Brilliant Facebook application names !

LOL !! Hid posts from one of the FB applications called “My Your Murderer”. Guess what the confirmation message looks like ?

Facebook allows you to download your content offline

When I heard that Facebook was allowing its users to download their entire history in a single file, I was stunned. Honestly, the fact that users had already built their network of friends, acquaintances and family digitally at a single place was the reason why I thought we came back to Facebook more often. And these were just the nodes. And we all know that the value of the network is directly proportional to the square of the number of nodes i.e. the value is in the number of connections established i.e. YouTube videos, Wall posts and applications. Yet, here was Facebook allowing you to download all this to a single zip file on your hard disk. Now anyone could build a competitor with the data ready at hand.

The reason I was also stunned was that with Facebook entering the location-based social networking space with Facebook places, it’s key advantage was that it controlled the user’s data i.e. for example if one of my FB friends was at the same location where I was (assuming both of us were Foursquare users), Foursquare would not be able to identify us as friends until we re-established that connection on Foursquare. This was equivalent to registering into another social network and re-establishing all our connections and actions. So you typically would have to use as much as the Facebook APIs you could on your product giving Facebook clear control over access to your data. I won’t get into whether that was a right or a wrong move and the debate around who should and who actually controls a user’s data. But controlling the data was clearly an enormous entry barrier for other copycats. So why have they allowed users to download ALL their data basically demolishing this entry barrier?

1)      The launch of Diaspora which claims to be the “The privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all, open source social network.” It’s partly a response to user’s concerns about privacy issues that keep cropping up around the social network. Facebook may be worried that a tipping point may arise wherein people move out of the social network just because of the privacy issues.

2)      Facebook needs to put up a strong show that it does indeed care of about people’s privacy and respect their ownership of their data. Facebook has also got some flack for blocking Google’s Friend Connect, instead prefering it’s own Facebook Connect API for developers.

There have been quite a mixed response to Facebook’s steps most of it positive. The only criticism is maybe it hasn’t done enough. But atleast it seems to be moving in the positive direction

But more importantly, what does Facebook really lose in terms of advantage?

1)      Just the appearance of new social networks is not enough for people to join in. Facebook is brilliant in its handling of social networking concepts and has built many of those by itself. To compete with Facebook, it’s not enough to be Facebook. You have to beat it.

2)      There is no price undercutting in this business. The service is free. You can’t create a social network and undercut Facebook on price.

3)      One hidden point. You can’t export your contacts’ details with you. More specifically, you can only move your data but for your Facebook network to be replicated on another social network, each one of your friends has to move onto the new network. And how many people really have multiple accounts on multiple networks ? Personally, for me, it’s Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin. My Orkut account is on life-support.

4)      Facebook is head and shoulders above other networks. It’s brilliant simplicity and features draw millions of users per day. Drawing a crowd to another network entails giving them what Facebook doesn’t. And that is one hell of a task !

Hence, I think this is a brilliant move by Facebook. It has now given its users a sense of security that they can switch services if they would like to. Without realizing, that most probably they won’t. They’ve put smiles on the faces of most privacy organizations as well, and basically redeeming themselves in the eyes of their users.

Personalized Tweets

Well I’ve been leaping up the technology curve (read: wandering around like a lost puppy) ! First I stopped getting newspapers at home. That was actually cos’ I was seldom at home and mom never read the newspapers anyways. And it would be a hiccup period between my returning home, when we would ask the newspaper guy to start delivering the newspaper, and then stop after 4 days when I left for my next client location. Then I started getting most of my news through RSS feeds. Those were brilliant. Specific news around content I loved. Then without realizing it, I moved onto Twitter and Facebook for my daily news; Twitter for business feeds and Facebook for news of near and far family and friends. So when Bloglines announced that they were shutting down their service, I was more than a little miserable. Not just exporting my feeds now to a new feed reader but more importantly, I would have to manually move all my clippings and news snippets that I had bookmarked by manually copying them on to Word documents. Ugh !

But however, I realized that even after exporting my feeds, I’ve actually been using RSS less and less to consume information. The launch of the new Twitter makes it even more addictive to use, resulting in me spending less time on blog feeds.

A parallel thought process was around a project I was working on regarding Location-based services. More specifically, I was focusing on what would be the best mode to deliver an alert to a specific user based on his location…whether through an SMS, USSD or build an app and stuff. However, putting these two thoughts together (extensive use of Twitter +  service delivery of alerts) , I came across an even more elegant method. Tweets ! The thought process is simple: Twitter allows you to broadcast your location whenever you tweet through your mobile, PC, etc. It also allows you to consolidate specific people you follow into various lists. However, this is for each user (in my service, they would be a subscriber) The method I’m suggesting tends to turn this inside-out i.e. with your permission, your (subscriber) twitter account would, in a sense, “private-tweet” your location to another specific twitter account (service provider- account). Based on the service that you have configured to receive alerts on, and based on this location, you would receive tweets from that particular account on your twitter stream based on your location and your services configuration. To make it even simpler, you could even configure the services you would like to receive alerts to by simply “following” that particular service’s Twitter account. So basically, I could build an funnel-like API over Twitter wherein I could dump a million alerts into each account (not subscriber accounts but the specific service accounts) and the API/ application could automatically filter them based on the location and tweet those alerts to follower accounts.

P.S.: I do get that Twitter was not really built around a concept like this, it was for the expression of individual users, but given Twitter’s recent comments on making the product more focused on consumption compared to what it was previously, I feel this could be another direction in the product development process

Updated: Added a basic flowchart to describe the idea:

For a larger view, click on the image

Mobile shopping – Exteme localization

Image Credit: Mele’s Musings

When I was writing the previous post (I know, today despite a fever and a bad cold, I’ve got verbal diarrhea to boot), one of Google’s biggest weaknesses struck me: IT’S SYNCHRONOUS. Let me explain. Basically, Google will display ads on the right hand side based on what is searched on the left hand side. Here’s an example:

 

Obviously, there’s a reason. I don’t want my private searches (for XXX stuff or illegal downloads and even any other searches I prefer to keep private) broadcasted all over the screen as ads. But on the other hand, I never will be informed of new offers on things I want to purchase but for which I haven’t searched in a week. Hence, Google only displays ads based on what I am searching now. I guess it also displays ads based on where I am sitting and searching from.

Secondly, I don’t search for everything on Google. A lot of things I find out from word-of-mouth. Also, let’s say for example, last weekend I went to Vashi searching for showcases. Now, one of my cousins recommended one good shop around there. We went there and then also explored other shops around that area and actually chose one from a nearby shop (not the recommended one). So this was more of a “location-location-location” aka William Dillard style. How does Google address this? Answer: In its current avatar, it can’t

So this is another place for mobiles to kick in their advantages of:

Personalization: One mobile belongs to one person. Hence, usually, a profile of one person will not be confused for another

Mobility: Take your profile wherever you want.

So the scenario I’m describing is a  mobile profiling application (product) which would act as something of a to-do list.  The idea would be to match providers of a content with the sellers of the content which is location-specific, asynchronous (you don’t have to be looking for the content when you get an intimation that the content is available at a provider). So you list out whatever you need to purchase say, the latest 50-cent CD, probably a sweater and maybe a replacement for those old specs that you’ve bought. You set up a consumer account in your application and your list would be:

1. Until I self-destruct
2. Sweater
3. Sunglasses

Now, on the other hand, a shop keeper sets up a provider account. He has his own music store where he has set up a special on 50-cent music. Maybe, he realizes that consumer tastes have shifted from hip-hop to jazz and wants to clear his unsold inventory. So if you walk past his shop, you see this big poster of these discounts and rush in to buy a copy. However, what happens if he is the second shop at the intersection and you’re passing through a parallel road. In this case, your to-do list helps you out by informing you that there is a shopkeeper one road down who sells you the album cheap. Simple!

Few other scenarios below:

1. The provider may have a status as “open” or “shut” status on the application. Hence, late at night you could use this to-do list to help you find shops which are still open delivering hot Chinese food to your doorstep. 

2. Further, you could configure your mobile to display advertisements only for specific items e.g. You ensure that you receive ads only for 50-cent CDs and not for the XX CDs that you also want and is in your to-do (not that kind of to-do).

3. In specific circumstances: You could say “Give me only information for Ray Ban sunglasses – Aviator model where the provider is offering a discount of atleast 15%.

4. Ratings for providers: On receiving a particular offer, you could be given the option view the provider;s profile. The profile would also include feedback of other consumers i.e. whether the offers he broadcasts are often false, whether he keeps casting out offers which are have been repealed quite sometime back, quality of goods, etc.

5. Limit the number of messages that can be displayed to the subscriber within a particular period of time. This can be configured by the user. Which ads to then display? It could be based on the subscriber’s preference to receive notices from ONLY one provider, a preference to one provider with an OK to receive from others as well, user feedback and ratings or completion of transaction history.

6. C2C sales: I need a ticket to the next AvB concert and in a hurry. There is another guy (not exactly a seller in the conventional sense of the word i.e. shopkeeper,etc.) who wants to sell his ticket. There is an aspect of scalping here but if the price is agreeable, it will work.

The best part of this whole thing is all you need is a mobile phone. Any one can use this, from a huge mall / supermarket to the vendors on the road selling street food.

Payments can  be made based on the number of advertisements broadcasted by the provider or based on any transaction based events that may be triggered on completion of the sale. This could also be based on giving a “teaser” by the provider and payment is triggered when the consumer asks for more info.

Update: After reading my published post, I also realize that this would not necessarily just a product but another social networking platform (Another?) where I can tie up reviews from Burp!, feedback posts from WordPress or Blogger, Google Maps to determine location, the profiler (as a seperate product), offerings on Ebay by mapping the seller’s address to the consumer’s current location and even profile of the seller / company on Orkut, Facebook or Twitter feeds.

Obviously, there are a few caveats to the whole product:

1. Password-protected and secure
2. Inability by the providers to hoard subscriber numbers – Important
3. Customers to feel secure that their profile is not being abused/ used incorrectly by the application provider.
4. Service does not become spam

5. The product should be able to integrate with online stores as well as work on PCs and Apple computers as well e.g. irrespective of whether I’m at home on my PC (on Ebay or Amazon) or on the road (passing through stores), I should be able to access special offers on products I want . Hence, the consumer profile should accomodate for both on-the-road offline offers and stay-at-home online offers while providers should be able to choose from bricks-and-mortar options as well as on-net options. The application needs to ensure adequate configuration options for the subscriber for the same.

In my opinion, this is the ultimate benefit of using advertising. Screw demographics, this advertising is based on customer-intent to consume the service.

I can also fantasize (and the correct word is “fantasize”) when billboards become extremely intelligent and broadcast advertising messages based on the most popular items among consumer profiles (what the consumers have agreed to receive offers on) in the area around the billboard

Rupert Murdoch to block Google from indexing pages from NewsCorp Inc.

Interesting ! Rupert Murdoch has stated that NewsCorp would in the near future block Google from sending spiders to crawl and index NewsCorp pages which basically means that if you search for news in Google, NewsCorp results would not appear.

Video announcing the same:

While this may actually look like a bad thing for NewsCorp (not getting listed in Google rankings), it really isn’t. After all they have huge brand equity which can actually stand up against Google’s might. Anyways, the comments section is afire. Murdoch doing what he does best. Here are two interesting viewpoints:
Mark Cuban says that the game has changed for Google as now people just don’t use Google much for searching breaking news. That has been usurped by Twitter and Facebook (what is really called the real-time web). Hence, for breaking news it makes more sense to follow that particular media company, magazine, what have you on Twitter and Facebook.  Particularly enlightening quote:

Twitter and Facebook have become the ultimate real time programming guides.  Look at it like this. “Hear about bubble boy from a follow”. If: “its a news source, go to that news source” If not: “Look it up on twitter (or i use icerocket.com it shows tweeter authority) to see if there are any 1st hand accouts or check my FB wall to see what my friends have to say,  if anything”  “See tweets/posts to determine how I want to get more information:  from  TV ( stream, regular, phone), or from online written or audio source” if online: “go to that source from link in twitter or facebook”

All of the above complements everything Rupert and Newscorp are doing. Google is no where to be found in that equation.

Another interesting  viewpoint from Jason Calacanis (from his newsletter which I subscribe to. He says this would be the most opportune moment for companies like Bing to go all out and negotiate with Murdoch and NewsCorp. From the letter:

Essentially, I put forth a simple strategy for Microsoft to pursue with Bing in which they would go to content providers like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal and offer them 50% more revenue then they are currently getting from Google search referrals to be exclusively indexed in Bing.

This is 100% legal and, in fact, Google encourages people who don’t like how they do business to opt out of the Google index (they can do that because they are so huge and because they don’t like to be evil).

So, for a moment, imagine a world where Bing could say in their TV commercials:

“Want to search the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and 3,894 other newspapers and magazine?”

“Well, then don’t go to Google because they don’t have them!”

“Go to Bing, home of quality content you can trust!”

Comments are interesting and insighful as well

Interesting points to which I replied back saying:

1. What would stop Google from negotiating for a higher revenue share? They did start off their business in a big way by doing the same with AOL. Would this lead to some kind of bidding war among search enginers? In which case, what would be the scenario in case all the big guys grouped together and said “Bid for ad spots on all our sites”? Would such a scenario be feasible? So would this then be a case study on not just blocking the spiders from some sites and negotiating with another or more about how big audience sites can make more money by playing off one search service provider against another

2. Bing may also be able to negotiate on other aspects of the advertising such as the metrics that Bing would share with NewsCorp. As per my understanding, Google has not been very transparent in terms of how the revenue shared is reached. This might be another differentiating factor. Would like your thoughts on this

Video of Jason’s back and forth here with Lon and Tyler:

Well, to be very honest, it’s a very very ballsy move by Murdoch (Something that is a frequent happening in his life). After the disappointment of the Myspace acquisition, this is his new move on the Internets. The interesting thing is what happens if this succeeds?. That results in definition of an automatic threshold for price discrimination i.e. how many followers, page views, etc. do I need to have before I can open my ad inventory for negotiations? This makes news aggregation sites such as Weblogs pretty powerful especially in the number of sites they control and the ad inventory they deliver. Especially if they use the 140-word limited Twitter and updates to display the “tease” (A headline with a link to the content behind paywalls). So essentially, the equivalent to reading a newspaper is : You browse through the headlines on Twitter and Facebook and if you like something, you click through to read the content behind the paywall (The main body of the news). See any Google intervention there? Frankly, do you see any search engine intervention anywhere?

What does this mean for the media industry as a whole? What happens if pay walls allowed subscribers to access the content through an RSS feed with Bing adding a link saying “Want to read more?” which directs the person to the Bing site, this totally removes only Google from the scene.

I am going to watch this closely. This really changes the rules of the game from the search provider dictating the terms to the content provider choosing his delivery mechanism

Other links: PaidContent reports

Updates:
Google replies with its standard PR reply doesn’t say what the impact to it will be;
John Battelle comments- short and sweet