Tag: Facebook

Salesforce’s place in the web’s walled gardens

Can Salesforce take a place alongside Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google?

“Did he just say we’re at the half-way mark?” Whispered the ashen faced journalist beside me as Mark Benioff’s Dreamforce keynote reached the 90 minute mark.

Benioff did and the presentation did indeed go three hours because Salesforce.com had a lot to announce with launches of new mobile apps, customer service programs and HR services.

At the press conference later in the day, Benioff said “we are interested in collaboration and the customer. the reason we’re in marketing is because our customers want us to be in marketing.”

An interesting part of this is the Facebook relationship, with the Buddy Media acquisition 10% of Facebook’s advertising revenue comes through  Salesforce. This in itself makes Salesforce a key Facebook partner.

Facebook’s relationship goes deeper with Salesforce, at the media conference Marc Benioff mentioned that the company’s purchase of Rypple came about because of urging from Tim Capos, Facebook’s CIO.

That deep relationship was on show in the opening keynote where Facebook were one of the strategic partners showcased by Benioff.

Of the products showcased, one of the important points that kept being raised was Salesforce’s role as the enterprise social media identity service.

A partnership between Salesforce and Facebook to provide online identity validation would effectively kill  Eric Schmidt’s aim of Google being the Internet’s identity service although Benioff was at pains in the media conference to emphasise there was room for more than one player.

Google are also being challenged by Benioff’s announcement of Chatterbox, a secure online file storage and sharing service.

While the focus with the Chatterbox announcement was on the threat this presents to Dropbox and Box.net, the bigger targets are Google Drive, Apple iCloud and Microsoft’s SkyDrive.

Salesforce’s move into the various fields of HR, marketing, file storage and collaboration are part of the company staking its own position among the various web empires.

With a strong enterprise position, it’s quite possible Salesforce could establish itself as the fifth of the Internet’s great empires.

Every empire needs an army and a particularly strong claim Salesforce would have are the ranks of developers and supporters gathering around the service’s open APIs.

The move to establish an independent position on the web would also explain Benioff’s commitment to HTML5 as this avoids locking the company into an Apple, Google or Microsoft dominated app environment.

We’ll see over time how Salesforce establishes their position among the internet empires, right now though their range of services, customer base and partner ecosystem means they are well placed to compete with the big four currently dominating the web.

Paul travelled to the San Francisco Dreamforce conference courtesy of Salesforce.com

Similar posts:

Facebook’s war on nipples continues

If you want to play on Facebook, you have to play by Facebook’s rules. Particular when it comes to nipples.

Mike Stevens, a cartoonist with the New Yorker magazine, found himself the latest victim of Facebook’s War On Nipples when his cartoon depicting Adam and Eve caused the magazine’s Facebook page to be shut down.

This is the latest shot in Facebook’s War On Nipples. Two years ago a Sydney jeweller found her page shut down for using a naked doll as a model and breast feeding mothers waged a long campaign against the site taking down pictures of babies being fed.

If you live outside the US, it’s amusing to observe Americans’ bipolar attitude towards women’s breasts — on one hand they are celebrated though Pamela Anderson, breast enhancement and Hooters while the merest flash of nipple sends the nation into purient overdrive.

So Mark Zuckerberg’s ban on female nipples is understandable in that context as is the reaction to that ban by people who don’t see much wrong with breast feeding mums or harmless cartoons.

What we should remember though is Facebook have the right to run their site whatever way they like — if Mark Zuckerberg decides he doesn’t like plaid shirts or broccoli he’s within his rights to ban pictures those as well.

This is the risk if you’re basing marketing strategies around social media services. If you want to play on Facebook, you have to play by Facebook rules.

So take your nipples elsewhere.

Similar posts:

Nightlife Computers: Sockpuppets, trolls and fakes

Can you trust what is written on Facebook or online review sites and what are the responsibilities for business on social media sites?

Paul Wallbank joined Tony Delroy for the 6 September 2012 ABC Nightlife technology spot to discuss sock puppets, what they mean on review sites and what this means for businesses using social media as a marketing tool.

If you missed the program, you can listen to the podcast from the Tony Delroy’s Nightlife page.

This week’s sock puppet scandal puts the light on authors’ book reviews on sites like Amazon while other review services like TripAdvisor, Yelp and Urbanspoon continue to struggle with figuring out which reviews are real.

Businesses also have to worry about what people are posting in light of the recent Advertising Standards and ACCC rulings making businesses more accountable with what’s posted on Facebook.

Some of the questions we’ll look at include;

Join us from 10pm, Australian Eastern Time on Thursday September 5 on your local ABC radio station or listen online through their streaming service at www.abc.net.au/nightlife.

We’d love to hear your views so join the conversation with your on-air questions, ideas or comments; phone in on the night on 1300 800 222 within Australia or +61 2 8333 1000 from outside Australia.

You can SMS Nightlife’s talkback on 19922702, or through twitter to @paulwallbank using the #abcnightlife hashtag or visit the Nightlife Facebook page.

Similar posts:

Billion Dollar Babes

Is every successful startup worth a ten figure sum?

“It changed everything. It changed the game for a lot of us and you know it made a lot of people feel very anxious and sort of compare their own success.”

Lisa Bettany, the founder of Camera Plus lamented how Facebook’s billion dollar purchase of photo app Instagram purchase changed the start up community on Australian current affairs program Foreign Correspondent.

In the program  Foreign Correspondent also spoke to Australian and Italian startup founders looking to make it in Silicon Valley. On being asked what they hoped their business was worth they all had the same answer – a billion dollars.

There’s no doubt Jindou Lee’s Happy Inspector home inspection app or the Timbuktu kids’ story website are great products and should be successful business. But is business success only measured by a billion dollar exit?

In Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon every child is above average, it seems in Silicon Valley every successful business is worth a billion dollars.

Every founder in the current app or web 2.0 craze says “it’s not about the money, it’s about changing the world” yet scratch them and they are all on the lookout for the greater fool buying them out for an improbable sum.

One could say that a billion dollar cheque does change the world of the person cashing the thing although exactly how a iPhone photo app changes the world may escape some of us.

At the same time the Foreign Correspondent story was being aired the founder of Y Combinator – Silicon Valley’s most successful accelerator ‘s founder – warned the heat is now out of the market after Facebook’s market flop.

Paul Graham was elaborating on a letter he wrote three months earlier where he said, “If you haven’t raised money yet, lower your expectations for fundraising.”

If the billion dollar valuations are going out of the startup mentality then it might be better for all of us. It might mean our youngest, best and brightest really are focused more on building things that will change the world rather than buying mega-yachts for themselves and their VC investors.

Similar posts:

How much server space do Internet companies need to run their sites?

How much server space do companies like Google, Amazon, YouTube, Hotmail and Facebook need to run their sites?

“How much server space do companies like Google, Amazon, or YouTube, or for that matter Hotmail and Facebook need to run their sites?” is the question I’ve been asked to answer on ABC Radio National Drive this evening.

This isn’t a simple question to answer as the details of data storage are kept secret by most online services.

Figuring out how much data is saved in computer systems is a daunting task in itself and in 2011 scientists estimated there were 295 exabytes stored on the Internet, desktop hard drives, tape backup and other systems in 2007.

An exabyte is the equivalent of 50,000 years worth of DVD video, a typical new computer comes with a terabyte hard drive so one exabyte is the equivalent of a million new computers.

The numbers when looking at this topic are so great that petabytes are probably the best way of measuring data, a thousand of these make up an exabyte. A petabyte is the equivalent to filling up the hard drives of a thousand new computers.

Given cloud computing and data centres have grown exponentially since 2007, it’s possible that number has doubled in the last five years.

In 2009 it was reported Google was planning to have ten million servers and an exabyte of information. It’s almost certain that point has been passed, particularly given the volume of data being uploaded to YouTube which alone has 72 hours worth of video uploaded every minute.

Facebook is struggling with similar growth and it’s reported that the social media service is having to rewrite its database. Last year it was reported Facebook users were uploading six billion photos a month and at the time of the float on the US stock market the company claimed to have over a 100 petabytes of photos and video.

According to one of Microsoft’s blogs, Hotmail has over a billion mailboxes and “hundreds of petabytes of data”.

For Amazon details are harder to find, in June 2012 Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos announced their S3 cloud storage service was now hosting a billion ‘objects’. If we assume the ‘objects’ – which could be anything from a picture to a database running on Amazon’s service – have an average size of a megabyte then that’s a exabyte of storage.

The amount of storage is only one part of the equation, we have to be able to do something with the data we’ve collected so we also have to look at processing power. This comes down to the number of computer chips or CPUs – Central Processing Units – being used to crunch the information.

Probably the most impressive data cruncher of all is the Google search engine that processes phenomenal amounts of data every time somebody does a search on the web. Google have put together an infographic that illustrates how they manage to answer over a billion queries a day in an average time of less than quarter of a second.

Google is reported to own 2% of the world’s servers and they are very secretive about the numbers, estimates based on power usage in 2011 put the number of servers the company uses at around 900,000. Given Google invests about 2.5 billion US dollars a year on new data centres, it’s safe to say they have probably passed the one million mark.

How much electricity all of this equipment uses is a valid question. According to Jonathan Koomey of Stanford University, US data centres use around 2% of the nation’s power supply and globally these facilities use around 1.5%.

The numbers involved in answering the question of how much data is stored by web services are mind boggling and they are growing exponentially. One of the problems with researching a topic like this is how quickly the source data becomes outdated.

It’s easy to overlook the complexity and size of the technologies that run social media, cloud computing or web searches. Asking questions on how these services work is essential to understanding the things we now take for granted.

Similar posts:

Chasing away the astroturfers

Recent court and industry regulator rulings are good news for honest businesses using social media.

Yesterday we heard the collective gnashing of teeth as social media experts, lawyers and business owners complained about the Australian Advertising Standards Board’s ruling that companies are responsible for comments on their Facebook pages.

The ASB ruling (PDF file) was a response to complaints that comments on Diageo’s Smirnoff Vodka page breached various industry codes of conducts and encouraged under age drinking.

While the board found the complaints weren’t justified – something that most of the hysterical commentators overlooked – the ruling contained one paragraph that upset the social media experts and delighted the lawyers.

The Board considered that the Facebook site of an advertiser is a marketing communication tool over which the advertiser has a reasonable degree of control and could be considered to draw the attention of a segment of the public to a product in a manner calculated to promote or oppose directly or indirectly that product. The Board determined that the provisions of the Code apply to an advertiser’s Facebook page. As a Facebook page can be used to engage with customers, the Board further considered that the Code applies to the content generated by the advertisers as well as material or comments posted by users or friends.

The key phrase in that paragraph is “over which the advertiser has a reasonable degree of control”. Obviously someone posting on Twitter, their blog or someone else’s website is beyond the control of the advertiser.

With Facebook comments, the onus is on businesses to make sure there is nothing illegal appearing on their streams and any misconceptions or false statements are answered.

In many ways, this is common sense. Do you, as a manager or business owner, want your brands tarnished by idiots posting offensive or illegal content? Sensible businesses have already been dealing with this by deleting the really obnoxious stuff and politely replying to the more outrageous claims by Facebook friends.

What’s more important with both the ASB ruling and the Allergy Pathways case the ruling relies upon make it clear that ‘astroturfing’ on social media sites won’t be tolerated.

Astroturfing is the PR practice of creating fake groups that appear to support a cause or product. A group paid for by an interested party appears to grow naturally out of community interest or concern – a fake grassroots group so to speak and hence the word ‘Astroturf’ which is a brand of artificial grass.

Organisations like property developers and mining companies have been setting up Facebook pages and websites that appear to be community groups supporting their projects and many smaller business have been inducing friends, relatives or contractors to post false testimonials. In the run up to major elections in 2012 and 13 we’re seeing many of these fake groups setup to push various political agendas.

For a few consulting groups, astroturfing has become a nice line of business and those of us on the fringe of the social media community have been watching the development of ‘online advocacy services’ with interest.

While no-one has claimed Allergy Pathways or Diageo were posting fake testimonials on their own Facebook pages, the rulings in both cases are a warning that the courts and regulators are prepared to deal with those getting clever with social media.

For honest businesses this ruling is a non-issue, it’s timely reminder though that web and social media site are not ‘set and forget’ but need to be regularly checked, valid customer comments replied to and inappropriate content removed.

The ASB ruling reaffirms what sensible social media experts have been advising all along, and that’s good news for them and their clients.

Similar posts:

Verified Jerks

Anonymity is the problem on the Internet, accountability is.

When you work in customer service you quickly learn that some people are just rude jerks. Depending on how bad a day you have it could be 2, 5 or 10% of the population.

For these people the Internet has been a paradise with almost anonymous forums and newsgroups allowing them to be rude and obnoxious with little risk of being held accountable for their spiteful behaviour.

One of the hopes of social media services was that forcing people into using accounts tied to their real identities would impose some self discipline among these trolls and haters,

Sadly The argument that verified identities would stop people being irresponsible is wrong.

The sad story of seemingly mature people insulting and wanting to beat up a five year old participant on a reality TV show illustrates how manners, good taste and style are beyond some people.

It’s depressing, but unsurprising that this demographic can’t figure out that ‘reality’ TV shows are anything but real. The programs are carefully edited to suit the dramatic narrative of the producers with some of the participants being portrayed as villains and others as heroes.

The little girl in question could be in a spoilt little brat, but you’d want to be careful making that judgement from what you see on TV.

Many would put the spiteful behaviour of the Facebook commentors down to being another example of social media destroying our society, but this behaviour pre-dates the web.

In the 1990s we saw a similar wave of insults aimed at President Clinton’s then teenage daughter Chelsea. In many ways it was far worse in what we are seeing today in that those encouraging that behavior were the leaders of political parties and their ideological fellow travellers in the media.

The abuse of Chelsea Clinton marked the rapid decline of standards in politics that leaves many of us now sickened by the behaviour of all parties – and that of the media that treats their shenanigans seriously.

Notable about the raucous political partisanship is that most participant are happy, even proud, to be named as they debase the institutions they’ve been elected to represent.

The reason is they aren’t accountable, they know most of us are rusted on voters and the few that aren’t can be conned long enough by expensive advertising campaigns to get them elected.

Should they not get elected, they’ll be welcomed into the arms of their corporatist friends who will find them a nice sinecure on a board, committee or think tank.

The real reason people act like jerks is because they think they aren’t accountable – the politicians know they aren’t and most Facebook users figure the odds are in their favour that they’ll never be held to account for their boorish behaviour.

Anonymity is the reason for bad manners on the net, accountability is. While our society doesn’t make people accountable for cruel, rude or corrupt behaviour then these people will thrive. With or without the internet.

Similar posts: