Facebook Category Archives
купля-продажа
20 October 2010 | Amazon, Economics, Facebook, Google, The Great Game, Twitter | No Comments
еще немного — вот очевидное о партнерстве:
Memo to Twitter: with search, do not grow a brain. Partner with the best at Google and Microsoft (see Facebook-Bing), and you’ll get great AdSense, AdWords, display ads, and mobile ads without having to run all the infrastructure—and manage all the people!—to do it. They should be willing to give you 70% of the revenues now that you’re doing a billion searches a day.
или, с другой стороны:
Here’s my simple reasoning for why Google won’t buy Twitter: Twitter won’t sell.
<...>
But there’s another reason Google won’t buy Twitter, and it’s this: Google is learning to be patient. Twitter is a big deal, but if you accept it as part of an emerging landscape, there’s no reason you need to own it. Given Twitter’s natural competitive positioning against Facebook, Google can partner with the emerging service in ways that provide both companies advantage against a shared enemy.
натурально, еще одна Большая игра. а что за игры без денег?
But when I brainstormed the map, I always wanted one feature that was a bit difficult to execute: Acquisition Mode.
ну да, сыграем-ка в Монополию:
So if you think it’s a good idea for Twitter to acquire, say, Foursquare, well, suggest it. And see who might vote for it. If you run a startup, hell, tell us who you want to be acquired by – and if you think you’re the acquirer, so much the better. Tell us that as well.
So far, folks think Amazon should acquire Netflix, Facebook should acquire Zynga, and eBay should acquire Yelp, among many others. Check it out, and suggest your own.
I love the web.
увлеченья
20 October 2010 | Economics, Facebook, Internet, Twitter | No Comments
прекрасная статья о том, насколько сильно Twitter недоценен, и чем этот сервис отличается от Facebook:
Facebook has utterly dominated the definition of the “social graph” to the point that conventional wisdom in Silicon Valley says that they have “already won social.” Few analysts seem to notice that the particular definition of “social graph” promulgated by Facebook—people you already know in real life—is not the only possible social graph. In fact, Facebook’s future revenue will actually be built on top of another social graph: the social interest graph, aka Pages & Likes.
An interest graph differs from the “people you know in real life” social graph in that it is:
- Built on one-way following rather than two-way friending
- Organized around shared interests, not personal relationships
- Public by default, not private by default
- Aspirational: not who you were in the past or even who you are, but who you want to be
ровно так все и есть: один social graph нисходит вниз, к своему прошлому, к тем, кого знаешь лично и их интересам, — другой же, напротив, идет вперед, к тому, что тебе интересно, и, через это, к тем, с кем хочешь общаться (ага-ага).
и дальше будет только еще больше занимательнее:
But Twitter is in theory even better positioned than Facebook to capitalize on the social interest graph. Its keys components are:
- The composition of the social graph
- The value of the data flowing through it
- The volume of the data
но растет все, да, именно отсюда:
Twitter makes me like people I’ve never met and Facebook makes me hate people I know in real life.
барыши и стратегии
19 October 2010 | Apple, Economics, Facebook | 3 Comments
итак, вчера Apple обьявилa впечатляющие финансовые результаты за третий квартал: более 20 миллиардов дохода и 4.31 миллиарда чистой выручки.
и хотя там много занимательной статистики[1], меня, однако, заинтересовало больше другое:
Q: Why not return some of your cash to shareholders?
Jobs: We strongly believe that one or more very strategic opportunities may come along, that we are in a unique position to take advantage of because of our strong cash position.
после чего тут же началось ожидаемое:
It’s hard not to read or hear that quote and not think that he’s thinking about some very big buys. Like what?
A lot of folks will assume that Jobs is talking about buying a big content producer. Music doesn’t make any sense, because there’s little value left in that business. But if Jobs wants to make headway in the TV business, perhaps it makes sense for him to snag a big broadcaster or programmer to give him the leverage he needs with the Comcasts, Viacoms and Time Warners of the world.
Or you could make the same argument for other content makers, like game studios.
<...>
Or perhaps it makes zero sense for Apple to be in the content business, because it’s done just fine not being in the content business to date.
поэтому, очевидно, так и хочется упомянуть Facebook:
It’s a company that has yet to compete with or brush up against Apple in any significant way. And it’s one that Apple seems unlikely to be able to move aside, even if it wanted to. And it’s one that’s already competing directly with Google, which has to make Jobs like it even more.
понятное дело, что деньги есть (Facebook по разным оценкам может стоить от 20 до 35 миллиардов), но зачем тогда полтора месяца назад запускать Ping, а затем всячески улаживать возникающие проблемы?
далее, такая покупка серьезно отвлечет Apple от их основного бизнеса: они продают не контент, но устройства для его потребления и создания. поэтому вызывает серьезные опасения, сможет ли компания и дальше так же плодотворно работать на теперь уже столь разных фронтах?
кроме того, если говорить о Facebook, то сейчас, когда основные игроки давно уже определились, Марку Зукербергу было бы глупо уходить с одной из ведущих позиций — завтра это место будет стоить еще больше.
а значит, если говорить о возможных покупках, то я бы ставил все же на что-то исключительно технологичное — то, что можно будет использовать либо в программном обеспечении, либо (что вероятнее) в производстве. иными словами, все, что угодно, начиная с интернет-радио (кто упомянул Pandora?) и заканчивая мобильными операторами[2].
—
[1] — например:
Apple sold 3.89 million Macs during the quarter, a 27 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter.
<...>
The Company also sold 4.19 million iPads during the quarter.
<...>
iPhone sales of 14.1 million were up 91 percent year-over-year, handily beating the 12.1 million phones RIM sold in their most recent quarter.
[2] — я бы добавил та же дальнейшие инвестиции в рынок мобильной рекламы, например, производство батарей, заводы Foxconn, и так далее — но это просто слишком скучно и won’t click, как сказал когда-то сам Джобс.
вещи и люди нас окружают
8 September 2010 | Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Technology | 1 Comment
в общем, как и было предсказано — это лишь вопрос времени:
Music has always been social. It starts both friendships and arguments, and is a huge piece of everyone’s identity. When you think about it this way, Ping seems like something that should have happened years ago. It’s already a “can’t remember life before it” feature.
<...>
I’m already buying more music. I shudder to think what will happen once we have Ping for books and apps[1].
у Амазона, кстати, уже есть зачатки подобной социальности, так что я бы поторопился:
Was there any urgency? Hasn’t iTunes been just fine as-is? Yes, but it had pretty much run out of tricks. I suspect someone at Apple finally realized how lucky they are that Facebook hasn’t started selling music yet. 500 million connected users talking constantly about what they do and don’t like, even “Liking” official band pages and sharing videos. The only missing piece is commerce. Is Ping a threat to Facebook? Not really. But Facebook Music would be a massive threat to iTunes.
—
[1] — emphasis mine.
мой инвентарь
16 July 2010 | Apple, Facebook, Google, Internet, Lifeform, The Great Game | 1 Comment
несмотря на то, что Google Buzz, кажется, начинает в конце концов работать[1], понятно все же, что ничего, кроме очередного провала, он создателям не принес. как и все предыдущие социальные проекты Google. как и Lively. как и Orkut. как и Wave. как и что-нибудь еще.
скорее всего, случилось это по целому ряду причин, зачастую, возможно, даже противоложных друг другу. интересны, впрочем, не отдельные какие-то аспекты, но срез вцелом: почему большие игроки провалились на рынке социальных услуг?
What’s the main difference between successful Google applications (search, maps, news, email) and a successful social applications? With Google applications we return to the app to do something specific and then go on to something else, whereas great social applications are designed to lure us back and make us never want to leave.
натурально, так оно и есть:
Consider this example: Google Answers focused on answers and failed; Yahoo! Answers focused on social and succeeded. The primary purpose of a social application is connecting with others, seeing what they’re up to, and maybe even having some small, fun interactions that though not utilitarian are entertaining and help us connect with our own humanity. Google apps are for working and getting things done; social apps are for interacting and having fun.
хорошая статья, в общем. собственно, во многом именно поэтому я и не использую Facebook. а количество тех, за кем пытаюсь следить в Twitter, застряло на 12 — и никакой социальной цепи мы не создаем, поскольку вращаемся по разным орбитам, и, следовательно, непрерывно свободны.
но кроме разницы в целях, налицо, как пишет Адам Рифкин, так же разница в подходах:
Social apps are whimsical and fun; Google apps are whittled and functional.
и вот как раз отголоски этих различий можно увидеть не только на примере социальных задач, но куда шире. скажем, прошлогоднее наблюдение о дизайне:
Without a person at (or near) the helm who thoroughly understands the principles and elements of Design, a company eventually runs out of reasons for design decisions. With every new design decision, critics cry foul. Without conviction, doubt creeps in. Instincts fail. “Is this the right move?” When a company is filled with engineers, it turns to engineering to solve problems. Reduce each decision to a simple logic problem. Remove all subjectivity and just look at the data. Data in your favor? Ok, launch it. Data shows negative effects? Back to the drawing board. And that data eventually becomes a crutch for every decision, paralyzing the company and preventing it from making any daring design decisions.
или свежевыпущенный App Inventor для Android:
I won’t even begin to argue about whether App Inventor’s UI components are as elegant as Cocoa’s. They aren’t. But Google has taken another direction altogether: the user’s experience isn’t going to be perfect, but the user’s experience will be the experience he or she wants.
замечательная платформа — там же, сразу в рекламном ролике и видно, что на самом деле хочет пользователь. но как бы ни было, Google в самом деле старается решать пользовательские задачи.
однако, многие ли понимают разницу между обычным молтоком, киянкой и скальным? да что там, хотя бы между столярным и геологическим? кто знает об инструментах и разбирается в них, кроме специалистов? хочет ли корпорация и дальше оставаться зажатой в своей нише? или все-таки стремится стать чем-то еще?
им решать.
—
[1] — как выяснилось, я погорячился. он все так же с пятого на десятое, как и раньше.
непутевые заметки
23 June 2010 | Facebook, Geography, Google, Internet, Privacy, Security, Software | No Comments
уже писал мельком о Google Latitude, и жизнь, как оказалось, не стоит на месте:
Right now, what people share on Facebook is usually pretty tame: a status update, photo, a link, a video, an action in an app. The ones with the greatest potential to creep people out are the geo-specific ones, which probably explains why Facebook is taking its sweet time to roll out its own geo features like geo-tagged updates and photos. If you think the current uproar over Facebook privacy is bad, wait until Facebook embraces location-based apps in a big way.
на любой вкус и цвет:
When it comes to geo-privacy there are two extremes. Foursquare makes you explicitly check into each place where you want to share your location. That is good for privacy—you only have yourself to blame if you broadcast your location from the strip club—but it makes using the application a bit of a chore.
<...>
On the other end of the spectrum is Google Latitude, which constantly broadcasts your location everywhere you go, but only to people you allow to see it and only at the level of detail you are comfortable with (by city or general neighborhood, for instance). Latitude is a set it and forget it model.
хотелось бы, однако, чуть иначе:
Somewhere in between the concept of the explicit check-in and constant geo-tracking is the notion of geo-fences. The idea is that you would basically draw fences around neighborhoods or other locations from where you want to broadcast where you are and places where you don’t. So maybe anytime you travel a certain distance from your home or office, the geo-sharing could begin.
или вот так:
Drawing geo-fences is still a lot of work. What would be more helpful, perhaps, would be the ability to tell an application to broadcast your location anytime you are in a public space—a restaurant, a park, a bar, a conference.
как бы там ни было, потенциал в любом случае огромен, игрушки получились замечательные. но вот что делать с безопастностью?
получился человечек
27 May 2010 | Facebook, Internet, Lifeform | No Comments
в одном былом фильме мелькала очевидная мысль:
When deep space exploration ramps up, it’ll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.
на самом деле все иначе — мы будем так называть не звезды или галактики, но самих себя:
So read recent updates on Blippy, a sort of Twitter for shopping that allows users to automatically broadcast what they bought using credit and debit cards to the rest of the world.
The founders of the network and rival site Swipely say the purpose is to reveal the stories behind America’s stuff and explore how much our purchases reflect our personalities. Are we Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts, Target or Wal-Mart, Payless or Prada?
“Part of it, for a lot of people, is simply: ‘I shop; therefore I am,’ ” said Paco Underhill, a consumer researcher and author of the books “What Women Want” and “Why We Buy.” “The ability to consume is part of what their identities are based on.”
определенно, еще одна часть личности, как ее видит Марк Зукерберг:
Five months after Blippy was publicly launched, its users share $1.5 million in transactions every week, and the company says that amount is growing rapidly. Members can give Blippy access to their credit and debit card accounts as well as 15 other online accounts, such as iTunes, Netflix or Amazon. The site compiles a history of purchases, some dating back several years, and automatically records new ones. Members can choose which purchases to make public on their profiles, but the site’s default setting is to share them all with the world.
Blippy co-founder Philip Kaplan calls this “passive sharing” because members don’t have to sign in to use the site; Blippy already knows what you’re doing with every swipe. And friends, or strangers, can join your network and watch your money leave your wallet.
тем более неудивительно, что именно Facebook когда-то нечто подобное уже пробовал:
Three years ago, Facebook experimented with a similar concept called Beacon. When members visited Web sites such as Blockbuster, Zappos and Overstock.com, it published alerts that sometimes ran alongside ads or a person’s photo. The move sparked outrage among users, prompting a petition drive by MoveOn.org and a class-action lawsuit. Facebook eventually axed the program and settled the suit for $9.5 million, which it promised to use to create a foundation to study privacy issues.
многообразие
23 May 2010 | Facebook, Internet, Lifeform | 2 Comments
еще одна пресыщенная цитатами запись об информации, что создает нас — недавно Марк Зукерберг сказал буквально следующее:
You have one identity. The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly. Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.
он целеустремленно смотрит вперед:
To get people to this point where there’s more openness — that’s a big challenge. But I think we’ll do it. I just think it will take time. The concept that the world will be better if you share more is something that’s pretty foreign to a lot of people and it runs into all these privacy concerns.
и вот почему:
Let me paint the two scenarios for you. They correspond to two companies in the Valley. It’s not completely this extreme, but they are on different sides of the spectrum. On the one hand you have Google, which primarily gets information by tracking stuff that’s going on. They call it crawling. They crawl the web and get information and bring it into their systems. They want to build maps, so they send around vans which literally go and take pictures of your home for their Street View system. And the way they collect and build profiles on people to do advertising is by tracking where you go on the Web, through cookies with DoubleClick and AdSense. That’s how they build a profile about what you’re interested in. Google is a great company, but you can see that taken to a logical extreme that’s a little scary.
On the other hand, we started the company saying there should be another way. If you allow people to share what they want and give them good tools to control what they’re sharing, you can get even more information shared. But think of all the things you share on Facebook that you wouldn’t want to share with everyone, right? You wouldn’t want these things to be crawled or indexed–like pictures from family vacations, your phone number, anything that happens on an intranet inside a company, or any kind of private message or e-mail. So a lot of stuff is getting more and more open, but there’s a lot of stuff that’s not open to everyone.
This is one of the most important problems for the next ten to twenty years. Given that the world is moving toward more sharing of information, making sure that it happens in a bottom-up way, with people inputting the information themselves and having control over how their information interacts with the system, as opposed to a centralized way, through it being tracked in some surveillance system. I think that’s critical for the world. That’s just a really important part of my personality, and what I care about.
однако, разве не меняем мы постоянно отображаение своей личности в той или иной ситуации? как и ситуации, в свою очередь, меняются непрерывно вокруг нас, подчеркивая или создавая те или иные (как открытые, так и закрытые) аспекты наших личностей:
Zuckerberg must have skipped that class where Jung and Goffman were discussed. Individuals are constantly managing and restricting flows of information based on the context they are in, switching between identities and persona. I present myself differently when I’m lecturing in the classroom compared to when I’m have a beer with friends. I might present a slightly different identity when I’m at a church meeting compared to when I’m at a football game. This is how we navigate the multiple and increasingly complex spheres of our lives. It is not that you pretend to be someone that you are not; rather, you turn the volume up on some aspects of your identity, and tone down others, all based on the particular context you find yourself.
придумаем вместе
22 May 2010 | Facebook, Lifeform, Literature | No Comments
а Нил Стивенсон, тем временем, снова играет в коллективные игры (но другими инструментами[1]):
The Mongoliad is a rip-roaring adventure tale set 1241, a pivotal year in history, when Europe thought that the Mongol Horde was about to completely destroy their world. The Mongoliad is also the beginning of an experiment in storytelling, technology, and community-driven creativity.
Our story begins with a serial novel of sorts, which we will release over the course of about a year. Neal Stephenson created the world in which The Mongoliad is set, and presides benevolently over it. Our first set of stories is being written by Neal, Greg Bear, Nicole Galland, Mark Teppo, and a number of other authors; we’re also working closely with artists, fight choreographers & other martial artists, programmers, film-makers, game designers, and a bunch of other folks to produce an ongoing stream of nontextual, para-narrative, and extra-narrative stuff which we think brings the story to life in ways that are pleasingly unique, and which can’t be done in any single medium.
Very shortly, once The Mongoliad has developed some mass and momentum, we will be asking fans to join us in creating the rest of the world and telling new stories in it. That’s where the real experiment part comes in. We are building some pretty cool tech to make that easy and fun, and we hope lots of you will use it.
People will be able to get The Mongoliad over the web and via custom clients for mobile devices – we’re going to start out with iPad, iPhone, Android, and Kindle apps, and will probably do more in the not too distant future.
Stay tuned. Fun stuff coming!
via.
—
[1] — как и в какой-то мере раньше, когда на месте metaweb.com была посвященная “Криптономикону” и “Барочному циклу” wiki.
выдали с головой
21 May 2010 | Facebook, Privacy, Security | No Comments
All the items you list as things you like must become public and linked to public profile pages. If you don’t want them linked and made public, then you don’t get them — though Facebook nicely hangs onto them in its database in order to let advertisers target you.
так и оказалось на самом деле:
Facebook, MySpace and several other social-networking sites have been sending data to advertising companies that could be used to find consumers’ names and other personal details, despite promises they don’t share such information without consent.