Category: Internet

Has Yahoo got its mojo back?

Yahoo’s offer of three months free access to their Flickr Pro photo sharing service could be the start of CEO Marissa Mayer’s plan for the company’s recovery.

One of the disappointments with Yahoo in recent years has been management’s inablity to effectively use the impressive portfolio of online assets that they’ve built up over the last 15 years. Could this be about to change as Marissa Mayer finds her feet as CEO at Yahoo?

A first step may be Yahoo’s free offer of Pro accounts on their Flickr photo sharing service which is coupled with a new iPhone app and a marketing drive.

Their timing is exquisite as Instagram, the file sharing service of the moment, struggles with privacy concerns. Flickr offers far better control over photographers’ rights than Instagram or most other social media services.

While the Flikr offer won’t reverse Yahoo’s long term decline on itself, it could be the start on a long journey of re-establishing the company’s credibility as one of the leading web companies.

2013 promises to be a turbulent year for the big four online empires as Apple adapts to life without Steve Jobs, Amazon fights on a number of fronts, Facebook tries to justify its massive market valuation and Google digests Motorola while dealing with declining internet advertising rates.

If Mayer and her management team can get a coherent strategy that realises the strengths of Yahoo’s product portfolio, then the company might be in a position to challenge the Internet’s big four.

Fiddling the prices

Has the Internet’s promise of transparency failed as online retailers vary prices.

Discriminatory pricing is nothing new, a good salesperson or market stallholder can quickly sum up a punter’s ability or willingness to pay and offer the price which will get a sale.

Anybody who’s travelled in countries like Thailand or China is used to Gwailos and Farang prices being substantially higher even for official charges like entrance fees to national parks and museums.

The Internet takes the opportunity for discriminatory pricing even further arming online stores armed with a huge amount of customer information which allows them to set prices according to what the algorithm thinks will be the best deal for the seller.

Recently researchers found that the Orbitz website would offer cheaper deals for people searching for fares on mobile phones and prices would vary depending of which brand of smartphone people would use.

Writers for the Wall Street Journal did an experiment with buying staplers and found the same thing.

Interestingly, one of the factors Staples’ seems to take into account is the distance customers live from a competitors’s store – the closer you live to the competition, the lower the price offered.

There’s also other factors at play; sometimes you don’t want a customer, or you don’t want to sell a particular product and it’s easy to guess the formulas used by Staples and other big retailers do the same thing.

One of the great promises of the internet was that customers’ access to information would usher in a new era of transparency. In this case it seems the opposite is happening.

Poor journalism and social media

Fairfax gets the Sandy Hook shooter story wrong and blames social media and shows how broken their own journalism is.

Brother’s plea shows up online failings crows the Sydney Morning Herald over social media’s role in misidentifying the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

The problem for the SMH is that social media wasn’t responsible for the story. As the Washington Post reported, CNN and various other outlets misidentified the shooter as his brother who had to take to social media to correct the record.

For the mainstream media, the Sandy Hook shooting was not their finest hour; not only did they misidentify Ryan Lanza as the shooter, but they mistakenly reported his mother had worked at the school. When the Daily Mail does a better analysis of the story than many outlets, you know something is wrong.

Something is certainly wrong at Fairfax as the cutting of resources results in the Sydney Morning Herald being three days behind the story and factually wrong on key aspects – not to mention adding a smug headline that is embarrassingly incorrect.

While the writer of the SMH article should be held to account for sloppy work and poor research, the real responsibility for this embarrassment lies with the paper’s editors and management who should be ensuring what appears under the masthead is accurate and reliable.

Both The Age and Sydney Morning Herald are essential to the fabric of their respective cities, this story is a good example of the important role the SMH has in shining light on the arcane dealings of the city’s business community. Fairfax can, and should, do far better than a poor, badly researched story on social media.

Ironically, the mis-identification story quotes media academic Julie Posetti as saying “anyone with an internet connection could now contribute to and comment on the breaking news cycle without going through the filters of the traditional media.”

At Fairfax, those filters are broken with the breathing space from selling its New Zealand digital operation, the company’s management has an opportunity to fix their credibility problem and focus on its core business.

Blind faith in the algorithm

Putting too much faith in computer programs may cause problems for the unwary.

It’s fairly safe to say Apple’s ditching of Google Maps for their own navigation system has proved not to be company’s smartest move.

The humiliation of Apple was complete when the Victoria Police issued a warning against using the iPhone map application after people became lost in the desert when following faulty directions to the town of Mildura.

Mapping is a complex task and it’s not surpising these mistakes happen, particular given the dynamic nature of road conditions and closures. It’s why GPS and mapping systems incorporate millions of hours of input into the databases underlying these services.

Glitches with GPS navigations and mapping applications aren’t new. Some of the most notorious glitches have been in the UK where huge trucks have been directed down small country lanes only to find themselves stuck in medieval villages far from their intended location.

While those mishaps make for good reading, there are real risks in these misdirections. One of the best publicised tragedies of mis-reading maps was the death of James Kim in 2007.

Kim, a well known US tech journalist, was driving with his family from Portland, Oregan to a hotel on the Pacific Coast in November 2006 when they tried to take a short cut across the mountains.

After several hours driving the family became lost and stuck in snowdrifts and James died while hiking out to find help. His wife and two children were rescued after a week in the wilderness.

Remarkably, despite warnings of the risks, people still get stuck on that road. The local newspaper describes it the annual ritual as find a tourist in the snow season.

Partly this irresponsibility is due to our modern inability to assess risk, but a more deeper problem is blind faith in technology and the algorithms that decide was is good and bad.

A blind faith in algorithms is a risk to businesses as well – Facebook shuts down accounts that might be showing nipples, Google locks people out of their Places accounts while PayPal freeze tens of thousands of dollars of merchants’ funds. All of these because their computers say there is a problem.

Far more sinister is the use of computer algorithms to determine who is a potential terrorist, as many people who’ve inadvertently found themselves on the US government’s No Fly List have discovered.

As massive volumes of information is being gathered on individuals and businesses it’s tempting for all of us to rely on computer programs to tell us what is relevant and to join the dots between various data points.

While the computers often right, it is sometimes wrong as well and that’s why proper supervision and understanding of what the system is telling people is essential.

If we blindly accept what the computer tells us, we risk being stuck in our own deserts or a snowdrift as a result.

Did online democracy ever exist?

The idea of democracy in an online world dominated by private interests is a misnomer.

“Democracy is dead” proclaim online pundits as Facebook closes down their corporate governance feedback pages.

The question though is whether democracy really exists online; the internet is largely a privately run operation which makes the hysteria about the International Telecommunication Union’s attempts to impose standards on the web all the so more fascinating.

As a consequence of almost every internet service being run by private organisations, rights and concepts like “democracy” are pretty well irrelevant and have been since the first connection to ARPANET.

When we use services like Facebook, or even our internet provider’s email account, we are only being allowed to do so within the companies’ interpretation of their terms and conditions.

Often those interpretations are wrong or bizarre as we see with Facebook’s War on Nipples and often the results of misinterpretation are costly for businesses.

But we have little recourse as these sites are private property and the owners can do pretty well what they like within the law.

Just a like a shopping mall, if the managements of Amazon, Google or Facebook want you to leave their service then you have no choice but to do so.

We can squeal about rights online, but in reality we have few.

That’s something we should keep in mind when investing our time or business capital into any particular platform.

Are bloggers immune from the law?

Bloggers and social media users don’t have the resources of newspapers and broadcasters. Does this give them a legal advantage?

Last week Lord Justice Leveson of the British inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the press gave his first public speech since handing down his report to the UK Parliament.

In this speech, Lord Leveson claimed that bloggers and social media users have an advantage over traditional media channels because they don’t respect the law. This is nonsense and detracts from the importance of the UK inquiry.

Speaking to the Communications Law Centre in Sydney last Friday, Lord Leveson gave his perspectives on how privacy is evolving as the media struggles with a 24 hour news cycle and the rise of the Internet.

One particular point he made was how the differing economics of traditional media and internet channels affected moral judgements.

“online bloggers or tweeters are not subject to the financial incentives which affect the print media, and which would persuade the press not to overstep society’s values and ethical standards.”

This view seems flawed – the reason for the UK inquiry into the ethics of the press was because the reporters at some of the nation’s top selling newspapers were overstepping society’s standards. They were doing this in the pursuit of profit.

At the other end of the scale, Leveson’s implication is that because most bloggers and social media users aren’t making money from their operations this makes them more prone to flaunting the community’s laws and morals.

What that view overlooks is that those bloggers, Facebook posters and Twitterers don’t live in magical castles sipping the fragrant, rainbow coloured milk of bejewelled unicorns – they have day jobs that pay for their online activities which often makes them far more aware of societal norms than those locked in the hyper-competitive and insular world of professional journalism.

Later in his speech Leveson expanded on this theme with a comment about the jurisdiction of bloggers and their servers.

The established media broadly conforms to the law and when they do not they are potentially liable under the law. In so  far as the internet is concerned there has been and, for many, there remains a perception that actions do not have legal consequences. Bloggers rejoice in placing their servers outside the jurisdiction where different laws apply. the writ of the law is said not to run. It is believed therefore that the shadow of the law is unable to play the same role it has played with the established media.

This view is clearly at odds with reality as again it was the widespread failure of the ‘established media’ in conforming to UK law made Leveson’s inquiry necessary.

Bloggers and other internet users being somehow immune to legal consequences is a clearly not the case.

A good example of this are the various British computer hackers and webmasters who’ve found themselves facing extradition to the US for actions which are either not illegal in the UK or would face minor penalties.

Probably the best example of Internet users facing the full force of the law is the persecution of Paul Chambers who was prosecuted and convicted for making threats against an airport in an innocuous tweet that the local police and airport management thought was irrelevant.

The force of the law that was thrown against Mr Chambers was impressive compared to the somewhat reluctant efforts of bringing charges against the dozens of journalists, editors and crooked policemen exposed by the Leveson inquiry.

At the heart of the difference between the traditional media and the online communities is a power and economic imbalance. Despite the declining fortunes of newspapers, they are still politically powerful, influential and well resourced. Which is a good reason why prosecutors, police and politicians are reluctant to hold them account for their excesses.

On the other hand the vast bulk of bloggers are not; they don’t have a masthead to hide behind or a large, well funded legal team to defend them which actually makes them an easier target for litigation and criminal charges.

Some bloggers may believe they are immune from the law, but the reason for that is because they are ignorant of the legal system’s reach. Some of them will pay for that ignorance.

The idea though that bloggers and social media users have some legal advantage over traditional media outlets because of their comparative poverty and location of their servers is simply wrong.

If anything the advantage is firmly in favour of those working for big business. This is the real lesson of the UK media scandals of the past two years.

Is Australia missing the Indonesian opportunity?

Mary Meeker’s state of the internet report emphasises the opportunities in South East Asian markets.

Mary Meeker’s annual State of the Internet Report looks at the trends driving the online economy. One area that should be of concern is that Australian entrepreneurs are overlooking one of the world’s biggest growth markets that is sitting right on the nation’s doorstep.

Early in Mary’s overview, on slides 5 and 7, she shows the growth of various markets. Indonesia is the second biggest growth market for internet users – 58% year on year to 55 million – and eighth in the world for smartphone growth with a 36% increase last year taking total users to 27 million.

Given the penetration of both smartphones and the internet are low with only one quarter of Indonesians connected to the internet and less than one mobile phone in ten currently being a smartphone, there is massive potential for the savvy entrepreneur.

While there’s a steady stream of stream of Australian app developers and entrepreneurs heading to Silicon Valley, London and a few to Singapore there’s very few looking to their biggest neighbour.

This ignoring of Indonesia is one of the many omissions in the Australia in the Asian Century report; despite being one of Australia’s closest neighbours with the world’s fourth largest population and an economy growing at over 6% per year, both businesses and governments tend to overlook the nation.

For Australia, the tragedy is that Indonesia has a lot offer businesses that do more than just dig up coal and iron ore.

Perhaps now the mining boom is over, entrepreneurs and governments might start to take markets like Indonesia, and other South East Asian countries more seriously. It’s an omission that’s currently costing the country dearly.

Twenty years of text messages

A BBC interview with the inventor of the SMS service illustrates how fast technology changes.

When the mobile phone arrived we thought that text, particularly those clumsy pagers people used, would be dead.

Little did we know that an overlooked part of the newer digital cellphone technology would see short messaging become a key part of the phone system and a major income generator for telephone companies.

Short Messaging Services – or SMS – was an add on to the digital Global System for Mobile communications (GSM) standard which became the second generation (2G) of mobile phones.

While intended as a control feature on the phone networks, SMS took off as a popular medium in the mid 1990s and soon became a major profit centre for mobile carriers.

The Twentieth anniversary of the first SMS being sent passed last week and the BBC has a great interview, conducted by text message, with Matti Makkonen who came up with idea.

One of the notable things in the interview is Matti’s humility – he doesn’t like being called the inventor or founder of text messaging as he explains,

I did not consider SMS as personal achievement but as result of joint effort to collect ideas and write the specifications of the services based on them.

We can only imagine what would happen if the idea of SMS messaging was invented today, there’d be an unseemly struggle over patents while hot young Silicon Valley entrepreneurs would pitch venture capital firms with plans for niche services that will make a billion dollars when sold to Yahoo! or HP.

As it was, SMS services were insanely profitable for the telcos. In the early days, text messages were being charged at over a dollar each – for a service that cost the carrier almost nothing.

Over time those handsome profits have been eroded as SMS became bundled into all-you-can-eat packages and then the internet introduced new mediums to send short messages.

While SMS isn’t going away while mobile phones are an important part of our business and personal lives; the service isn’t going to be as critical, or as profitable as it was over the last twenty years.

Short Messaging Services are a great example of how individual technologies rise, evolve and fade with time. They are also a good lesson on how quickly a premium, highly profitable service can become commodified.

Disrupting the disrupters

Silicon Valley’s investment models are changing as attention moves from the consumer to the enterprise.

Two days ago, iconic venture capital investor Fred Wilson, wrote about the changing nature of the tech industry’s VC investments.

Fred puts the changes down to three factors; maturing markets where big players increasingly dominate, the move to mobile which Cristina Cordova examines in more detail and the shift in focus from the consumer market to the enterprise sector.

The last factor bears more examination as consumer and enterprise are very different and there’s no guarantee that businesses built around thousands of people downloading apps or accessing websites can pivot into selling into corporations and government agencies.

Probably the biggest problem is the consumer or small business freemium model doesn’t cut it in the enterprises who are prepared to pay big sums for highly reliable and secure services.

Similarly the enterprise model of fat sales commissions paid for by big implementation costs and expensive support contracts doesn’t quite fly either for these start up business. There’s also a good argument that high margin enterprise model is doomed anyway as cloud services displace costly in-house installations.

In the transition from consumer to enterprise is difficult and most companies have struggled to make the jump, even Google Docs has been a hard sell into the corporate sector.

At the enterprise end, cloud services are cutting margins as IBM and Oracle are finding. Both companies are moving across to cloud products and now a lot of salespeople and consultants in those organisations are looking at a substantial drop in their standards of living.

More importantly for the startup and VC communities, the “greater fool” model doesn’t work in the enterprise space. Hyping a business which has barely made a cent in revenue but does have a million users is very different to building a stable corporate platform.

It may well be the move to the enterprise by Silicon Valley is because the consumer model has run out of “greater fools” who’ll buy overhyped photo sharing apps or social media platforms of dubious value.

This change in investment behaviour also has lessons for governments trying to copy Silicon Valley. The puck moves fast in the investment community while governments, by definition, are slow.

By the time governments have setup their programs, the markets have moved on and many of the hot technologies of two years prior are now old hat. This is exactly what we’re seeing in the apps world.

We often hear about technology causing disruption, often though we forget that those disruptive technologies can be ephemeral as they are disrupted themselves.

As these industries evolve, we’ll see how well the disrupters deal with being disrupted.

Reinventing the connected bank

Financial institutions are evolving as technology changes their business

Yesterday the National Australia Bank had a media briefing to show how they, like their competitors, are revamping their entire business around new technologies.

The investments are substantial and the re-organisation of the business is too as the old model of branch based banking only available from 9am to 4.30pm is superseded by the always on model of Internet banking delivered through tablets and smartphones.

One of the notable points the NAB executives made was their move to authenticating customers through voice recognition. A trial had found the system reduced fraud and social engineering attempts dramatically.

The use of voice recognition makes sense as it reduces the reliance on users remembering passwords or having to give over personal information that can often be gleaned off social media sites.

Again we’re seeing data security evolving away from passwords.

On the social media front, NAB are also offering their small business customers Facebook selling tools in collaboration with social media sales platform Tiger Pistol.

While it’s questionable that businesses will get that much from a Facebook store, it’s a good attempt from the bank to add some value and encourage their commercial customers to move online.

The move online is essential as the bank noted that online sales through their merchant platforms are up 23% as opposed to an anaemic 2.5% in general sales.

Along with passwords dying, the NAB also found that the cash register is dying and being replaced with smartphone and tablet apps. The bank itself is moving its online platforms to being ‘device agnostic’ so as not to be locked into any one technology.

What the NAB, and its competitor the Commonwealth Bank, are showing is the importance of having modern systems which are flexible enough to evolve with changes in the marketplace.

Smaller businesses could learn from the banks on just how important this investment is. The organisations who aren’t making these changes are steadily being left behind.

What is an Internet company?

Does having a website make a company an internet business?

Deloitte’s 2012 fast 50 list of Australia’s fastest growing technology companies announced last week is an impressive list of diverse businesses ranging from online retailers to technology support firms, but it raises the question of what exactly is a ‘technology’ or ‘internet’ company.

A quick look at the top twenty illustrates how broad the “internet” category is, with eleven coming under the classification;

. 1 brandsExclusive (Australia) Pty Ltd 1335.1% Internet
. 2 Australian Renewable Fuels Ltd 1235.7% Life Sciences
. 3 SolveIT Software Pty Ltd 678.9% Software
. 4 Kogan Technologies Pty Ltd 515.6% Internet
. 5 Neon Stingray Pty Ltd 467.7% Internet
. 6 Infoready Pty Ltd 418.1% Software
. 7 SMS Central Australia Pty Ltd 371.6% Communications
. 8 Cohort Digital Pty Ltd 295.6% Internet
. 9 Redbubble Pty Ltd 275% Internet
. 10 astutepayroll.com 256.7% Software
. 11 SurfStitch Pty Ltd 252.7% Internet
. 12 BizCover Pty Ltd 249.9% Internet
. 13 Appen Holdings Pty Ltd 225.5% Communications
. 14 MyNetFone Pty Ltd 216.7% Communications
. 15 Appliances Online 206.2% Internet
. 16 Time Telecom Pty Ltd (Smart Business Telecom) 205.6% Communications
. 17 BigAir Group Ltd 202.2% Communications
. 18 Observatory Crest Australia Pty Ltd 198.1% Software
. 19 Tom Waterhouse Pty Ltd 196% Internet
. 20 Bulletproof Networks Pty Ltd 178.4% Internet

Included among those eleven ‘internet’ companies is the winner, Brands Direct, along with Redbubble, Appliances Online and Tom Waterhouse.

Tom Waterhouse is an online bookmaker, Appliances Online is a whitegoods retailer, Red Bubble is a design marketplace and Brands Direct is a fashion retailer.

While the internet is the core distribution channel for all of these companies, they are not ‘internet’ companies – they are retailers, marketplaces and bookmakers. The web is important, but it isn’t their business.

Calling them “internet companies” in many ways misses the point of just how ubiquitous the net has become to business operations. It also risks double counting as Appliances Online’s staff are counted both as retail and internet employees – something government agencies are notorious for.

We’d understand a lot more about the web’s reach if we didn’t label these fast growth businesses with the somewhat meaningless term of “internet companies”.

None of this detracts from the achievements of these businesses, their managers and proprietors. These companies are on track to being the leaders of the future.

Open Table and free mobile restaurant sites

Mobile websites are becoming essential to the hospitality industry.

One of the big challenges facing restaurants is how customers are moving to the mobile web, diners are using their smartphones to find establishments and expect to make bookings directly.

To help their customers deal with this move to smartphones, restaurant booking service Open Table is offering a free mobile website for their clients so establishments can have sites that are usable on smaller screens.

Whether this is worthwhile depends upon whether the restaurant is already using Open Table, the monthly fees are quite high at $200 per month plus a relatively low $1 commission per cover so it certainly isn’t worth subscribing to their service just to get a mobile optimised website.

For restaurants already using their service it’s best to check if your existing website already has a mobile feature as having two online addresses is only going to confuse customers.

Businesses using WordPress based sites just need to install a plug like WordPress Touch which detects when a smaller screen is viewing your site to change.

Open Table itself is somewhat of an internet old timer having been founded in 1998, making it one of the Tech Wreck survivors, and listed on the NASDAQ market eleven years later.

That a company like Open Table is recognising a mobile web presence is essential for hospitality businesses should be a further warning to restaurants, cafes and hotels that they need to take smartphones seriously.

Just as thirty years ago it was essential to have a Yellow Pages listing, today you’re missing out on customers if they can’t find you on their phones.

Regardless of whether you’re using Open Table or any other service, you need to have some form of mobile site working for you.