Category: Internet

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.

Similar posts:

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.

Similar posts:

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.

Similar posts:

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.

Similar posts:

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.

Similar posts:

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.

Similar posts:

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.

Similar posts: