Foursquare made popular the concept of the “check in,” where individuals “check in” to locations as they travel about town, earning points and badges while they do it.  It is both social networking and social gaming, and it’s fun.

On this front, I’ve recently become addicted to Barcode Hero for the iPhone, a new app from Kima Labs and founded by a couple of friends of mine, Blake Scholl and Jason Crawford.  These are smart guys and the first version of their app is all the proof you’ll need to see they are seasoned pros.

Barcode Hero brings a new innovation to the “check in” world, applying it—not to places—but to things.  You can scan anything that has a standard barcode with your iPhone camera, whether it be things you own in your home to items at the store, and share it with your friends.  From Best Buy to the supermarket, Barcode Hero will likely have it in their database, and you earn points for scanning items, marking them as “owned” or writing reviews or comments on the items you’ve scanned and share them with your friends.

If you have the most points in a given category, you will be deemed the “King” or “Queen” of that category.  Since I started using the app very early on, I quickly became the “King” of sheet music, DVDs, books, Objectivism (from scanning all my Ayn Rand related literature), among many others.  I’ve been dethroned in several of these categories since, a good sign the app is rapidly acquiring new users.

In addition to this, you can follow your friends like on any social network, and see what they’re scanning and buying.  It’s also much more useful than Foursquare, as when you scan something you can instantly see where you can purchase the product online from a variety of major online vendors.

It does require an iPhone, though a Droid version is planned, according to their Web site, as well as a Facebook account to log in (hopefully they will allow non-Facebook users to use the app in the future as well).  Also lacking is a fully integrated Web presence, but I’m sure this is on the way.  The few bugs I found at launch have been quickly remedied, and it feels like a solid and mature app.

Unlike many other social media apps, this one has a clear practical application: scan a bar code and instantly connect you to online vendors for the best deal.  That means it has a solid business model out of the gate, a very promising sign for this new startup.

I wish Blake, Jason and all those involved with Kima Labs much success and am happy to see such a solid concept so well executed in the growing social media space.  It’s a winner.

Failure is a buzz word in today’s fast and frenzied Internet startup world.  Many are focusing on it, saying not to be intimidated by it.  While the intention is good, the growing focus on failure is a false hope that cannot bring success by itself.

True, the fear of failure can be paralyzing.  Perfectionists often don’t get anything done because they cannot accept even the possibility of failure, leaving them paralyzed at the starting line and left in the dust by the rest of the world who embraces their mistakes, learns from them, and moves toward the finish line as a result.

During my short stint as a stand-up comic, I wrote a joke on perfectionism:  “I have the best joke on perfectionism that you’ve ever heard,” I would say, “but it isn’t ready to tell yet.”

In this light, yes, you should not be afraid to fail and be willing to “embrace” it if you do.  But one does not achieve success by failing.  Failure is, well, just that.

Failing may give you the opportunity to learn, yes, and it may uncover important information that allows you to move forward—often information that you would have never learned if you hadn’t tried in the first place.

That doesn’t mean you should seek it out.  When Michael Jordan takes a jump shot, he is not aiming to miss.  If he does miss, while it may be an opportunity to learn, it did not score him any points.

But isn’t the opportunity to learn from failure the point?  Yes, in a way, but it also misses the wider principle.  Failure itself is just one way to learn and grow.  Consider that success gives you that very same opportunity and for the very same reason.

Just like failure, with success you must always perform a postmortem on your actions, your project, your business, whatever, and discover the reasons behind your results.  They are both learning opportunities and success’ sweet smell isn’t as potent unless you know the cause behind it.

This is important to remember at the start of any project, task or business proposition.  Focusing on failure is a sure way to get sidetracked and land yourself in a rut, leaving you wondering when the heck all that success is going to come.  If failure is your focus, it never will.

Instead, set your sights on the target—settling for nothing less than full understanding of your results—and shoot to win.

As long time listener to audio podcasts such as Leo Laporte’s TWiT network (Windows Weekly is among my favorites) and Creative Screenwriting Magazine, I can say I love listening to podcasts. There are many great shows that I have sampled, and I’ve found that I much prefer listened to audio podcasts instead of video.

The first reason is obvious: audio shows do not require your full attention. One can listen to a show while driving in the car, doing menial chores or eating lunch and allowing you to stimulate your brain while doing routine or mundane tasks.

Given its nature, video shows generally work best in shorter format. You have to be at a screen and it requires one’s full attention. That’s not to say that long-format shows cannot work. I have enjoyed Kevin Pollack’s Chat Show, Jason Calacanis’ This Week in Startups and Stupid for Movies from time-to-time, but I find it difficult to stick with them because of the screen requirement and, given their hour plus length and without an audio-only alternatives (which some of them have), they are more difficult to fit into one’s schedule of content consumption.

Also, because video requires much more production time and expense, they are consequently more limiting in terms of who has the resources to produce them. This leaves the door open for some smart entrepreneurs to bootstrap a good idea and get it off the ground with little investment in the audio realm. It also means that content producers must focus more on that what of the content instead of the how and, in the end, that generally compels podcasters to make sure they’re creating intellectually stimulating content.

This is certainly not always the case, nor does it rule out the possibility of a video show accomplishing the task of stimulating the mind. However, in general, audio shows tend to be more about ideas as such and allow for more in-depth analysis of a subject as they can be more liberal in their production length.

Such low overhead in producing audio podcasts has its negative side. While the door is open for successful shows to exist on extremely niche topics, this also means there is a lot of bad content out there one has to sift through. But generally, when you find a good one, they are extremely rewarding and enjoyable.

I do not want to say that video shows are unworthy of attention. They can be more lucrative for content producers as they command much higher advertising rates. That’s not to be discounted. The potentiality for higher profits nets bigger investment in such content, and people will make take time to watch a show if it’s good enough (see my article: Eight Reasons to Quit Cable TV as a first point of instruction for how to clear some room for any video podcasts you might be inclined to watch).

But, for the reasons discussed here, I think people tend to be more loyal to the audio shows they do consume. They’re easier to fit into one’s busy schedule and audiences therefore have more time to get to know a show’s personality and style. As a result—and content permitting—there is higher potential to become more invested in these types of shows.

A recent article in The Financial Times titled “Net Neutrality Comes Back to Haunt Google” demonstrates why Google should stand on principle in its business practices and should give one pause in advocating Net Neutrality.

Many in the tech industry advocate Net Neutrality, which is the idea that all traffic transferred over the Internet should be treated equally with all other traffic. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner are most people’s conduits to the Internet. Net Neutrality would force ISPs from throttling or prioritizing traffic through their networks. For example, some ISPs have slowed down or blocked certain types of traffic (or even prioritized other types of traffic), such as heavy users or traffic transferred by certain applications such as those involved in illegal file sharing or voice over IP data transferred by applications like Skype.

Before you jump in and say whether that’s good or bad for customers, consider that these companies own these networks and as such, it is their right to set the terms for their service. If customers do not receive the quality or quantity of service they want, they are free to select another provider (or no provider). They do not have the right to dictate how ISPs must run their service.

Google has advocated Net Neutrality, according to the article, because they believe the lack of Net Neutrality will hurt their business. But now they are under fire on a new front but up against the very principle they have been advocating. Some now want to regulate search results on the Internet, and dictate how Google must rank their search results.

Why? Google has “too much power,” the argument goes, with respect to sending traffic to sites on the Web. They determine who gets placed and how high up Web sites are shown in search results. A small change in search engine positioning can make or break a business, and an entire industry has been borne around search engine optimization (SEO) by businesses in order to exploit the value Google has created for Web publishers.

But it is Google that has created the value of search in the first place, and to dictate how they must run their business is a violation of their rights and an attempt to expropriate the value they did not earn by that which they did not create.

Google commands such “power” because it has won customers over in terms of the value of their search engine. From recipes to song lyrics to news articles to photographs, Google will help you find the most relevant content on the Web in the most convenient way possible to you. That is their purpose and that is the core of their business, and they have won customers over by being the best at it and, as a result, earned the position of the dominant player in the market.

But to force Google to modify their search results by force will destroy this value, and that is exactly what proponents of “Search Neutrality” desire. They want to make Google give results to customers according to their standards and whims, and determine how search should be optimized, not by the free choice of customers (such as by creating a competing search engine that is better than Google that customers want to use), but at the point of a gun. How did Google gain the dominant position in the marketplace? Blank out. They just are, and they want a piece of it–a piece they did not earn and cannot win legitimately.

That same threat is currently being faced by ISPs by telling them how they must run their business. Google had better wise up to the principle involved here and defend ISPs rights and oppose Net Neutrality, or they won’t have a moral foundation to stand on when regulators come after them as their next target.

In the latest episode of NBC’s late-night lineup debacle, Conan O’Brien issued a statement today that he will refuse to host The Tonight Show if it is moved to 12:05, and The Jay Leno Show is aired at 11:35.

It is absolutely the right move by Conan, and kudos to him for taking a principled stand among what appears to be a sea of pragmatists at NBC.

This mess was foreshadowed back in ‘04 when Leno renewed his Tonight Show contract. NBC worked out a deal where Conan would take over the Tonight Show once Leno’s contract expired in ‘09. It was what Conan wanted, but Leno seemed less excited about it.

On the 50th anniversary of The Tonight Show (9/27/04), Leno made the announcement, but implied NBC pushed him out, (paraphrasing) “NBC said ‘We don’t want to lose Conan’ and I said ‘What does that mean?’” He did not seem excited about it, but played along.

NBC has been trying to have its cake, and eat it too. Both hosts are late night giants in their own right, and NBC made a gamble promising The Tonight Show to Conan, enticing him to stay with the network in lieu of other opportunities. “I worked long and hard to [host the Tonight Show and] passed up far more lucrative offers…” Conan said in his statement today. Meanwhile, they must have simply hoped Leno would stay on their network or retire.

Leno may deserve some criticism here. If he indeed did not want to retire, why didn’t he stand up to NBC back in ‘04? Why doesn’t he accept the risk he took with his 10pm show, and now pack his bags and move to another network or do something different?

Leno moving back to 11:35 is wrong. A talk show on NBC at 11:35 is The Tonight Show de facto, and it doesn’t matter what title they give it. And that move would be a broken promise to Conan.

NBC had a leading late night lineup for a five year period, a position it was able to maintain for a time. Ultimately, however, both Leno and Conan have earned the status of late night giants in their own right, and keeping them on the same network may just not be possible.

If that is the way it is, then I say: let it be. The right question for NBC, at this point, is “What should we do with Leno?”

Personally, I’d love to see Leno host an American version of the TV series Top Gear. Or do movie reviews and take over At The Movies, now that Ebert is out (its replacement current hosts are quite a bore, and Leno was a guest at one point and quite good). But the bottom line is I think it’s time for Leno to move on if his 10pm show can’t cut it on the network. And if NBC doesn’t have the balls to make that call, at least Conan O’Brien will step up to the plate and force the issue.

Conan has the most to lose here. That he is the one willing to take the biggest risk at the same time demonstrates true leadership. That he won’t settle for less illustrates who the real people of character are in all of this mess. If this were an election, I would say he has earned my vote. Vote for Conan in o’10.