Facing facts about our privacy

I’m a big fan of social media, as you probably know, but I’m no big fan of the way it uses your data without informing you clearly and regularly of the implications. Four Corners is going to be about this on Monday night. I encourage you to watch it as I feel the convenience of web searching and the fulfilment of sharing things socially should be constantly overshadowed by the need for us all to take responsibility for the information we share and where we share it as well as the need for multinational companies to respect personal privacy.

This tension is constantly debated but will never reach a conclusion, I fear, because the technology continues to evolve at a faster rate than the debate.

You can legislate, and you can come to a personal decision, but then Facebook releases a new feature or starts exploring new information and you need to start all over again.

A few months ago I ditched the Facebook app – mostly because it slowed down my two-year- phone, but also because it helped them track more of what I did each day. I now only access it via my phone or desktop’s web browser. It’s not a failsafe solution, but it’s a start.

Three friends at work tell me that they are convinced Instagram is listening to their conversations – they all claim that they spoke about a topic and within hours were seeing advertisements on Instagram and Facebook related to the topic. They claim to have not googled such topics and may have only mentioned the idea – e.g. taking a world trip, buying a bike – once.

For the record, Facebook claims they do not do this and you can manually switch off the access both apps have to your smartphone’s microphone. But not everyone buys it.

My friend who is a data scientist also revealed a few interesting things to me recently. He works for a university in Sydney which has access to large array of information about every student. Seemingly, they are able to mind this information for whatever purpose they want all students are largely unaware, or at best, ill informed.

University can tell how many students have looked up the text that Electra has asked them to read. You can tell how many students have opened links that the lecture has shared. He can then see how far they have read into an article on how long they spent reading it. Think about the implications of this. Before you hand in your paper your lecturer knows if you actually read the email, clicked on the link, looked at an article and for how long you read it.

More worrying is the trend for universities to tailor degrees towards classes and strategies that attract the greatest student engagement. What engages students the most may not be the subjects or the readings that they most need to learn. What engages them may not be what earns the university the most money.

So, just to recap, Facebook knows a lot about you, your friends, what you click on, what they click on, and already knows what many of your actions before you have even made them.

They measure their own success by their own privately set metrics and yet they still send out vague polls with no explained purpose – like this one I received just yesterday.

IMG_1176

I can see the headline now – More people than ever say Facebook is a force for good in the world.

The end game of all this is not likely to be good.

What they know, someone else wants, be it their competitor or the government.

Soon, if you are traveling to the US, you may be asked for your social media passwords at the immigration desk (Guardian: UK tourists to US may get asked to hand in passwords or be denied entry

). So, in theory, all the info Facebook has compiled on you that you can retrieve, now a foreign government can also.

You may want to leave your personal smartphone at home and buy a burner on arrival.

And of course, governments in Australia and overseas are loosening the rules about what they can gain without a warrant, while they tighten the rules on what mobile and internet providers must reveal about you, when asked.

The tech giants may be fighting back with strongly worded documents, but meanwhile, the CIA is finding their own way in.

I have read a few ways (listed below) to make your life more secure – but don’t reply on what I recently read. Please do your own research, and change some of your habits. It will be worth it.

Advertisements

Twitter: Getting its engagement (and groove) back

blur bird

The land I love most in social media is at risk. It’s not about to shutdown but the unstoppable momentum of its younger cousins (Snapchat, WhatsApp) and grandaddy (Facebook) overshadows all attempts Twitter makes to reinvent its experience.
And you can’t entirely blame Twitter – as their blog shows, they are constantly updating and improving the platform.

 

If you’re a heavy Twitter user, you’re probably in the same boat as I; it has been some years since I could convince anyone to sign up. If anything, people I know who tried it can occasionally be convinced to give it another go. Follower growth is no longer exponential. The platform is increasingly one-way with replies dropping off as the company pursues user safety and revenue as much as engagement.

 

As a huge fan of Twitter, I love some of the changes they’ve made, however other changes are turning the growing list of annoyances into a real daily decline in experience. If regular users loved enough of the changes, the leaps in usability that would offset the irritations. I don’t think this is happening.

 

Has Twitter begun a slippery slide into irrelevance? At worst, the blessed stream of useful info and irreverence faces a future as a glorified RSS of news and a stream of polarised views that few dare to engage in.

 

The little blue bird certainly needs to evolve to survive.

 

Here are a few reasons engagement has dropped but how it could rule once more…

 

The media look just like everyone else – more than any other network, Twitter has been a great showcase for watching media companies have to offer. It seems remarkable that they are still to find their real place in the twittersphere. They have no unique destination like Snapchat’s Discover page, nor can they feature embedded stories or interactive media as Facebook is trialing with Instant Articles (Though Products have some cool new features). TV Timelines hold some hope for television programs, but recently departed CEO Dick Costolo never conquered the challenge he set himself for live sport –  to create a timeline feature that would enable someone who missed the game live to play back tweets in synchronised, chronological order. (This would also help on-demand TV viewers avoid spoilers.)

 

Favs kill retweets – Favouriting tweets with a little star is taking the place of many other more involved engagements. In the past, many followers who liked your tweet would reward you by retweeting it. You got a bump in ego, they spread the love and the site thrived on these brief hits of serotonin flying across the network. Now, a good tweet will often get twice as any favs as retweets – people have become more precious with what they share. This change has made us all less social.

 

 

No curation means less discovery – Twitter is still resisting curating our feeds. And the Discovery page has gone.  The purity has been preserved but at the cost of being introduced to more and better people you could be following. Look at how Instagram popular page shows you new people without it feeling like an intrusion. For many of us who never visit Trending Topics, or who use 3rd party Twitter apps, there are zero chances to come across new people unless they are retweeted or they are promoting their tweets. Perhaps Project Lightning will be the change Obama promised us. (Check the WIRED link at bottom.)

 

New expanded design slows consumption – Ashton Kutcher was right back in 2009: filtering is what Twitter needs most. As proof, Tweetdeck works best when you have refined your lists and feeds into a tailored masterpiece of streaming data. The recent change to a more rich media experience was a backward step in terms of encouraging a more efficient twitter experience. At least provide an option for faster readers to switch it off.

 

Spambots are not your friend – I know I’m not alone on this one, but I currently get at least one new spambot follower for every follower I lose. While I cannot tell how many people and following me are generally people, I know that only half of those starting to follow me are actual people. This undermines my faith in the entire network and the company’s inability to stem the tide does not help the situation. (Note: Instagram has the same problem)

 

Other ideas that would help – in no particular order:
  • Group DMs – why can’t I create a list and start a convo with them publicly or privately?
  • Give me a personal page like flipboard does – all graphical and able to be sorted by topics I tweet about.
  • Why are there not trending topics based around topics I have told Twitter I am interested in? #QANDA and sport may interest many Australians but those trends wasted on many.

See also: Twitter Is Killing Twitter to Save Twitter via @WIRED

My nightmare in Telstra Tower

  

We’re on holidays in Canberra. So I visited Telecom Tower… so now I am here to vent. (Don’t laugh. I knew it was big in the bicentennial and is well past its prime — I just thought that, being a beacon of technology, it would have been updated). 

It wasn’t just the way that no one had cleaned the outside since I visited 27 years ago. It wasn’t that the restaurant had stopped revolving two years ago and no one bothered fixing it. It wasn’t that the unattended theatrette played a video unchanged since the tower’s opening in 1980 that even ended with the Telecom logo. It wasn’t that the lobby felt like that of an abandoned conference centre. It wasn’t that the place was so empty that I wandered into an open electrical cupboard where I could have probably disconnected the ACT’s Internet. It wasn’t that The Telstra Historical Exhibition had little more than a range of dusty old phones in cabinets. “Oh wow kids look! A Blackberry!” 

  

It WAS that when we headed to the open viewing deck, it was SWARMING with wasps. Hundreds, possibly thousands. No warning. No signs. No staff. “Hey dad! These two are fighting!” They were mating. Multiplying. Everywhere we looked. Buzzing by at eye level. We were 90 metres up and at risk of massive attack with no one to call. 

I hate you, Telstra. Telecom. Whatever. If your tower was great in the 1980s, it’s now a big dirty white elephant with fleas that needs attention. Update it. Wash it. Get rid of the wasps. Or just knock it down. Can’t telecommunications go underground now?

The case for the Apple car

They don’t do things for money, Apple. If we are to believe both their top executive and the chief designer, the world’s richest company only get into areas where an improved design can improve people’s lives. The money follows.

News came this week that Apple is working on a car. This should blow all our minds. They are totally out of their league – but they had never made a phone either, and look how that went. So I’ll assume most people think it is scuttlebutt. However, it was reported by the Wall Street Journal, which rarely prints Apple rumours that do not come true.

Until that happened, I wasn’t really believing this story. But now, I am prepared to run a bit wild with the idea – so I have made a brief case for why it could be plausible.

Apple only wants in if it can fix a problem. iPods because you can’t carry 100 CDs. Smartphones because feature phones could not handle the internet. iPads because books and newspapers and placemats were all boring.

Each solution starts and ends these solutions with good design.

So, are cars fatally flawed? Well, they sure need help. Fundamental help. Why are we still using combustion engines that still demand regular refuelling of unsustainable fuels shipped from Saudi Arabia?

Design. Italians used to own the space but nowadays a Ferrari has countless dials and baffling dashboard options. Aston Martins are even outclassing them.

Environmentally, cars are a curseeven hybrids – so an improvement on an eco level would bring benefits for the planet. And since Tim replaced Steve (well, you know) Apple has taken seriously its responsibility to tread lightly on the earth, spending more than $AU1Billion on a solar farm.

Financially, cars remain as popular as televisions or phones. Some people even have two. The margins have tightened but still no American brand is thriving. Even after massive bailouts of Detroit the Japanese are the only ones making hay.

But why bother? A few thoughts.

Jony loves cars. It’s why he got into design. He has SEVEN of them and what’s more, he said this week that the state of car design is shocking! Thing broken. Must fix.

Control. Apple likes being in your pocket – a smartphone is a gateway drug. Before you know it you’re in the App Store snorting all kinds of apps and music you didn’t know existed. So if Apple built your car, it has a new ecosystem to control. And like the unrealised dreams of CarPlay, you can sync all number of devices in your car, and the tech in the dash – think Tesla not Toyota – would all be streamlined.

Tesla dashboard

Yes, that’s actually how they look.

When cars are eventually self-driven, where will you suddenly have hours of more free time? In-car ApplePay sounds sweet to me.

Batteries – Apple don’t make them but have helped increase demand for reduced sizes and drive down the cost. This experience sets them up for improving car battery life. I don’t think they’d run recharge stations but they could control how they are built and how they operate, creating a seamless experience.

Elon Musk is known to have talked to Apple early on, he clearly thinks different. But they didn’t employ him. Why? Then he releases all his patents, one major hurdle for Apple-size players eager to take part.

So the electric car industry is new, growing, has a strong future, few competitors and the hurdles are lower than ever.

Can they make money? It’s not about that. But would it look amazing and would everyone want one and would it work beautifully and work with all your tech? Yes.

Go Tim!

Then again, I could be wrong and maybe they will just buy Tesla.

The Karl Stefanovic Phenomenon – why clickbait doesn’t rate

In TV, if no one is taking about you, you’re dead.
Clarkey For Kids Sports Lunch
This Herald story on Karl Stefanovic boosting Today Show ratings is a beat-up. Sunrise have Today up against the wall and they’re tickling them till it hurts. But the continuing popularity of Karl in the online sphere – rather than on TV – proves that Karl is cool in a way that defines many public personalities these days; we won’t switch them on but we will click on them, again and again.
Karl is the televisual equivalent of that friend or colleague who is fun tower firstly but too tiring to hang out with. He’s worth a chat or a cheap laugh, but never a full conversation.
Does Karl care? I doubt it. (Smug!) While he goes about his work, the internet has transformed Karl into a sound-bite factory, gif magic, and perfect YouTube fodder. Even his unassuming, regular Aussie bloke tweets are shareable gold.
That said, he’s a twitstorm in a teacup.
Any sordid joke or witty remark is only hot property for a few short days. The Herald and Telegraph know this and hence, they will fashion a homepage story around his madcap behaviour at any opportunity. The traffic flows into the website, amplified largely by social sharing. And if there is a chance to rehash a popular Karl moment from a year ago, they’ll give it another run. Because while they peak early, these stories can live on forever.
But does the media’s enthusiasm for Karl’s bottled boganism contribute to TV ratings? No. It’s a trivial, nauseating cycle of funny-moments-becoming-YouTube-hits-becoming-news-stories that has been going on for years without the Today Show receiving any significant bump. Even the latest Herald story with Karl in the headline is mostly about how Sunrise romped home with their best lead in years. His name is there because that’s what people click on. Same goes for sex, p0rn and iPhone.
Today has not enjoyed anything like the bump in popularity you might expect with the global enthusiasm for Karl’s latest wear-a-suit-for-a-year stunt. The host’s joke with the Dalai Lama achieved even greater notoriety and has been  more than two million times on YouTube.
In fact, Karl’s top ten most popular clips on YouTube have been viewed more than 15 million times. His Twitter figures are, by most comparisons, extraordinary: 250,000+ followers, 2500 tweets. Scores of retweets follow each mundane observation. (See examples below)
I have set up many TV personalities on Twitter and I’ve told each one of them to just be themselves. For Karl, being himself – his plain speaking, jocular, slightly inappropriate self –  resonates with so many people, you’d be forgiven for thinking Karl was a seriously popular star with a compelling or hilarious feed. Decide for yourself.
People seem to love him regardless.
A friend of mine pointed out that it was not always this way. A few years back, Karl was widely loathed and even worse, ignored. But since the host made headlines around the world for being drunk on-air and trying to crack a dad joke with a Tibetan Buddhist leader, Aussies have embraced Karl as one of their own and will now happily rave about his latest larrikin exploit.
I can’t stand the man, yet even I have pulled out my phone at dinner parties to show friends the latest reason I can’t stand him.
He’s a middle-aged man of the age, a mate who’ll hold your longneck while you take a wizz, Australia’s Kramer – a loathsome, offensive brute, yet I can’t look away.
It’s clear that the only winner in Karl’s situation is Karl’s personal profile. His appeal is in unexpected moments that shock or surprise viewers for a 30-second clip. Sure, the Today Show appears in every clip and gif but as the moments are unscripted, Channel 9 can’t capitalise or fabricate this ineffable brilliance. If I was them I’d be seriously frustrated. But the potential is there and that’s why other TV bosses should pay attention to this phenomenon.
The idea that ratings are the only thing that matters will soon fade . Television audiences will continue to shrink and TV shows that resonate online will
a) attract the next generation of viewers and,
b) get the advertising dollars that are will move online when we are all streaming shows.
Essentially, views will count for more than viewers.
Some networks are already acting on this. Certain shows are being driven to produce more shareable content and are tailoring segments to online audiences – think John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight, Jimmy Fallon, or The Voice.
Personalities will still need to be social-savvy, but most are nowadays, and it’s the producers that need to think differently; How will this story translate to online viewers who can scroll through it in ten seconds? Will it work for a commuter watching live on a smartphone? Would I share this segment? How are we using social networks to draw viewers into the next episode?
I didn’t see your cliffhanger last week, sorry. I don’t know who is in the final four. And I’m not even seeing your teases in the cricket or in the 6pm news. I’m busy watching reruns of Karl embarrassing himself in 2010.

BLOG: Headphones – Can I pull them off?

When Apple bought Beats for a gazillion dollars last month, it didn’t make me want to buy Beats but it did get me thinking about what they would do with the brand and the technology.

Apple evolved the mp3 player, the phone and the tablet; they didn’t invent any of those items, but they took them all to a new level.

For me, the way to take headphones to the next level would be to maintain the hi-def audio but remove all wires. Why are we still dealing with the daily trial of untangling them from an insufferable mess that never has any reason to occur?

If they could solve that little dilemma, I thought, I’d consider swapping my earbuds for headphones.

I haven’t worn headphones for years. (Who needs all that bulk when in-ear phones get the job done?)

We all know earphones have been around for a long time, and if it ain’t broke…

Plus, the visual style of Beats says ‘hip teenager’ a bit too loudly for me – and much more than my Zara wardrobe can cope with.

But then I Googled headphones to research what’s around only to find that wireless headphones are already a thing. Bluetooth does the job and without the headphones needing to double in size. Plus, you can get such a product for around $100! (The Beats version costs $280 and reviewers on Apple.com don’t even seem to like them.)

So, I dived in and have now returned to wearing headphones — now more white tangles cords for me — they’re bluetooth, noise-cancelling AND they let you receive phones calls and pause or skip music tracks. I am in love.

BUT. With headphones comes great douchery. P eople can’t take you as serious as they once did. You look like you value good music more than being in touch with actual life. And with noise-cancelling, the only way people can get your attention is with wild hand-waving that embarrasses all of us. At least with small earphones, you can still talk to people at the checkout, you can still hear the world, and some people won’t even notice them.

With headphones, you are switching off society and with it, any claim you had to being ‘with it’. I get that. It’s a sacrifice I’m making for convenience.

But I also hope the Beats acquisition – and my own acquisition – is the start of something.

However, if Apple doesn’t get Beats right, they will leave all of us wearing headphones no better than the guys still wearing one of these….

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Colour Theory: How the world’s designers have copied the iPhone

When Apple changed the colour scheme on their iconic iPhones last year, many obsessive fans – including me – whinged about the decision. Childish. Dated. Simplistic.

Others thought it was more proof that Apple is always ahead of the curve. That their team knew, ahead of time, what colours would soon be in fashion in the world of design. But to me, that sounded too much like Miranda in The Devil Wears Prada.

I realise someone out there must be able to see through the glare of advertising and know what’s actually coming next. But a company as big as Apple?

What changed?
The colours used throughout the iPhone were given a stark and bold new look. With blurry backgrounds and barely perceptible gradients the icons now had a certain lift – it was as if they were rising off the screen.

Now, months later, I see the same once-hated palette popping up everywhere. Did Apple predict a trend or did they create one?

So where did Apple’s new colour theory originate?
Theory 1: Did they have a secret colour chart like you see at the hardware store?

See also: flatuicolors.com

Theory 2: Now everything was plain, unadorned and less skeumorphic – putting an end to the use of that ridiculous word.

Was the pallet simply Apple’s old logo, reimagined?

Theory 3: Or were the colours lifted from the work of designer Otl Aicher for the 1972 Munich Olympic Games? (This is my favourite theory.)

Apple’s chief designer Jonny Ive may let us know one day, but if he does, it will be on his deathbed. And even then it’s unlikely.

So all we can do is now observe how the same palette has taken hold in other designs around the world.

Telstra want to be part of the cool. Good luck, blonde beardy.

Katy Perry gets it. And she kissed a girl before it was cool.

Don’t forget Samsung, the iPhone you get when you don’t want an iPhone.

And let’s not forget the contribution from Sydney’s rail network – the Opal card.

Or Sydney City Council’s efforts in promoting Harmony.

I believe that Apple – a company known for behaving outside of common corporate rules – did manage to help create a colour trend. Their influence on global design is not marginal. Apple have sold over 500 million iOS devices worldwide, meaning that even if a flat colour trend was approaching, they accelerated it by placing it in the hand of around half a billion consumers.

Then, eventually, the trend has trickled down to graphic designers, celebs, advertisers, stylists, city councils and less nimble smartphone manufacturers.

Seen any other examples? Do tell.

More reading:

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

5 Predictions for social TV in 2014

Social TV is going to be more than a buzzword in 2014, it will become the essential element many TV viewers need to complete their viewing experience.

Only now do broadcasters have access to the tools that will reach many of the expectations their audiences have built up since Twitter and Facebook began encouraging levels of engagement the networks themselves could not deliver.

Working on the cusp of this is what makes me want to get up in the morning.

Here are 5 ways I see the landscape changing in the next 12 months:

1. Deeper program integration.
As broadcasters become more familiar with social media trends and terminology, expect comments and other content appearing in TV shows to be more useful, seamlessly integrated, less visually intrusive, and, with improved moderation, more relevant (ie. intelligent). The era of seeing Sally from Blacktown’s tweet on screen is nearing an end.

tweets qanda

2. Platform tools
The broadcasters won’t be the only ones evolving. Twitter is sharpening it’s live TV tools –  from targeted ads to trends to ratings. Twitter and Facebook are racing each other to the prize of realtime TV co-dependence. Twitter has an early lead and is eager to have people link the hashtag with the little blue bird. But if Facebook figures out filtering at scale, bringing you useful comments from people you know of or people nearby – all grouped around a hashtag – then the number of people who have never used twitter but have a Facebook account will suddenly understand what TV conversations are all about.

3. New apps and mergers
TV apps that aggregate social content and aim to complement your viewing continue to emerge. Apps can already control getglueyour TV, set your PVR to record and rewind. Zeebox continues to add features and may be snapped up in the next year having made good ground, especially in the UK. In January, Dijit acquired Miso, then  i.TV purchased GetGlue in November, bringing greater legitimacy to the entire category of apps. Cable TV and free-to-air operators will keep developing their own apps – hopefully joining forces where possible so viewers don’t require a new app for every on-demand service. Streaming apps e.g. Netflix, could be the big ball-buster for networks, especially if deals are drawn up directly with cable networks and production companies.

4. Increasingly social newsrooms
As more news desks employ social media editors, engagement experts and audience leads, the last remaining barriers to viewers having a role to play in realtime news; access and verification; will disappear. Some journalists still see this as a threat. The best journos have already embraced it. Expect to see particular users given elevated status to report news. As the lines between on-air and online have already blurred for consumers (think streaming news, tweeted video snippets, shared gifs of realtime sporting moments) media conglomerates will continue snapping up video content tools and agencies to complement their editorial teams. Likewise, web teams will be further blended with news producers so stories and contributed content can be shared ay direction efficiently.
The future - as per Fox News.

5. Big data to smash it all out of the park
In 2013, Twitter bought Bluefin Labs and Apple purchased Topsy. Each acquisition is aimed at providing realtime insights to the owner and surfacing the most relevant content to the consumer. Either way, TV viewers win – there’ll be less guesswork by producers and more accurate coverage, commentary and graphics. Transparency will also rise as the real sentiment of viewers can now be shown in reality shows and during political debates.

TV and sports are widely regarded as the two most popular topics on social media, and with that in mind, Facebook has just got its hands on SportStream. The numbers around much of the success of social networks have themselves been furry so it’s encouraging to see everyone looking to sure up their own turf with hard data. Data will convince the bean counters of a business case for integrating social, while also bringing more useful graphics to the screen for viewers and realtime stats for those using devices. Because no one loves stats during live events more than a true sports fan. Now imagine if these were personalised, changeable and updating live.

For social TV, the future is bright – because the science is only now becoming clear.

 

This article first appeared on TV Revolution

U2’s latest song? It’s made up of old U2 songs

I am watching closely to see what U2 produces next. It’s my prediction that this will be their make or break album.
With this in mind I have been eagerly awaiting the song they have written for the forthcoming film based on the life of Nelson Mandela. It should be a precursor to the direction their next album is headed.

The good news is the film looks great. The bad news is, if this song is any indication, the band’s next album will sound like  a rehash of U2’s greatest hits.

Here is the start of the new U2 song, Ordinary Love

Listen to the intro of 2002’s Electrical Storm

Now, listen to the intro of Saints are Coming (recorded in 2006 with GreenDay)

For a band that has been around for decades and is well capable of reinvention,  the similarities are embarrassing.  As the song continues, it bounces along optimistically but never emerges from a samey traditional U2ishness, falling back on Edge’s guitars and Bono’s non sequiturs.

On a side note, U2’s track record for releasing quality songs that never appear on an album remains intact.

For example:

  1. Lady With The Spinning Head (1992)
  2. The Sweetest Thing (1987)
  3. Two Shots of Happy, One Shot of Sad (for Frank Sinatra – 1997)
  4. North and South of The River (1997)
  5. Electrical Storm (2002)
  6. Window In The Skies (2006)

I guess I’ll just spend my years listening to the 90s version of U2. God knows there was a lot of good stuff.

Quick tour of the quick tour of Michael Jordan’s $28m house

Michael Jordan is selling his home – you know, the one with his number on the gate, his name on the indoor basketball court, and his symbol on the golf flags.

The home is a luxurious 7-acre property, replete with a stocked pond, PGA-grade golfing green, a weird grassy knoll surrounded by a moat and a cigar room with secret ducts to remove any scent of cigars.

The video itself is well worth a watch. This must be the peak of real estate video production. A drone to get aerial views, clips from history – as if you needed reminding of Jordan’s greatness – and interviews with the owner’s Chicago Bulls team-mates.

To celebrate the auction of this extravagant house, I have captured the best moments of the estate agent’s high-falutin video tour together with some words of wisdom from His Airness (parodies) on Twitter.

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/353285678567657474]


[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/383408336965611520]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/381909165884452864]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/352185217877950466]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/398292881124757504]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/377621144909934592]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/330352314080706564]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/327144299013734400]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/350403423881015296]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/339879113584164864]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/398665087361499136]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/387394029802897410]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/385834932909535232]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/395339660815130624]

VIDEO: http://vimeo.com/77760571

STORY: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/11/nba-michael-jordan-house-video-auction/

Sent from Evernote
%d bloggers like this: