Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Facebook and Families

Family use of social media can be problematic

As the Internet has become a normal part of our family lives, social media services like Facebook are becoming important in the way people, particularly our kids, socialise and communicate.

Most of this web use is positive however there are risks with these online tools so we do need to know how to manage social media services and reduce any problems we may have in our families and businesses.

Understand the risks

Facebook is an online service and all web based platforms share the same risks such as stranger danger, bullying, fraud and offensive behaviour – both kids and adults need to understand the risks.

A good start is sitting down with younger kids and using some of the online resources available, the US Virginia Department of Education has a good interactive presentation on online safety.

For Australian specific content, the Federal government’s Cyber Smart website offers advice to families at all ages; from grandparents to kids.

Respect the rules

All online services have rules that govern behaviour, one of the most common is a restriction on under 13s. This is partly because of the US COPPA law that restricts websites and social media services from advertising to children.

Of the other rules that can cause problems Facebook has bans on hate speech and an almost pathological obsession with nudity. It pay to read the terms and conditions so you know what is acceptable.

Under 13s should not use Facebook

While for many kids Facebook is the way to talk to their friends online, parents should resist the pressure to sign their kids up until they are of the legal age.

Regardless of what you think of the rules, many kids don’t have the maturity of to understand or deal with the issues of using social media sites. For that matter, neither do many adults.

Should Facebook find out that an account is owned by a child under 13, they will shut it down immediately.

Choose your friends carefully

Everybody – kids and adults – should be cautious about friends they make online. Just accepting friend requests from anybody, or from those who look cute or cool, can lead to problems later.

Set your privacy

In Facebook you should set your default privacy settings to “Friends”. You can do this by clicking the arrow pointing down in the top right hand corner of the Facebook screen and selecting privacy.

Having set your default privacy settings to Friends, you may want to further improve your privacy by continuing down the privacy screen and selecting functions like not allowing friends to post to your Facebook wall.

Be careful what you like

Liking products and pages can have consequences, at the very least others know what causes you’ve joined.

Joining hate or bullying campaigns or pages is not a good look, so don’t do it if you think you may upset people around you.

You are what you post

Anything you put online is in writing against your name. If it’s going to upset people or cause trouble then don’t do it.

In the United States one teenager found this out the hard way when her father discovered a Facebook post criticising him and her mother. He shot her laptop and then posted the video onto her Facebook page.

Practice Safe Computing

Services do get hijacked, so have strong passwords, up to date virus checkers and make sure the computer is fully up to date with security patches.

Never share passwords with friends or siblings and use different passwords on each service so if Minecraft gets compromised, Facebook or email doesnt’ as well.

Put computers in common areas

Kids’ computers should be in common areas and use of any Internet enabled devices like iPods and mobile phones in places like bedrooms should be strongly discouraged.

Be open to talking

If anyone in your family seems to have a problem with computer use such as getting upset, socially withdrawal or acting unusually then talk to them. This happens with adults as well.

One thing to remember is that punishing people, particularly kids, rarely works well with these technologies so it’s best to make it clear they won’t be in trouble if they come to you with a problem they are having on the net.

It’s not just kids

We have to remember its not just kids who get into trouble online, there’s no shortage of adults who have created problems for themselves and their families through irresponsible online behaviour. So parents need to watch their own social media usage as well.

Should someone in your family be having a problem, then don’t hesitate to talk to the school, employer or Internet provider if there’s issues that need to be addressed.

There’s lot of online services services and resources such as Cybersafe listed above. Also don’t hesitate to call any support lines such as Lifeline or Beyond Blue if you are seriously concerned about a family member’s wellbeing.

On balance, the web and social media are positive influences on most people’s lives so by using commonsense and playing safely, the majority of families will avoid the really terrible stories we hear about online problems.

Paying the piper – the cost of the internet’s walled gardens

The web’s walled gardens have a real business cost

With the web increasingly dominated by four major, and many minor, fiefdoms the cost of being part of those groups is gradually becoming clear.

As part of Facebook filings in advance of their public float they published the key agreements with their developer partners including that with games provider Zygna, technology journalist Tom Foremski has a disturbing look at Facebook’s conditions that illustrate the costs and risks.

In terms of the costs, Tom identifies Clause 2.1 of Facebook’s “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” – shown as Annex 1 in the Developers as probably the biggest price for all content creators;

… you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

So by sharing something on Facebook, you grant Facebook the right to do what they like with what you’ve created. That’s something worth thinking about.

For anybody trying to make a living off Facebook, it’s important to consider they also retain the right to throw you off the service at any time. From clause 4.10 of the Statement Of Rights Annex;

If you select a username for your account we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user’s actual name).

So get into a trademark dispute with a big corporation – and often their lawyers cast a very wide net on potential similar spellings – and your account is shut down.

There’s also the specifics of the Zynga agreement that should concern anyone investing in the games company. Right at the beginning of the agreement we see this clause;

The parties further acknowledge that Zynga is making a significant commitment to the Facebook Platform (i.e., using Facebook as the exclusive Social Platform on the Zynga Properties and granting FB certain title exclusivities to Zynga games on the Facebook Platform). In exchange for such commitment, [*] the parties have committed to set certain growth targets for monthly unique users of Covered Zynga Games.

So Zynga is closely tied into the fortunes of Facebook, we knew that on a business level but now we know just how deep and binding the agreements are.

We should be clear, all the major social media and online services have similar clauses on intellectual property and copyright infringements; there’s no shortage of businesses who’ve been caught out by eBay or Paypal and plenty of people found their Google accounts shut down by their obsession with real names.

For all businesses the message is clear – be careful before committing totally to one online platform or another. Should you end up in a dispute, or find you’ve backed the wrong service, it may be a very costly process to get your company off that platform.

ABC Nightlife: Explaining the National Broadband Network

What does the NBN mean for Australian households and businesses?

For the February 2012 Nightlife technology spot Tony and Paul looked at Australia’s National Broadband Network, exploring the pros and cons of the project designed to connect all Australians to high speed broadband.

So what is the NBN and what does it do? Here’s some of the points we discussed along with some of the answers to listeners’ questions.

What is the NBN?

The National Broadband Network is intended replace the existing copper wire telephone network that was rolled out across the nation over the Twentieth century.

Eventually the network will provide fast data access across the country replacing the older network that was designed for telephone calls rather than computer communications.

Most of the country will be connected to fibre optic cables and areas where this is too expensive then wireless or satellite services will be used.

Why do we need a government run national network?

The NBN is the culmination of three decades of bad policy out of Canberra. We should remember that the Howard government struggled with how to provide high speed broadband access to the bush.

For coalition things became particularly bad once they privatised Telstra and no longer had any power over the company’s policies.

We’ve had a mix of ideological beliefs and rubbery figures from both sides of politics which have left Australia in the situation where the core telecoms network has had to be re-nationalised.

What are these different ways of connecting up?

The biggest part of the network will be fibre optic cable where the connection will run along the street like the existing telephone wires and will connect to a box outside your home or office.

This box – know as an NTD (Network Terminating Device) is then connected into either the existing household telephone system or into a computer network.

In areas receiving wireless and satellite subscribers will get dishes or receivers that plug into their existing home telephone or computer network.

There are different types of wireless

The different types of wireless networks cause confusion. The NBN is going to use 4G or LTE telephone wireless, which is what Telstra have started to roll out and Optus will be starting in the Hunter Valley around Easter 2012.

Most of us are using 3G networks on our phones which is what the bulk of the mobile phone networks are.

Another type of wireless is the Wireless Local Area Network. These are what we connect our home or office computers to. These plug into the existing services like the existing ADSL internet connections or the NBN’s fibre network.

We shouldn’t confuse Wireless LANs with the mobile phone technologies being used by the NBN or phone companies.

Who is running the NBN?

The organisation set up to build the NBN is NBNCo. They are setting the standards, negotiating access to existing infrastructure and building the network. Their head office is in North Sydney but major operations are also based in Melbourne.

In turn they are hiring contractors around the country to build the network, run the cables and connect buildings to the new services. Most of us will deal with those contractors and the companies selling NBNCo’s services.

How is National Broadband Network going to work?

We won’t talk to NBNCo directly, instead companies like Telstra, Optus, Vodafone and iiNet will buy services from them and then onsell them to us.

Telstra are playing an interesting game on competing. They are already offering 4G services in regional areas where NBNCo hasn’t announced rollouts and they are planning to upgrade their cable TV network to the DOCSIS 3.0 standard that can sometimes deliver speeds similar to the NBNs proposed service.

What happens if you don’t let them connect you

If you don’t let NBNCo’s contractors connect you to the new network then you’ll have a problem a year or so later.

The copper telephone network is going to be turned off in areas where fibre optic cables are installed so if you aren’t connected to the new system, you won’t have access.

Anyone who’s done some building or landscaping work knows it isn’t cheap and that’s what building owners who don’t allow access will have to pay for access later.

In Tasmania a few property owners who were just outside the NBN area asked about getting connected up and apparently the costs were prohibitive.

One of the things to watch out for is uncooperative building managers preventing NBN contractors from accessing their premises leaving all the residents disconnected when the phone network is turned off.

Will it really cost $14,000 to wire up your house?

No but there will be a cost to connect the building’s existing phone lines and power supply to the NBN’s Network Terminal Device (NTD) that will be bolted to the outside of the building.

The NTDs are designed to plug into existing phone systems and data networks so it shouldn’t be necessary to spend a fortune on connections or upgrades.

One area where there might be problems is in buildings that have substandard wiring. Licensed electricians and cablers will refuse to work on systems that don’t comply with standards so building owners may find they are faced with big bills to bring their systems up to standard.

Does the system work if the power goes out?

Yes, the basic cabling doesn’t need power, although the repeaters and local exchanges will – just like the phone network. Where the system does need power is at the NTDs which will come with a battery providing two to three hours power.

If the NBN gets hit by lightning, does it stop working?

Lightning is an incredibly powerful force. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about telephones, power or fibre optic networks – anything that is hit by lightning is going to be damaged.

We should keep in mind that the wireless alternative to fibre is more prone to lightening strikes as base stations are at high points.

Electrical storms, and other natural forces, are a fact of life that we have to work around. The existing systems are just as prone to interruptions.

Is it running behind schedule?

Yes, as of the beginning of 2012 the project seems to be about six months behind. With only 4,000 connections at the end of last year instead of the 30,000 expected by the middle of last year.

NBNCo are putting this down to delays in finalising negotiations with Telstra and other existing fibre providers.

How much is it really going to cost?

There’s still the $43 billion dollar number on the table, which comes from a KPMG study in 2010 although the government claims their investment is going to $27 billion.

Of that 27 billion, the government expects to recoup it by 2034 based on a 7% return.

In contrast the opposition are claiming the real cost is $50 billion as they are including the cost of buying Telstra’s infrastructure back.

The real number is anyone’s guess. The track record of both political parties and Canberra’s bureaucrats on estimating costs on projects like this is less than impressive.

Is it really worth the money?

We should keep in mind a lot of this money was going to be spent by Telstra or the other providers anyway over the next two decades as the copper telephone reached the end of its life.

The risk was we would see something like the cable TV rollout where the big players fought over the most lucrative parts of the country and ignored the rest. The NBN avoids that.

There are real concerns though as the NBN is running behind schedule, the procurement processes – particularly the construction contracts – appear to have been poorly handled and there has been little discussion about the technology options.

Overall though, this is an opportunity to get the 21^st Century infrastructure right. Where Australia failed with the roads in the 20^th Century and the trains in the 19^th, we can get this one right.

The Internet Kool-Aide Machine

Don’t buy the hype when you read about the hot new product

Every few months, the web lights up with hype about the latest technology or website. For a few weeks, every tech conversation mentions this hot new product.

Almost always this hype is driven by the company in question duchessing a few key “opinion leaders” in the tech, social media or other circles. These folk start writing up this product and, if they are lucky, the stories get picked up by the broader media and the product becomes “hot.”

The aim is to find the greater fools, for the investors and founders of these business they want to cash out by selling the operation to a bigger entity.

When you read the hype about the latest user generated, online sharing social media service that’s growing at a remarkable rate be aware you’re actually seeing a pitch to a big company being framed along the lines that “you can’t afford to miss out.”

By all means sign up to the service to have a look but don’t buy the hype and remember you’re not the customer – the gullible big business manager looking for the next big thing is.

Image courtesy of Blary54 through sxh.hu

Why Dick Smith is wrong about overseas buyers

Foreign investors are desperately needed in Australian retail

Last week’s announcement that Woolworths will sell their Dick Smith chain of electronics stores wasn’t surprising and neither was the reaction of the chain’s founder to the idea of the business being sold to a foreign buyer.

For all his legitimate concerns about Woolworth’s growth model, Dick Smith is wrong about the sale of the stores. It’s almost essential for Australian consumers and business that the chain is sold to a foreign retailer.

When Dick sold his business to Woolworths in the early 1980s it was the beginning of a long consolidation process across Australian industry that now sees most business sectors dominated by duopolies or – at best – three or four incumbents.

In retail, the Coles and Woolworths duopoly dominates groceries, liquor and petrol. The power of these companies was illustrated yesterday with Coles’ announcement of price cuts to various greengrocery lines.

Having a new player enter the market is always an improvement; in neighbourhoods where foreign retailers like Costco and Aldi operate or where a keen, smaller operator decides to compete with the big boys the response is always better prices and service.

More importantly bringing in overseas owners will bring in fresh thinking and new ideas. New blood in the retail sector may even stem the brain drain where many young, innovative future business leaders are forced overseas because of the limited opportunities in the incumbent duopolies.

Where Dick is right is that the electronics retail business is dying as fat profits in the sector are a distant memory in what is now a tight margin, fast moving consumer goods industry. To make things worse, consumer electronics aren’t even fast moving in the post GFC economy.

Adding to the retailer’s pain the collapse in margins has happened at the same time commercial rents have risen dramatically with Sydney now being cited alongside Hong Kong, London and New York as the world’s costliest shopping strips.

While suburban shopping centres don’t have the same rents as the Pitt or Bourke Street Malls, they still have risen dramatically in the last decade, catching all retailers in a vice between rising costs and falling margins.

In order to maintain profits, training and staff development have been slashed. Once up a time, a customer would go to a Dick Smith or Harvey Norman store to get informed advice on the best gadget, those days are also long gone as poorly trained staff fight to sell the products with the best commissions.

Owners of the stores have made it harder to recruit and train motivated staff when employer consider hospitality and retail jobs to be temporary, low esteem positions with few prospects.

This deskilling isn’t just an issue for the retail industry – it’s something we’ve seen across the Australian economy in the last thirty years. As training and skills development has been seen as an unnecessary business cost.

Tourism Australia chairman Geoff Dixon’s recent comments about the Australian tourist industry having to accept being a high cost destination is a symptom of this disconnect. The local tourism industry has no chance of moving up the value chain when there is no service culture among staff and no long term management vision to develop one.

It would be unfair to just pick on any one individual or business for these problems. We have a structural problem in the Australian economy that’s fuelled by entrenched beliefs and habits of a stagnant senior managerial class.

We desperately need new people and ideas in Australian management to shake up the staid duopolies and oligopolies we’ve allowed to develop in the last three decades, that’s why Dick Smith is wrong to say a foreign owner for the electronics chain he founded would be bad for the country.

Image courtesy of Icelandit on SXC.hu

Book review: Endgame by John Mauldin

Life after the debt supercycle.

“There are no good choices – only bad ones” could sum up John Mauldin and Jonathan Tepper’s Endgame which looks at how our economies will evolve the end of the late 20^th Century debt “supercycle” that has driven the world economy for the last fifty years.

Endgame examines the choices that confront governments, societies, businesses and investors as the world economy adapts to the realities of the West’s aging populations and excessive debt levels.

Much of Endgame relies on This Time Is Different by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff which the examined eight centuries of financial crises. While Reinhart’s and Rogoff’s conclusions are that speculative bubbles driven by debt almost always result in a banking crisis and painful economic restructure, each episode does have unique characteristics.

In each case governments have three basic choices; reforming spending which is rare and maybe impossible given the debt levels in many nations, inflating debts away as Western governments have done since WWII or through outright defaults which have been associated with less developed nations.

As we see with the convulsions the European Union is currently going through and the massive support given to banks around the world since the 2008 banking crisis, the default option is the one which governments will avoid at all costs.

While the bulk of the book concentrates on the US, John does dedicate several chapters to the how the debt endgame will play out in other nations including Japan –“a bug in search of a windshield” – the UK, Eastern Europe and Australia, where he finds a massive property bubble that he believes could be the most spectacular endgame scenario of all.

The clear lesson from Endgame is the post World War II social compact of working taxpayers supporting the aged, the sick and unemployed is over and was only propped up the illusion of wealth generated by loose credit and financial engineering throughout the 1980s, 90s and early 2000s.

Some are hoping the Chinese economy can provide the global demand that was provided by US consumers. While Endgame doesn’t specifically look at this aspect, it’s unlikely China’s economy can do this.

With consumers and governments now exhausted by debt and at the limits of what they can spend, the assumptions that have driven the economy along with our investment and consumption patterns of the last fifty years no hold true.

Endgame is primarily a book for investors and John Mauldin’s emphasis is on where the safest investments will be in at the end of the debt supercycle. His view is it depends on whether governments choose to eliminate their national debts through deflation or inflation.

For business owners, wage earners and retirees this is an important question too and Endgame describes what the consequences for everyone are under either scenario.

The message of Endgame isn’t overwhelming negative; John Mauldin also looks at where the opportunities will lie after the credit endgame plays out. “We don’t know where the jobs will come from, but they will come” is another theme of the book.

Whether you’re an investor or a business affected by the changing economy or building those businesses of the future, this is an important book for understanding the changing economic world in which we live.

Is it time for Microsoft to make a clean break?

Is Windows past its use by date?

Over the weekend Christina Bonnington in Wired magazine looked at how Microsoft is struggling to decide whether to have separate operating systems for their tablet and desktop products – as Apple have – or design one that works on both.

Creating another version of Windows risks further confusing the marketplace given Microsoft already has between its four different versions of Windows and six flavours of Office.

Although Apple haven’t suffered at all by having different operating systems. Mac OSX is more popular than ever and iOS dominates its markets.

Perhaps its time for Microsoft to copy something else Apple did and have a clean break – rework all the Windows code and build a new system.

Apple did this when they introduced OSX in 2001. Among other things it didn’t support floppy disks, the Apple Device Bus, floppy disks or the networking standards used by the older systems. At the time there were howls of protest from long suffering Apple true believers who had invested a lot into the earlier versions of Mac OS.

Despite the protests and early hiccups – we sometimes forget that the first version of OSX, named Cheetah, was terrible – Apple’s clean break with the past was a great success.

Microsoft’s selling point has been backward compatibility; software designed for one version of Windows is expected to work on the next version.

Backward compatibility is the reason for the spyware epidemic of the early 2000s as Microsoft ignored Windows XP’s security features so that they wouldn’t have to ditch older code in other products like Office.

Similarly, the contradiction of redesigning the Windows operating system while minimizing disruption to existing users was one of the reasons why Microsoft Vista was such a disaster.

Perhaps it’s time for Microsoft to bite the bullet and bring Windows into the 21st Century.

Whatever they decide to do, they better hurry as Apple and Google are carving out dominant positions; waiting until 2013 or 14 for the next version of Windows and Windows Phone may be too late in a market where Microsoft is quickly becoming irrelevant.

The evolving business

How a fading electronics chain illustrates an evoluting industry

This story originally appeared in Smart Company on February 2, 2012

Woolworths’ announcement earlier this week they are exiting the Dick Smith Electronics business ends an interesting study in how a business can evolve as their industry changes.

In the thirty years since Dick Smith sold a stake in his business to Woolworths – a few years later they bought out the rest of Dick’s equity – the electronics retail business has changed immensely.

At the beginning of the 1980s, the CB radio boom that had fuelled the growth of stores like Dick Smith Electronics was coming to an end, as was the hobbyist industry which supplied those building their own computers and other electronic devices.

In the US, the hobbyist industry included people like Paul Allen and Bill Gates – who founded Microsoft – along with Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, the founders of Apple Computers. Both of these companies had a lot to do with the growth of the DSE business later.

While those two industries were fading at the time Woolies bought the chain, the availability of consumer electronics was taking off as Video Cassette Recorders, car hi-fi and, later, CD players started entering the market.

At the time these were high margin items so the transition from a hobbyist store to consumer electronics chain was a lucrative move for Woolworths – something helped by Dick Smith’s penchant for publicity even though he was no longer with the store.

Eventually the steam ran out of the early wave of consumer electronics but in the mid 1990s the PC revolution took off which allowed Dick Smith Electronics to diversify again.

As personal computers were taking off, so too did the next wave of consumer technology, particularly in mobile phones, games and big screen TVs which initially had big, fat margins.

Over time, these margins began to fade as prices dropped but for Woolworths this wasn’t a problem as the beginning of the 2000s saw an explosion of easy consumer credit, allowing stores to move more products to willing consumers.

Very quickly, the consumer electronics industry became more like the low margin, high volume FMCG – Fast Moving Consumer Goods – sector that is Woolworths’ core business.

The global financial crisis heralded the end of the credit boom and now cautious, credit shy householders meant consumer electronics were no longer fast moving.

Dick Smith Electronics aren’t the only chain affected by this, Harvey Norman are suffering the same way and in the United States Best Buy and Radio Shack are in desperate straits for the same reasons.

Making things tougher for Australian retailers are store rents that are among the highest in the world. Woolworths’ decision to shut down a third of the Dick Smith outlets is a wise move as many of those stores probably have lease renewals pending.

Woolworths has done well from Dick Smith Electronics over a quarter century as the consumer electronics industry has evolved. Their story is a great example of how a business can adapt in a changing sector.

Hopefully Woolies will find a motivated buyer – one hopes not one of the clueless private equity asset strippers that have destroyed so many other retail icons in recent years.

Perhaps we’ll see a buyer who can steer the business well into the phase of consumer electronics retailing with some innovative and fresh thinking that the Australian retail sector needs right now.

The death of sport

Sports groups have always felt threatened by new technology.

In the 1960s, sports administrators refused TV replays of games because it would affect their revenue.

Sports broadcasting rights were invented.

In the 1970s, sports administrators resisted live TV coverage of games because it would affect their revenue.

Sports broadcasting rights became lucrative.

In the 1980s, sports administrators claimed TV viewers using video recorders would affect their revenue.

Sports broadcasting rights became more lucrative.

In the 1990s, sports administrators worried cable and satellite TV would affect their revenue.

Sports broadcasting rights soared.

In the 2000s, sports administrators warned the Internet would affect their revenue.

Sports broadcasting rights soared further.

In 2012, sports administrators shout that cloud computing services will affect their revenue…….

Photo courtesy of mzacha on SXC.hu

Valuing Facebook

Is Facebook really worth fifty billion dollars?

After over a year of speculation, Facebook has finally announced the terms of its US stock market float, valuing the company at $50 billion dollars according to Facebook’s SEC filing.

The financial details that we’ve speculated over are now public and we can now make more than informed guesses about what Facebook is worth.

What jumps out when first looking at Facebook’s financial figures is the exponential growth in their revenue from 153 million dollars in 2007 to $3,700 million last year. A twenty-fold increase over four years.

Expenses though haven’t grown at the same rate going from 277 million to 1.95 billion over the same period. Like all bigger social media and web 2.0 companies, sales and marketing is the biggest expense.

The Google Experience

The closest comparison to Facebook is Google’s float in 2004. Google floated at a market capitalisation of 23 billion dollars on a reported revenue in their SEC statement of 389 million.

At the time, Google’s profit margins were substantially lower with costs coming in at 234 million. These figures alone indicate Facebook today is a better prospect that Google was at the time of being floated.

Google today is valued at $190 billion on a revenue of $38 billion and a profit of $25 billion. On those measures, Facebook investors will be expecting that exponential growth to continue.

Growing Income

How Facebook continues to grow their revenue is the big question. Currently over half of their revenue comes from advertising in the United States and the bulk of the rest from Canada, Australia and Western Europe.

If online advertising continues to grow spectacularly, as a 2010 Morgan Stanley research paper illustrated then Facebook, as the biggest social medial platform, will get a large slice of that $50 billion global market opportunity. This in itself would justify their valuation.

One of Facebook’s biggest growth opportunities comes from games. Already Zynga, the developers of Farmville and Mafia Wars, contribute 12% of Facebook’s revenues.

The global games business is valued at 60 billion dollars and much of this market is moving to web based, online platforms. Facebook’s 30% cut of income from games on their service is another lucrative revenue stream with few operating costs.

While advertising remains Facebook’s main income stream, other payments from games and online payments went from almost 0 in 2010 to nearly 17% of income at the end of 2011.

The threats

This isn’t to say Facebook doesn’t face any threats in their businesses. The concentration of income from North America, Europe and Australia exposes how the service is a first world phenomenon, although they have high penetration rates in some countries like Chile and hope to achieve similar in India.

Social media though is a fast moving field and there are plenty of opportunities for upstart businesses to displace Facebook just as MySpace faded away.

In their established markets there’s the question of how sustainable social media as an advertising platform is; until recently social media was a novelty to most households and still is to businesses and advertisers.

User fatigue is possible in the mature markets and Facebook – along with other social media services – not achieve the advertising revenue they hope.

Privacy issues are also another concern; as users realise the value of their private information it may be that they demand more for it than seeing where their friends are drinking or playing an online game for free.

Overall though, Facebook does appear to be worth the 50 billion dollar valuation when compared to other similar businesses like Google and is probably more sensibly priced than recent other IPOs like Groupon and Zynga.

Whether the service will deliver on its promise remains to be seen, but those are the risks when investing in new industries.