- Posts tagged Facebook
- Explore Facebook on posterous
Facebook Courting Opera? Now THAT's Interesting!
Forbes.com is reporting a rumor it picked up yesterday that Facebook is actively pursuing the acquisition of Opera Software ASA, makers of what may be the most popular commercial Web browser. Perhaps the most interesting thought sequence here goes something like this:
- Facebook sucks at mobile.
- Opera makes one of the very best mobile browsers with great HTML5 support.
- Facebook has a boatload of cash.
- Ergo, ipso facto and a bunch of other Latin.
This would be a natural move on the part of Facebook. And it would presumably give Opera access to enough cash to push for, if not dominance, at least greater commercial success.
Of course, the assumption is that if FB bought Opera, they'd revise the browser to be a social media-focused app. And that could become worrisome to users concerned with privacy issues. At the same time, though, it would merge browsing and social in ways that presumably anyone without access to the FB code vault could only dream about.
This is one worth watching.
Facebook IPO Price Was Exactly Right. For the Company
There's been so much "analysis" in the popular press over the meager 23-cent uptick in the price of Facebook's initial stock offering that it seems like someone has forgotten Business 101.
The company that went public here obviously did so precisely correctly. By pricing its initial stock at $38, the company hit exactly what the market agreed it was worth. That is rare. And it means, among other things, that Facebook didn't leave a lot of money on the table.
See, if they offered shares at, say, $33 and the price jumps to $38, a bunch of investors are delighted. But the company only sees the proceeds of the initial sale, not the subsequent re-sales between investors. So if the stock is priced so low it makes these investors happy, it means the company didn't take in as much as it could -- and should -- have.
As it is, the company realized nearly as much from the IPO as the market felt it was worth. Brilliant job by the investment bankers who priced the offering. The purpose of the market is to enable companies to raise funds for expansion and operation, not to make a bunch of individuals whose only claim to fame for the most part is being in the right place at the right time wealthy.
GM Bored FB Fans to Death
In this piece in Ad Age Digital today, B. L. Ochman provided proof positive that GM doesn't even begin to get Social Media.
They needed to hire someone who was tuned into the social media world and could engage in dialog instead of broadcasting crap.
She listed 11 mostly boring things GM posted on its FB page. I disagreed with her on one or two, but the overall impact: Boredom City.
So when they pulled their advertising from FB days before the company's IPO, it turns out they were saying a lot more about themselves than they were about FB or social advertising.
They needed to hire someone who was tuned into the social media world and could engage in dialog instead of broadcasting crap.
Bing vs. Google Search: What Role Social?
As soon as Microsoft finishes rolling out the new Bing design, we should be able to start getting a handle on what people think about the importance of social search results compared to Web search results.
Bing is including social network results for searches off to the right side of the page in a gray-background panel of their own. Google is integrating Google+ and other social network results into the search results stream, treating them as an equally valuable "find" with more traditional results locating Web sites and pages.
Which will users prefer?
Or will this prove nothing more than a skirmish in the larger battle that will ultimately see Facebook become the search engine tail that wags the Bing/Google dog? Do we want social integrated into search or do we want search to be integrated into social?
There will be a period of time -- a year or so, I'm predicting -- during which the outcome of that contest will be up in the air as all three jockey for position. But ultimately, for me at least, I think I'm going to prefer Bing's solution to Google's. There is a different quality of results between what a search algorithm with page ranking and other values baked in will give me and what the views and experiences of my social media network connections will offer. By mixing them into one stream of results, Google puts the onus on me to filter out the potential noise of social results. By segregating them to the side, Bing gives them at once more and less import. I suspect that, all other things being equal (and they seem to be), I'll end up switching to Bing.
Now that would be momentous in my life!
LinkedIn Crushes FB, Twitter in Closing Leads
A new study via HubSpot has found that LinkedIn prospects convert to sales four times better than leads generated by either Twitter or Facebook.
Not a big surprise, really, though the ratio is perhaps a bit higher than I would have guessed. For my B2B prospecting, business generation and information gathering, I value my LinkedIn network at least 10 times more than Twitter or Facebook. The latter are good networks for broadcast, but not for discussion.
I'm focusing my B2B clients more and more on LinkedIn.
Bing + Facebook = Google++?
Ad Age Digital reports today that Microsoft's Bing search engine and Facebook are teaming up on yet another deal designed to dampen Google's massive lead in search.
Coming soon: your FB friends' recommendations and comments alongside the usual search results.
This latest salvo in what promises to be a long and interesting battle of the big search engines may prove interesting but I see its value as being pretty limited. Other than searches for things like a restaurant or a book or a movie -- which comprise for me a least a very tiny percentage of my searches -- friends' thoughts are likely to be pretty unhelpful or non-existent. I'd find it far more interesting, e.g., if my LinkedIn network was tied into search results because a huge portion of my searches are business-related.
But integration of social with the more established use of the Web is going to be a huge story in coming years and this is just the beginning of the story.
Facebook Makes Nice With Its New Landlord, Menlo Park
Facebook is moving to the little town of Menlo Park in the heart of Silicon Valley and in the process is demonstrating serious intent to be a good neighbor in a town where its presence cannot help but be disruptive.
According to this piece on the AP wire this morning, Facebook plans to occupy an old 57-acre, nine-building Sun Microsystems site for 6,600 employees and then expand across the street to accommodate another 2,800 employees in the future.
To secure the deal, Facebook has agreed to pay millions in special fees and investments in infrastructure in return for some assurances that it won't get any major future surprises from their new home town.
I was particularly impressed by the deal's inclusion of $500k for nearby tiny East Palo Alto, a very poor community which has struggled against oout-of-control crime and deadening poverty for many years. That city has made great strides in recent years; this cash infusion will surely help it move some important municipal markers.
This may go down as a shining example of how a corporation should enter into a new home choice. I'm impressed.
Google's Brin a Bit Hypocritical
Google co-founder Sergey Brin, in an exclusive news interview, expressed serious concerns about the near-term fate of the open Internet. He focused his concerns primarily on:
- governments trying to censor content
- entertainment industry stubbornness in adapting to the Net
- Apple
He attacked Facebook and Apple for their proprietary, closed platforms, which he says gives them a throttle on consumer freedom and access. Of course, those are his two primary rivals, which leaves the value of his observations clouded in the mists of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt, for the uninitiated).
Beyond that point, however, the fact is that Google is as much a proprietary platform as Apple or Facebook, they just go about it in a different way. Where the two competitors on Google's radar largely shun open source while Google fairly embraces it, Google is no less inclined to lock its users in, using a very clever and useful interlinkage of data among its apps and interoperability of all their software and platform pieces to make it nigh impossible for folks (like me) who are heavy users of their technology to consider moving to other platforms.
I don't see any of this as evil or nefarious. It's good business all around and all of these players are up-front about what users are buying into. I'm a heavy user of Apple and Google, less so of Facebook (though increasingly there as client demand calls for it). But I never had any illusions about platform openness and competitive price-amelioration as part of my picture. I've opted for convenience over the potential moral dilemma of using closed-source or locked-in technology.
Facebook Blocked Me For Following Their Advice!
Today I went to Facebook to look up a group I was interested in. I found on my home page a bunch of friend suggestions, people with whom I had mutual friends. I've used this kind of thing on LinkedIn so I thought it would be useful to look through.
Unsurprisingly, I found quite a number of folks who sounded interesting and with whom I had sufficiently clear mutual friends that a connection would probably be useful, so I sent requests. I didn't know most of these people, but the mutual friend network said they were people I perhaps ought to know. I didn't count them but it was probably 10 or 15. On four or five occasions, my request was met with a dialog box asking me if I knew the person personally. These were folks who are generally well known so I figured they must have some kind of "I'm too important for the riff-raff" block on their identities, so I just figured what the hell and skipped over them.
Pretty soon, I found myself logged out of Facebook. No warning. No nothing. Bam. So I log back in and am greeted with an obnoxious and insulting dialog box informing me that my ability to make friend requests and send notes to strangers has been blocked for two days, apparently because I dared to click on links that Facebook provided me to click on. What kind of frigging Gestapo outfit is this?
And don't get me started on these self-congratulating celebrities who are too good to be bothered with the masses. They evidently prefer a private playground where there's no danger of someone they don't know and that isn't like them intruding on their privacy with a simple friend request they can just ignore. Sheesh. Every one of these people are folks I do know, at least well enough to have a familiar conversation with. I've worked with them, met with them, dined with them, and/or spent time with them. But I am not on the right list, so I'm out.
And FWIW, I found several celebrity types whom I know who were open to the friend request. They may not remember me and they may not choose to accept my request but their stock went way up in my mind in contrast to the arrogant ones who can't be bothered even to ignore a friend request.
Facebook ought to be slammed, though, for this behavior. If a user has a block on stranger requests, don't put their frigging pictures and names in a "suggested friends" list and then block users for attempting to make the contact. And while you're at it, when you notify me that the person I'm trying to contact does have a block of some sort on their account, can't you at least give me a way of saying, "Sorry, I'll contact them directly" instead of dinging me for inappropriate behavior. This kind of high-handedness is the sort of arbitrary and high-handed activity that could cost Facebook audience share.
