Is the New Facebook a Deal With the Devil?

Posted on April 21st, 2010 in Social Media | Comments Off

Facebook blew peoples' minds today at its F8 developer conference but one sentiment that keeps coming up is: this is scary. The company unveiled simple, powerful plans to offer instant personalization on sites all over the web, it kicked off meaningful adoption of the Semantic Web with the snap of the fingers, it revolutionized the relationship between the cookie and the log-in, it probably knocked a whole class of recommendation technology startups that don't offer built-in distribution to 400 million people right out of the market. It popularized social bookmarking and made subscribing to feeds around the web easier than ever before. And it may have created the biggest disruption to web traffic analytics in years: demographically verified visitor stats tied to peoples' real identities . There was so much big news that the analytics part didn't even come up in the keynote. This is so much new technology and it's tied in so closely with one very powerful company that there is big reason to stop and consider the possible implications. There are reasons to be scared. The bargain Facebook offers is very, very compelling - but it's not a clear win for the web. Sponsor We won't go into all the details in this post. You can read our blow-by-blow in our live blog , other coverage on Techmeme and discussion of particular developments here on ReadWriteWeb throughout the day. I just want to talk about one overriding concern. This is why Facebook did a 180 degree shift on privacy last December : because it wanted to use that formerly private user data to make the web social. Privacy remains a major concern in the new scenario, but it also got a couple of nods in the use of iFrames on 3rd party sites and the big support for the OAuth password-free log-in system. Semantic web developers are liable to be concerned that decades of their work is being ignored, but Facebook's Open Graph Protocol sure seems intended to be respectful of prior art. Shelley Powers calls it "a bit of a rough start, but it's a start." Centralization is a dangerous thing and Facebook is a young company that's proven willing to break its contract with users in the past. Data portability advocates will find it difficult to argue with the fact that Facebook users can now export their data to an off-site developer's cache and thus potentially to another social network. That said, Gnip 's Eric Marcoullier has begun the conversation with Tweets today like "By 'Open,' Zuck means he is open to taking all your data and not giving anything back." At first blush, it's hard from a user's perspective to find anything to criticize Facebook for in today's announcements. Those criticisms will no doubt start to form once people wrap their heads around all the particulars. On principal, though, there's going to be so much more Facebook around the internet that it feels like a real cause for concern. Centralization is a dangerous thing and Facebook is a young company that's proven willing to break its contract with users in the past (see Facebook's Privacy Move Violates Contract With Users ). For hundreds of millions of people, Facebook already was the internet . That's liable to be even more true in the future, thanks to the changes announced today. For all intents and purposes, when it comes to social networks, there is no other option for most people. That's a very vulnerable place for the web to be. Discuss

f43884081ek tc50.jpg Is the New Facebook a Deal With the Devil?

Continued here:
Is the New Facebook a Deal With the Devil?

90% of Content on Google Buzz is Bots, Report Finds

Posted on April 20th, 2010 in Social Media | Comments Off

Less than 10 weeks after launching, Google Buzz seems so far to have fallen short of capturing the hearts and minds of the social web. A new report from social media analytics service PostRank has found that 90% of the content published into Buzz is automated: 63% is piped in from Twitter and 27% is from automated RSS feeds. So does that mean that nobody participates in Buzz? It's hard to imagine more premium placement for a service than inside every Gmail inbox, so why hasn't Buzz caught on? To be fair, it's hard for any service to compete with the volume of imported Tweets and easily added RSS feeds. The fact that 10% of content published is added manually might even be seen as an early success... maybe. Sponsor Of course the best part of Buzz is the conversations in comments. In my stream at least, I see some amount of conversation but it's dominated by a few uber-geeks: people who loved FriendFeed before it was acquired by Facebook. The whole Buzz model looks a lot like Facebook does these days, in fact. It doesn't do much else for users, and there are fewer people being social there. Why use Buzz when your friends are on Facebook? Perhaps that's the question and why Buzz hasn't caught on. We're excited in principle about Buzz because of its potentially disruptive support for open data standards . Apparently it's mostly robots who get excited about such things, though, as they are mostly the ones coming to the party so far. There are some hardcore Buzz users discussing this... over on Buzz, too . If you do use Buzz, you can be our friend here . We never post automated content there. Discuss

1d1e4fc760logo2.jpg 90% of Content on Google Buzz is Bots, Report Finds

The rest is here:
90% of Content on Google Buzz is Bots, Report Finds

What Twitter Annotations Mean

Posted on April 19th, 2010 in Social Media | Comments Off

I love to sit on the beach.  One of the coolest things about the beach is the number of layers of visual depth.  Look at the sand and it's beautiful, but zoom your eyes in closer and you'll see a whole layer of life running around on the sand that you didn't see before.  Look even closer and you can see individual grains of sand, water and light dancing between them.  Look closer still and you see that each grain of sand is a unique object with its own texture.  If your eyes are strong enough, or you have a machine to help you, you can see even more layers by looking closer still. That's what Twitter is going to be like with the launch of Twitter Annotations this Summer. It's a beautiful vision, with huge potential, but there's another way to look at this analogy: you don't build on the beach sand because it shifts too much. Will Annotations live up to its incredible promise? Sponsor What Annotations Are Last week Twitter announced a forthcoming feature called Twitter Annotations: it's a system for almost any metadata to be connected to any Twitter message when it's published. Inside every Tweet is now a space where you could put or find anything, including links out to further instructions or larger bodies of information. That's always been the case with the 140 characters of content - but now we're talking about systematic metadata intended for machines, to augment the content. The idea is dripping with potential, but also some risk. Isn't much of life's meaning found in the play between limits and the infinite? Twitter has been considering adding Annotations for at least two years, according to Platform Team member Raffi Krikorian. That's a relatively large portion of the company's young life. Every time a new bit of metadata was added to Tweets, like geolocation information was last Fall, the company would ask itself "should we be doing this, or should we just open up the platform for and and all metadata?" Now the company has decided to do just that. Twitter publishing tools can now add a description to any tweet their users publish, not as a part of the 140 character message, but as a small machine-readable metadata field that travels along with the content. What might this look like? We could see Annotations fields like: Link to a media file, like podcast enclosures, photos linked to, etc. Context about the Tweet like where was the author when it was published, maybe what the weather was like there at the time. Your Twitter publishing interface could offer you a special option to write reviews of movies, books, or links you're sharing. The ISBN of the book, a link to a preview of the movie and the number of stars in your rating could be included in the Tweet Annotations. Any way you can classify, describe, append or otherwise enrich a Tweet with words or numbers can be included in Annotations. You Tweet, you (or more likely your Twitter app) attach a characteristic or quality, you define the characteristic and then you provide a value of how or what that Tweet did relative to the quality being referenced. Twitter clients like Seesmic, Tweetdeck and more will make it easy for users to add these annotations. Yes, this is meaningful in large part because of the 140 character limit on Twitter messages themselves, but isn't much of life's meaning found in the play between limits and the infinite? From Annotations Come Analysis Annotating a single Tweet is uninteresting, it's when you hit the Twitter databases and gather together all the Tweets that share a characteristic that things get exciting. When those selected Tweets can then be cross-referenced with other sets of data from outside Twitter - that's when the word fecund starts feeling inadequate. Show me all the Tweets from my friends that have links to music and play me those songs. Twitter clients like Seesmic, Tweetdeck and others are going to make viewing that kind of data a whole lot easier. Tweetmeme's Nick Halstead believes that Annotations will be used most extensively to communicate webhooks, links to instructions for a Twitter client to follow. He thinks it will enable game play and help Twitter start acquiring more users again. "Because of the size of the data you can put in the annotations, I think people will come up with links to offsite resources. Seesmic is building their own platform for Windows to support plug-ins, but this reaches much further, but this lets Twitter clients augment a tweet with other services. Sf you were Stocktweets, you could attach a link in the namespace that's in stocktweets, Seesmic could follow that link back to Stocktweets and ask it how to render it. So you could put a chart and any other associated information. It's like FBML [Facebook Markup Language], the ability to embed applications inside the Twitter clients. Maybe threaded conversations. A game of Scrabble where the link points at a currently rendered scrabble board, so other people could look at the board and join in playing it. Annotations and webhooks would allow gaming to start happening on Twitter." Halstead believes an Alpha version of Annotations could be made available to developers in a month. How about showing me all the Tweets from anyone that are referencing the President of the United States (subject: POTUS?), analyze the sentiment in the messages, show me where those Twitter users were located and tell me how those local sentiments change over time. Send me an alert when one of those starts to shift radically. Show me all the Tweets by people in their 20's and in their 50's (imagine an author age tag in Annotations, why not?), living near the site of a disastrous event. How do those discussions differ? There are all kinds of interesting questions that could be tackled when the developer world's imagination runs wild on the terms of description applied to our messages. Of course it will be tempting to draw all kinds of conclusions from this rich data. We'll surely be able to draw a whole lot of value from it. "You can learn something from almost anything," Big Data cruncher and 80Legs CEO Shion Deysarkar says. "Just give me enough data, I'll figure out something." But let's keep in mind the words of social network scientist danah boyd, who wrote the following on her blog this morning: Time and time again, I see computational scientists mistake behavioral traces for cultural logic...Big Data creates tremendous opportunities for those who know how to assess the context of the data and ask the right questions into it. But mucking with Big Data alone is not research. And seeing patterns in Big Data is not the same as hypothesis testing. Patterns invite more questions than they answer. Tweet Power Politics Twitter's Krikorian says the site will probably list "trending annotations" just like it lists trending topics today. There will probably be a wiki where anyone can find out what namespaces are being used for what purposes. Really though, the classification system is going to be determined by the market. That's something that worries a lot of people. "People who believe in building standards are conerned about our blase attitude about how we want to run annotations," Krikorian says. He believes that the developer community will work things out for itself, just as it has in the past. "There has been a lot of emergent behavior around how to relate to tweets anyway, without our imposing much structure around it. The Twitter platform is continuously evolving - the developers will figure it out. Twitter developers iterate in public." That's likely to be cold comfort for people focused on the power of structured data standards. Many people are calling for Twitter to embrace the well-built efforts of the Semantic Web community. Krikorian says that 90% of Twitter developers don't know what the Semantic Web is but that there's certainly room for standards lovers to work within the Annotations scheme. It's not just about standards, either. "We need serious consideration from folks who know their stuff before we create a convention," says Teresa Boze , who suggested the American Society of Indexers in particular. It's hard to think that creating a giant living library without consulting some librarians is a good idea. The absence of standard terminology could really be a problem. Annotations can't be changed retroactively, either. Krikorian says that major players will dominate the obvious use cases for Annotations and the company will monitor and highlight really innovative Annotations developed by people on the margins. We'll see how well that will work. Imagination will make the sky the limit for this publishing platform used easily by more than 100 million people around the world. But a shortage of forethought, planning and agreed-upon standards may bring that platform's aspirations back down to earth quickly in the future. Time will tell. Discuss

7605062756Jan 09.png What Twitter Annotations Mean

Read this article:
What Twitter Annotations Mean

Are VC Investments Getting in Shape for Summer?

Posted on April 19th, 2010 in Social Media | Comments Off

When looking to start a potentially venture-backed company, it's important to check the numbers to see if VCs are more or less likely to invest their funds. Back in January, we proposed that venture capitalist investments could see a bump in early 2010 thanks to increased fund raising at the end of last year. New data from the National Venture Capital Association , however, shows that in the first quarter of this year, VC investment has been modest at best, dropping slightly from the previous quarter, but starting stronger than 2009. Sponsor In a report completed in cooperation with Thompson Reuters, MoneyTree and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), the NVCA reported last week that $4.7 billion was invested in 681 deals by venture capitalists in Q1 2010, falling 9% and 18% respectively from the final quarter of 2009. The dip in activity is, however, still a stronger start to the year from last year when just $3.4 billion was invested in 635 deals. Though activity dropped from last quarter, the average deal size grew $650,000 from $6.25 million per deal in Q4 2009, to $6.9 million per deal this year. NVCA president Mark Heesen says the first quarter data "bodes well for the remainder of the year," but still sees a slow and steady climb is in the near future of the VC community. "With health care reform passed and an improving exit market, we are expecting venture investment to increase moderately throughout the rest of 2010," says Heesen. "However, we still anticipate investment levels to mirror that of the mid-1990's as many venture firms will be focused on fundraising this year." It seems the VCs were more careful and more focused with their investments this quarter. Less money was spent, but more money went into each investment. A looming consolidation of VC firms is likely creating a scenario in which the investors want to exercise more caution than usual as to avoid spreading themselves thin and collapsing. While our January prediction didn't completely come to fruition, the VC investment scene certainly took a baby-step forward toward a brighter future. Just as it is much easier to gain weight than it is to lose it, the VC community is quick to drop investment spending and slow to bring it back. So like someone trying to shed some pounds to fit into their swimsuit this summer, slow and steady will likely win this race as venture investments crawl out of their economic slump. After the dot-com bust in 2000 and 2001, it took until the end of 2007 for VC investments to return to "normal" (only to fall again with the recent recession). So riding the boom and bust cycle, it looks like we could be in for another slow and steady climb over the next 6 to 8 years (so yank all your stocks around 2016). Previous first quarter data from 2010 has been hitting extremes, as we saw the slowest opening quarter for VC fund raising in 17 years, as well as record high M&A numbers . This data, on the other hand, splits the difference of the extremes and is a modest dip. For those entrepreneurs champing at the bit to found a startup, now may as good a time as ever to go out and seek venture funding as VCs will likely be less selective and less cautious over the course of the year. Discuss

caution sign Are VC Investments Getting in Shape for Summer?

Read the original post:
Are VC Investments Getting in Shape for Summer?

Is the Freemium Model (Still) Viable for Startups?

Posted on April 16th, 2010 in Social Media | Comments Off

In an email to staff yesterday, new Ning CEO Jason Rosenthal wrote that "When I became CEO 30 days ago, I told you I would take a hard look at our business. This process has brought real clarity to what's working, what's not, and what we need to do now to make Ning a big success." With that, he announced Ning would be abandoning its longstanding business model and discontinuing non-paying sites on its network. In light of this, is it time to reevaluate and reign in some of the excitement about the freemium model for startups? Sponsor Offering free services for a product alongside premium fees for advanced or special features - the freemium - has been touted as a promising business model for startups for several years now: "Give your service away for free, possibly ad supported but maybe not, acquire a lot of customers very efficiently through word of mouth, referral networks, organic search marketing, etc, then offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base." The Freemium Summit in San Francisco last month featured many companies who've been able to leverage the freemium model to great success, including Evernote , Pandora , and Dropbox . A recent New York Times article predicts Pandora could reach $100 million in revenue this year. Finding the balance between what to offer for free and what to charge for is not easy. The trick is to put enough in the free version to get traffic and usage, but not so much that there is no incentive to upgrade. Companies who use the freemium model need to integrate their free service or product into someone's routine so fully (either by making sure it's accessible on their computer and on their mobile phone, for example) that users reach the point where they feel they simply must pay. In yesterday's press release , Ning noted that 75% of its users do pay for some sort of premium service. It may well be then that Ning's announcements are less a reflection on the freemium model than on the company itself. Despite over $120 million in VC funding, Ning has been unable to develop a sustainable business. Yesterday's announcement about the end to free Nings was accompanied with news that 40% of their staff would lose their jobs - an indication perhaps that the company's overhead was simply too high. Nevertheless, the news may serve as a cautionary tale for those startups who think the freemium model guarantees success. As David Heinemeier Hansson wrote in a post on 37signals , "Eyeballs Still Don't Pay the Bills." It remains to be seen if Ning can pull through this reorganization and turn a profit, or if they will also serve as a lesson on what happens when a business that's used the freemium model dumps all those "freeloaders." Discuss

freemium sticker mar10 Is the Freemium Model (Still) Viable for Startups?

Read more:
Is the Freemium Model (Still) Viable for Startups?