome browser, which has a relatively small market share. But the bigger issue is convincing consumers  to purchase a Web-based app, period.

But the notion of a browser-based store does appeal to some developers, who are interested in melding the performance of mobile phone apps with the connected nature and flexibility of the Web. And some content companies are interested in the idea of selling their stuff in a store that everyone can access, but which isn’t controlled by Apple.

Which is the pitch that Google is making as it reaches out to TV networks and big magazine and newspaper publishers, and tries to persuade them to build for the store. It’s saying, for instance, that it got Time Warner’s Sports Illustrated to demo a version of its magazine when it previewed the app store last spring.

In some cases, I’m told, Google is offering up substantial technical resources to help content makers get apps ready for a launch. And I know that some small developers have received cash, as well–one developer I talked to cashed a $15,000 check–to persuade them to build apps. Should be interesting to see who has built what when the store finally opens.

Here’s that SI demo, with a voiceover from editor Terry McDonell:

And here’s Google’s general introduction to the app store concept:

That’s an unprecedented move in the ongoing fight between cable providers, broadcasters and networks over programming fees. And the news was a big deal for the digerati and people contemplating the future of video.

But it doesn’t seem to have registered in the broader world, and you have to work hard to find any mention of the story in old-media news outlets. And even Cablevision, which uses any ammo it can in the PR fight against Fox and News Corp. (which also owns this site), hasn’t said much about it.

Here, for instance, is Cablevision’s newest message to its customers. If you fast forward to the 1:35 mark, you’ll find a two-sentence description of the Web blackout. But hard to believe many Cablevision customers will be sticking around to hear this one:

At the very least, blacking out part of the Web sounds scary. So why is Cablevision so (relatively) quiet on this?

Two theories, which are not mutually exclusive:

• It’s not worth complaining about because this stuff doesn’t really resonate with consumers–at least, not in the way that losing access to NFL games and play-off baseball does. No one spent Saturday evening or Sunday afternoon in a bar because they couldn’t watch “Glee” on Hulu.
• It’s not worth complaining about because Cablevision and News Corp. are actually on the same ideological page when it comes to this stuff. Neither side is really that happy about free TV shows on the Web. The only real difference the two sides have is about money: News Corp. wants to get more of it for its programming, while Cablevision wants to pay less.

On a related note: I still don’t understand why News Corp./Fox backed off so quickly on Saturday, once news of the blackout got out.

There’s no official reason, but there were mutterings about the technical difficulty of cutting off access to Cablevision TV subscribers while leaving Cablevision’s Internet-only subs alone. But hard to believe that News Corp. didn’t think that one through in advance. Same goes for any “optics”-related reason–the whole point of a move like this was to generate publicity, right?

B.K. Yoon, Samsung Electronics’ visual-display president, said at a forum that while 3D without glasses is possible on cellphones and other small mobile devices, there are still challenges for 3D TVs.

However, rival Toshiba Corp. of Japan earlier this month unveiled the world’s first glasses-free 3D liquid-crystal-display television sets, less than a year after most set makers launched 3D television sets that require the cumbersome eyewear. The company has said it plans to start selling the glasses-free TVs in December.

The cutthroat nature of the television-set industry is marked by precipitous price declines every year and innovations that threaten to cannibalize promising technologies even before companies can cash in on years of research and development.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Which means those acts need to create a “profile” for Steve Jobs’s social network. An Apple (AAPL) document making the rounds (Apple has confirmed its authenticity to me) explains how. You can read the whole thing at the bottom of this post.

Most of it concerns technical specs about things you don’t care about, like video formats. Here’s one part you might be interested in–some of Apple’s edicts regarding the content of artists’ profiles:

• Videos, photos, and text posts should not contain pornography, hate speech, racism, nudity, or any references to or depictions of drug use.
• Posts should not include advertisements or links to sites outside of iTunes.
• Posts should not contain links to other content providers.

The first item is sort of obvious, but still worth noting. Because theoretically, if the Beatles ever do make it to iTunes, they’re going to have a hard time promoting some of their songs. Like this one.

But that rule seems like the kind of thing that Apple can change or ignore at will–just like its “no porn except sometimes” ban in the iTunes app store. And anyway, artists have always found ways to put up with, or ignore, these kinds of restraints.

The rules about not posting to links outside of iTunes are more worrisome. Because it’s telling music acts to ignore the digital assets they’ve painstakingly built up on MySpace, Twitter, Facebook and anywhere else on the Web.

Makes sense for Apple, but not for anyone else.

artist_bestpractices_1.0-1

On Sunday, the company announced Elevate America, a three-year job-training effort aimed at giving people the technology skills they need to survive in the job market. Under the program, it will offer one million vouchers for Microsoft eLearning courses and certification exams, and expanded access to Microsoft-vetted technology literacy and skills training programs. “Millions of Americans don’t have the technology skills needed in today’s economy,” Pamela Passman, a Microsoft vice president, said in a statement. “Through Elevate America, we want to help workers get the skills they need to succeed.”

Well, the Microsoft (MSFT) skills they might need, anyway. Which is, obviously, in Microsoft’s best interests. The more Certified Technology Specialists it has in the market, the better.

On Sunday, the company announced Elevate America, a three-year job-training effort aimed at giving people the technology skills they need to survive in the job market. Under the program, it will offer one million vouchers for Microsoft eLearning courses and certification exams, and expanded access to Microsoft-vetted technology literacy and skills training programs. “Millions of Americans don’t have the technology skills needed in today’s economy,” Pamela Passman, a Microsoft vice president, said in a statement. “Through Elevate America, we want to help workers get the skills they need to succeed.”

Well, the Microsoft (MSFT) skills they might need, anyway. Which is, obviously, in Microsoft’s best interests. The more Certified Technology Specialists it has in the market, the better.

So, I have steered away from recommending Linux, the free computer operating system that is the darling of many techies and IT managers, and a challenger to Microsoft’s dominant Windows and Apple’s resurgent Macintosh operating system, OS X. Linux, which runs on the same hardware as Windows, has always required much more technical expertise and a yen for tinkering than average users possess.

Lately, however, I’ve received a steady stream of emails from readers urging me to take a look at a variant of Linux called Ubuntu, which, these folks claimed, is finally polished enough for a mainstream user to handle. My interest increased when Dell began to sell a few computer models preloaded with Ubuntu instead of Windows.

I’ve been testing one of those Dell Ubuntu computers, a laptop called the Inspiron 1420N. I evaluated it strictly from the point of view of an average user, someone who wouldn’t want to enter text commands, hunt the Web for drivers and enabling software, or learn a whole new user interface. I focused on Ubuntu and the software programs that come bundled with it, not on the hardware, which is a pretty typical Dell laptop.

My verdict: Even in the relatively slick Ubuntu variation, Linux is still too rough around the edges for the vast majority of computer users. While Ubuntu looks a lot like Windows or Mac OS X, it is full of little complications and hassles that will quickly frustrate most people who just want to use their computers, not maintain or tweak them.

Before every passionate Linux fan attacks that conclusion, let me note that even the folks who make and sell Ubuntu agree with it. Mark Shuttleworth, the South African-born founder of the Ubuntu project, told me this week that “it would be reasonable to say that this is not ready for the mass market.” And Dell’s Web site for its Ubuntu computers warns that these machines are for “for advanced users and tech enthusiasts.”

So, what do I mean when I say Ubuntu is too rough around the edges for average users? Here are some examples.

There is no control panel for adjusting the way the touch pad works, and I found it so sensitive that I was constantly launching programs and opening windows accidentally by touching the thing. Every time the computer awoke from sleep, the volume control software crashed and had to be reloaded.

When I tried to play common audio and video files, such as MP3 songs, I was told I had to first download special files called codecs that are built into Windows and Mac computers. I was warned that some of these codecs might be “bad” or “ugly.”

To get the computer to recognize my Kodak camera and Apple iPod, I had to reboot it several times. When it did find the iPod, it wasn’t able to synchronize with it. Playing videos was a bad experience, with lots of flickering and freezing. Oh, and there’s no built-in software for playing commercial DVDs.

The Ubuntu-equipped Inspiron 1420N starts at $744, but the configuration that Dell lent me for testing sells for $1,415. The same unit equipped with Windows Vista costs $1,524. The Ubuntu version includes OpenOffice, the free office suite that competes with Microsoft Office. Dell charges an added $149 for Microsoft Office.

Ubuntu and other versions of Linux have several advantages. Unlike Windows and OS X, they’re free. Unlike Mac OS X, they can be run on the least-expensive popular hardware configurations. Unlike Windows, but like the Mac, they are essentially free of viruses and spyware. And unlike Windows and Mac OS X, they are built and constantly improved by a world-wide network of developers, professional and amateur — the so-called open-source concept that produced the excellent Firefox Web browser.

It makes sense that all the best software brains can’t be located in just two places: Redmond, Wash., where Microsoft is based, and Cupertino, Calif., Apple’s base. And plenty of people reading this have had lots of frustrations with the two better-known operating systems, especially Windows, whose latest iteration, Vista, is disappointing in many ways.

But open source is a two-edged sword. While it draws on smart developers from many places, nobody is ultimately responsible for the quality of the product, and open-source developers often have an imperfect feel for how average people use software. A European company called Canonical is the “commercial sponsor” of Ubuntu and provides support. But it’s largely focused on corporate and techie users. Average Ubuntu users are likely to have to wade through online forums, often written in technical language, to get help.

Dell and Canonical tell me there are complex workarounds for some of the problems I encountered, and that built-in improvements are planned for others. But for now, I still advise mainstream, nontechnical users to avoid Linux.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online free at the new All Things Digital web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.